Re: proselytization
In a message dated 12/18/2004 2:08:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Heres the way I look at. People who I agree with set out to raise consciousness. People I disagree with proselytize with militant zeal. Frank's sardonic remark is, of course, problematic.(I suspect he's probably being ironic; if he's not, I apologize for saying so.) Further,I want to point out that such a view is extremely dangerous. Indeed, in my view, the best understanding of constitutional morality, democracy, and probably a slew of other concepts,conceived honorifically, suggests that we should strive toward the reverse of the dictum above. That is, we should examine the views of those who agree with us more severely than the views ofthose who disagree. Kierkegaard puts thispoint somewhere as followings:"The majority of men [and women] are subjective towards themselves and objective towards all others, terribly objective sometimes---butthe real task is in fact to be objective towards oneself and subjective towards all others." I understand this to mean that an individual shouldimposea severe, rigidstandard on his or herown speech and conduct, and a more sympathetic standard on the speech and conduct of others. We need to reconstruct the public square so that rich, comprehensive, and meaningful deliberative debate is possible without alienating those with who we debate. I think this can be done by constructinga dialogue (language) that permits us to engage each other seriously without the partisan standoffs that currently plague public discourse. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
We could also add the oath or affirmation clause, which in effect denies the need to recognize God to hold office (which is slightly different, perhaps, from no religious test). While some religous people today which to claim the Dec of I or the Constitution as being religous, the criticism as the time was from the other direction. antifederalist ministers in New England (especially) denounced the Constitution for not being religious and later denounced Jefferson as an athiest or worse. Paul Finkelman Quoting Sanford Levinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Quite frankly, I think that that there is not a scintilla of language in the Declaration that bespeaks Chrstianity as a religious doctrine involving a Savior., etc. (There's nothing in the Declaration that would suggest that Christmas or Easter would be of any importance.) Theories of divine Providence are rife not only in Judaism, but, of course, in many other religious systems. And, by the way, Laws ... of Nature's God sounds, at the end of the day, more Catholic than resonant with the Protestants who arrived in the New World, who generally emphasized saving grace more than good works defined through fidelity to law. (Indeed, Christianity has gotten a lot of mileage out of criticizing Judaism for excessive legalism.) The best econstittuional vidence for a Christian America is the skipping of Sunday when counting the days for presidential vetoes and the reference, at the very end of the Constitution (though not part of what we usually look to for legal significanc) to the year of our Lord. On the other hand, one of the truly great provisions of the original Constitution is Article VI and its explicit repudiation of any religious tests for holding office, including, presumably, the necessity to believe that the dating system for years has anything whatsoever to do with our [collective] Lord, just as one can operate under the Jewish calendar without believing for an instant that the world was created some 5500 years ago. sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene Sent: Sat 12/18/2004 10:39 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (I drew this from dictionary.com, which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary). But even if endowed by their Creator and Laws . . . of Nature's God are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said about appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least judges people after their deaths (Supreme Judge of the world) and perhaps even protects people in this life (protection of divine Providence). Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that they think of as appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things differently in private life. But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God, and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken? Eugene Paul Finkelman writes: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax:918-631-2194 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
For those who are interested in this issue, I have written an amicus brief for the McCreary case (with the valuable assistance of Paul Finkelman) that argues against a close connection between American law and the 10 Commandments. If you would seriously consider signing on to such a brief (on behalf of historians and law scholars) and would like to see a draft, please let me know: [EMAIL PROTECTED] By the way, my article in the JLR is based on research from my dissertation which pre-dated my association with Americans United. -- Steven K. Green, J.D., Ph.D. Associate Professor Director, Center for Law and Government Willamette University College of Law 245 Winter St., SE Salem, OR 97301 503-370-6732 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. Paul FInkelman Quoting Francis Beckwith [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Very good questions. I think one could teach the logic of the Declaration without saying that it is true. For example, I frequently lecture on thinkers and arguments that I don't think are correct, but I do so because I would not be a virtuous teacher. On the other hand, it may be that some religious beliefs are more consistent with a just regime than others. For example, from your perspective a religion that taught its adherents that the state should teach in its schools the true religion would be a religion that is mistaken about the nature of the state. Frank On 12/18/04 3:23 PM, Ed Brayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Francis Beckwith wrote: The declaration says three things about rights: 1. That they are self-evident 2. That they are inalienable 3. That they have divine source So, Ed seems to be suggesting that we jettison teaching the third because there is no principled way to teach it with out implying the falsity of other takes on God and rights. But, as you know, there are many who challenge the inalienability and self-evidence of rights precisely on the grounds that if rights have these non-material properties, it seems that some form of non-naturalism must be the case and theism is a form of non-naturalism. So, there's good reason to ignore 1 and 2 as well since it may lead one to think that theism has a lot more going for it in grounding rights than let's say materialism. I'm not suggesting that we not teach that this is the philosophy behind the Declaration, I'm just saying that if we allow teachers to advocate that the theological position is true, how do we prevent them from advocating any other theological position? If we cannot do so, then we'll have quite a mess on our hands as Muslim teachers teach their students that the Quran is true, for instance, or atheist teachers teach that the bible is false. From a practical standpoint, this clearly isn't workable, but at the same time you cannot constitutionally say that we will allow teachers to teach some theological positions but not others. How would you address that question, which was at the core of what I said? Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax:918-631-2194 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people
Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system?
