John Lofton wrote on 07/25/2005 03:36:28 PM:
> One thing I'd like to hear you folks who know a lot more about
> everything than I do discuss is this dismissal by many of "personal
> views" as irrelevant. Does anybody think it would not matter, and be
> relevant, if Roberts, or any such nominee, in his "private,
> personal" time, was active in a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic
> organization --- even though none of these "private" views ever,
> ever appeared in his "public" life. Incidentally, and Biblically,
> integrity is defined as single-mindedness, single purpose --- not
> being, at different times, on opposite sides, of the same issues.
> Indeed, this kind of behavior is what Scripture calls double-
> mindedness and such a man as this is said to be unstable in ALL his
> ways. God bless you all. John Lofton.
A difference between a judge's personal views and his rulings on the bench does not constitute double-mindedness as it appears you are suggesting it does. It is the job of a legislator to determine what the law ought to be, and the job of a judge to determine what the law is. If, for instance, a judge were to personally believe that abortion is always wrong but that the law protects the right to an abortion, then it is not doublemindedness for that judge to rule that abortion is legal. If the judge were to say one day that abortion is wrong and one day that it's not, that might be doublemindedness, but to say that abortion is wrong but the law protects it nonetheless is not doubleminded.
Similarly, a lawyer might argue differing positions on different cases on the same issue because he is not making his own case or stating his own beliefs. He is, rather, stating the case of his clients, which may well vary from case to case.
In terms of your hypothetical case, though, there are those who would (quite wrongly, I might add) say that the Catholic Church is a racist, sexist, anti-Semitic organization. Most people correctly understand that it is not. If we were discussing a genuinely hateful organization, such as the KKK, that would certainly be an issue because of the need to assess the character of someone who would join such an organization. But that's an issue of character, not an issue of private views.
Brad Pardee
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
