In partial response to one of Professor Horwitz's interesting questions:
It is certainly true that Roger Williams was concerned to protect the "Garden
of the Church" from the "wilderness of the world." That is why he insisted on a
"wall or hedge of separation" between the two. But like Falwell, he had no
problem with governments legislating morality. Although he believed that the
state must have nothing to do with the first Table ("matters of faith"), he
favored legislation that reflected the moral commitments of the second Table.
And like Falwell, Williams had no problem with religious people being active in
the political arena (as Gov. Williams certainly was). Where Williams would part
company with Falwell is on the question of state invocation/appropriation of
God. Any state action in God's name was, for Williams, blasphemy. He considered
"Christendom" to be the filthiest word in the English language because of the
corruption of the Gospel that resulted from the mixture of church and state. To
the extent that Falwell rallied people of faith (and others) to work for a
society and laws that reflect their moral vision, he was acting out of a long
tradition of religious involvement in American politics. But when Falwell
advocated a "Christian America" in ways that would entangle church with state,
he not only parted company with Williams (and the original Baptist commitment
to separation), he also (in my view) threatened our arrangement in religious
liberty. Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Paul Horwitz
Sent: Thu 5/17/2007 9:22 AM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Pace Paul and Susan, the question is whether such a discussion, which takes
place over the body of the deceased, as it were, is likely to elicit any
actual discussion of law and religion issues, even broadly construed, or
whether it will devolve into a simple trading of barbs over whether Falwell
himself was a good or bad man, or over the political views of the Moral
Majority. I confess that I thought that Jim Henderson's original email,
although well-intended, was unlikely to lead to such a discussion, and
should best have been passed over in respectful silence by the rest of the
list. Not much I have seen since on the list has led me to conclude
otherwise.
Now, one could use the occasion to discuss matters of more moment to the
list. I could think of several such questions. First, what was more
relevant to the growth of the movement that Falwell spearheaded: the Court's
rulings in cases such as Roe v. Wade, or its rulings in cases involving the
application of antidiscrimination laws to private schools and universities?
Was the broader moral component of the MM, including advocacy on issues like
abortion, its wellspring, or was it simply part of a decision to focus on
issues that best conduced to coalition-building among disparate religious
and ideological groups?
Second, and I think related to the first question, is this: For a time in
the 1970s, Falwell advocated that evangelical Christians retire from the
political fray and concentrate on prayer and the formation of a more perfect
religious community. That position has its roots as far back as Roger
Williams' concern that the garden of religion would be corrupted by the
wilderness of politics: not that separation (voluntary or legal) was
necessary to protect politics from religion, but in order to protect
religion from politics, in the sense that religious involvement in politics
would corrupt the religious participants. It continues to find occasional
echoes in calls for religious retirement from active involvement in politics
from folks like David Kuo. Falwell obviously ultimately took a different
route. But which was the right route? Were the MM and other such groups
salutary for both religion and politics, or is there a genuine *spiritual*
concern about the corrupting effects on religion of political involvement?
And even so, is that longstanding concern one that has mandatory
implications for the Establishment Clause, or is it merely a statement about
the risks of voluntary participation in politics by religious individuals,
and one that perforce is for religious individuals to decide for themselves
without any threat of legal enforcement? Even if that's so, is it not cause
for deep reflection by the religious individuals themselves, and does one
run any risks in the religious/political community for saying so?
Third, one might more provocatively note the parallel between the death of
Falwell and the contemporaneous death of Yolanda King, daughter of Martin
Luther King, Jr., whose own involvement in politics was both profound and
profoundly motivated by religious concerns. Aside from the possibility that
many folks on this listserv might praise King's positions and condemn
Falwell's positions, is it not the case that both deaths are reminders of
the salutary, emancipating effect of two leaders who gave voice to, and
helped others find a voice for, the view that religious individuals can be
paradigm-shifters when they are fully entitled to participate in political
discussion? And is it a meaningful or relevant distinction, or even true,
that the civil rights movement succeeded more deeply than the MM, in part
because it found ways to translate its concerns into secular as well as
religious language? Whatever the answer to that question, is it fair to say
that, however different their positions might have been, we can see deep
linkages between Falwell's death and the death of a member of the King
family?
Finally, although I'm not sure this is really a religionlaw discussion, one
might note that Falwell was responsible for the rise of what might be a
distinctly new and influential creature, although others might offer earlier
examples: the genuinely and openly religious law school and, more to the
point, the genuinely and openly religious lawyer, at least of the (speaking
broadly) evangelical variety. One might fairly ask what deep conflicts face
the person who wishes to be both a good lawyer and a good Christian, or Jew,
or what have you: what conflicts there are between serving one's client, or
one's political mission, and serving a higher duty; whether all the tools
available to cunning lawyers, in both the judicial and the political process
are appropriate tools for the religious lawyer; or whether the deeply
religious lawyer is bound by obligations of integrity and ethics that
necessarily hobble him or her as a lawyer. This, it seems to me, is the
interesting question surrounding figures such as Monica Goodling, and I've
written on my blog that while I have absolutely no problem with the mission
of Regent Law School to place its graduates in positions of power, such
schools, rather than boasting about the positions of influence its graduates
have reached, ought to ask whether they are graduating enough
whistle-blowers, enough individuals who were willing to sacrifice their
influence for the higher good of demanding integrity in the performance of
public office.
I think these are all useful questions, and am happy to offer them up to the
list for discussion. But I doubt they will occur in a context in which we
are simply asking: Falwell -- good or bad?
Paul Horwitz
Visiting Associate Professor
Notre Dame Law School
>From: Susan Freiman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
><religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
>Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
>Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:44:27 +0300
>
>I would appreciate a continuation of the discussion. I lurk on this list
>because I enjoy learning about this area of law.
>
>Susan
>
>Paul Finkelman wrote:
>>much of Falwell's life was dedicated to undermining the establishment
>>clause, and indeed quite openly working for the establishment of his
>>faith as the official faith of America; it seems to me that any
>>discussion of his career is in the end a discussion about constitutional
>>law, unless Eugene, Will, and Sandy somehow think that on law, and
>>especially con law, is only about legal cases. If that is so then we
>>should just discuss Hustler.
>>
>>I have always wondered why Falwell (or any of those in his church) were
>>reading Hustler in the first place.
>>
>>Paul Finkelman
>>President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>> and Public Policy
>>Albany Law School
>>80 New Scotland Avenue
>>Albany, New York 12208-3494
>>
>>518-445-3386 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/16/07 10:28 PM >>>
>>>>>
>>On this one I tend to agree with Will (unless we want to get into a
>>discussion of Falwell v. Hustler, one of the shining lights of our
>>contemporary jurisprudence!).
>> sandy
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Will Linden
>>Sent: Wed 5/16/2007 8:57 PM
>>To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
>>
>>
>>
>> OK, what are the LEGAL implications of Falwell's death? Or will the
>>list
>>just become all-argue-about-Fawell, all the time?
>>
>>
>>Will Linden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://www.ecben.net/
>>Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
>>_______________________________________________
>>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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.
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