To the best of my knowledge that Court has never cited the TenC as legal authority for anything. On the other hand, I don't know any serious scholar who would deny that the 10 C have influenced American law. The issue is HOW MUCH influence. Chief Justice Moore asserted it was the moral foundation of American law and thus a monumnet with the 10 C on would not violate the establishment clause because it was a monument to the historical foundation of our law. That is a very diffent claim than the very narrow one that the Ten C have influenced American law. I cannot comprehend how Mr. New can conclude that Monotheism is the moral foundation for Western ideas of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Given the sheer number of people slaughtered in the name of God by Western Europeans, it is hard to imagine what human rights stem from monotheism and western society. And as for freedoms we might recall the Crusades with the murdering of Jews throughout Europe and the attacks on Moslems in the Middle East, England expelling all of its Jews in the 13th century, the Inquisition and the cleansing of Spain of Jews and Moslems, the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685) and the slaughter of French Protestants, the 30 years war with the mudering of hundreds of thousands of Protestants and Catholics, the pogroms of Eastern Europe, the Spanish destruction of native cultures in the New World, and countless other examples of how monotheism in the Western World has led, not to human rights, but to the slaughter of millions and millions. The worst tyrants of Europe were all devout monotheists. One also recalls the countless Protestant ministers in this country who defended slavery with the Bible and the Church, arguing that God ordained blacks to the be slaves of whites and that slavery was justified because it brought Christianity (Monotheism) to the heathens of Africa. Finally, neither the Ten C nor the rest of the Pentatuch teaches democracy or self-government. On the contrary, the Bible claims that law comes from God, not from the consent of the governed. Thus, for centuries monotheists extolled the powers and virtues of Kings who held their thrones by divine rights. Human rights was the invention of the age of Englightenment -- men like Voltaire, Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin -- and the rejection of religion as the basis for political society. Paul Finkelman -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] David W. New wrote: Even the U.S. Supreme Court acknowledges that the Ten Commandments have influenced American law. See McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. at 462. The influence of the Ten Commandments on our laws goes far deeper than the body of American law itself. The most important influence of the Ten Commandments concerns the nature of God and its impact on human rights. The Ten Commandments teach monotheism. Monotheism is the moral foundation for Western ideas of fundamental human rights and freedoms. Our concept of Equal Justice Under Law can be traced directly to the view that God is One. The belief in human equality is strictly a religious concept, it did not originate from secularism. Monotheism pervades American culture including our laws to such an extent that it is impossible to escape its influence. Virtually, everyone participating in this discussion thinks like a monotheist, whether they are conscious of it or not. Even atheists who deny the existence of God think like monotheism albeit unknowingly. I am reluctant to recommend a publication since I wrote it. But my publication is about the way monotheism and the Ten Commandments influenced Western law and culture. Feel free to read the Table of Contents at www.mytencommandments.us David W. New Attorney at Law Washington, D.C. 202-333-2678. - Original Message - From: Steven Green [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 2:31 PM Subject: Re: Are the Ten Commandments the foundation of the Anglo-Americanlegal system? ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
RE: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Surely one can be an atheist and accept the core moral principles of the Declaration. But I think that atheists generally wouldn't accept some of the rhetoric, especially the confidence in divine Providence or God as Judge. That doesn't sound to me as the 'unknowable' or the 'unprovable' -- it sounds to me as a reference to, well, the very God the rejection of whose existence is the hallmark of atheism. All this is fine; I'm not religious myself, and I'm delighted that one can accept the core moral principles of the Declaration without accepting religion. But I can't deny that the Declaration includes religious rhetoric. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 19, 2004 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence In a message dated 12/19/2004 12:01:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that one can be virtually any sort of theist and accept the principles of the Declaration. It's no longer obvious to me that one needs to be a theist of any stripe to accept the principles in the Declaration. Some atheists argue that theism rests on a first principle which cannot be explained namely, God exists and is the foundation of existence and morality. The atheist challenges this by arguing what explains God's existence. Now I'm aware that some philosophers, St. Anslem, Leibniz, Plantinga and others, believe that the necessity of God's existence can be proven. But few atheists find these arguments persuasive. Thus, for the atheist, theists assume without explaining the claims about God's existence. But, of course, atheists cannot explain or justify their first principles any more than theists can explain their. This stalemate permits some atheists to accept claims about God as referring to the unknowable or the unprovable. In this sense, the Declaration's reference to God can be accepted by atheists also. Bobby Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
In a message dated 12/20/2004 4:47:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I inferred that because most Americans of theera were Christians, the public meaning of the document would have beenunderstood as referring to the God that they generally believed in. Has anyone done the difficult research of trying to ascertain how many people during the Founding generations actually believed in a God, whether interventionist or not? The problem, of course, is when X (a belief in God, democracy, republicanism) is a cultural imperative it seems enormously difficult to fashion a research strategy that can ferret out people's real beliefs (on the assumption that the rhetoric of cultural imperatives often mask how people actually regard an issue). I suspect such research would be difficult when the object is contemporary society, let alone a society existing two hundred years ago. In any event, is there any research purporting to shed light on whether publicreferences to "God" had in mind (1) a particular God, (2) a general reference to some God or other, or (3) simply the recognition that others in society use the term in the first two senses, and therefore if the reference has rhetorical force why not use it as well to make an independently justified point. In other words, what was the public meaning(s) of the term "God" in the founding generation? And is there empirical support for answers to this question? Bobby Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
my point is that TJ and his generation were capable of using religous language, and chose not to, instead using diestic terms like nature's god (as opposed to the Bible's God?) and their creator as opposed to God. Giving a modern definition to diesim for the 18th century makes no sense; if you want to understand the Dec. of Ind. then use 18th century understandings fo the language and of deism. Volokh, Eugene wrote: The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring to the Christian God when discussing his role as an interventionist or judging God. And these phrases suggest that while the Declaration was meant to be an ecumenical document, it wasn't meant to be a Deistic one under the modern definition I give. Eugene -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 10:18 PM To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics; Volokh, Eugene Subject: Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence Had TJ wanted to use words like the Great God of the Bible or The Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or The Jehovah, he certainly could have. The language of the Declaration (and the utter lack of any mention of God in the Constitution) illustrates the general diestic flavor of the founding and the general view of the founding generation to avoid discussion of religion in their political development. It is not insignifcant, I think that none of the existing records of the federal convention contain any references to God or the Bible (much less the 10 C) and that when Franklin suggesting beginning the sessions with prayer, as a desperate attempt avoid a collapse of the Convention, he was politely ignored. Quoting Volokh, Eugene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm not positive, but it sounds to me like Paul is saying that the vision of God expressed in the Declaration is generally Deistic. Deism, as I understand it, is defined as The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation (I drew this from dictionary.com, which is based on the American Heritage Dictionary). But even if endowed by their Creator and Laws . . . of Nature's God are as consistent with Deism as with Christianity, can the same be said about appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions and a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence? The rhetoric, at least, sounds like a God who at least judges people after their deaths (Supreme Judge of the world) and perhaps even protects people in this life (protection of divine Providence). Now it may well be that Jefferson didn't fully believe in this rhetoric himself: Politicians may often use language that they think of as appealing to the public even if they themselves might have put things differently in private life. But it sounds like the public meaning of the Declaration referred to a judging and perhaps even interventionist God, and not simply a creator. Or am I mistaken? Eugene Paul Finkelman writes: Divine source, perhaps, but certainly not the God of the Bible, but rather a diestic creator or nature's God. Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law Univ. of Tulsa College of Law 2120 East 4th Place Tulsa OK 74104-3189 Phone: 918-631-3706 Fax:918-631-2194 ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-2499 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: Supposedly Deistic nature of the Declaration of Independence
Volokh, Eugene wrote: The Great God of the Bible? The Father, Son and Holy Ghost? The Jehovah? These would have been odd things to say in even a non-Deistic document. Divine Providence and Supreme Judge of the world were, I suspect, much more normal and idiomatic ways of referring to the Christian God when discussing his role as an interventionist or judging God. And these phrases suggest that while the Declaration was meant to be an ecumenical document, it wasn't meant to be a Deistic one under the modern definition I give. Eugene The problem lies, as I stated before, with the modern definition. The key is not how a dictionary defines it today, but how deists themselves defined it in the 18th century. As I stated previously, in 18th century deism there were two keys to distinguishing between deism and theism in its various forms. First, deists rejected much or all of the claimed revelations upon which the religious were based, Christianity in particular (see Paine's Age of Reason, for instance). Second, deists believed that one could discern the truth about God based upon reason alone, hence there was no need for such revelations. That is a pretty radical difference from the Christian belief that scripture is necessary to know the truth about God. The notion of an entirely non-interventionist clockmaker God was not necessary for deism then, nor is it necessarily now. That notion comes more from Spinoza than it does from the various 18th century deists like Voltaire or Paine. So the problem here is in the definition, not the document itself. Ed Brayton ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
Re: proselytization
After the experience of assault and battery at the hands of so-called anti-war protesters, I find it very difficult to take this qualitative difference allegation seriously, and I think it trivializes four years in constant fear of bodily harm. Original Message: - From: Michael MASINTER [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 15:32:32 -0500 (EST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: proselytization I suspect the lexicography reflects a longstanding recognition that religious conversion is qualitatively different from switching political allegiance; to suggest otherwise would seem to trivialize religious faith. mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . ___ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
