I tend to agree with Eugene that the initial posts on this thread were clearly off topic and represented personal animous or favor rather than promoting an informative discussion. Interestingly, subsequent efforts to justify those posts have been far more substantive and useful.
In considering the role of the individual in the law of religious freedom, I don't think one can draw a single dichotomous line. Issues fit more within concentric circles of relevance. For example, in evaluating the Clinton impeachment, it seems to me that Clinton's behavior with Monica, while morally objectionable not only in terms of infidelity but in an abuse of position and power over a young person who was a White House intern and relevant to whether or not I might want to vote for him, was largely irrelevant to an inquiry about the law of impeachment. His lying to the Grand Jury, the crime he was charged with was relevant, if not convincing. Similarly, Gingrich's extra-marital affair might be relevant in making judgments about his character and intentions, it similarly tells me little to nothing about the law of impeachment. With respect to Falwell, his attitude towards the state, the role of religion in law and how he personally acted in relation to those issues (whether as an advocate or as a supplicant for government assistance) are clearly important for this list. His private behavior to convert an individual that never involved recourse to law or government seems irrelevant--unless the person making the assertion can make a connection that I fail to see. David -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Shiffrin Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:58 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been One of the arguments for avoiding tight connections between church and state is that churches are corrupted by their entanglements with the state. The question whether religious leaders have been coopted is relevant to that discussion and seems clearly on topic. David Kuo, for example, in his recent book discusses how brushes with power affected Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell. From his perspective, this is a discussion of sin (or not), but it is surely on topic. In addition, the religion clauses are embedded in a culture and the nature of that culture has a bearing on how the clauses are interpreted. Jerry Falwell played a role in the development of our religious culture. His involvement affected the understanding of what the relations between church and state should be, I would guess, for millions of people including many public officials charged with interpreting the Constitution. Admitting that it is possible to make remarks about Falwell that are marginally important, I tend to agree with Bobby. Steve Volokh, Eugene wrote: > A discussion of Falwell's role in the development of Religion >Clauses law is surely entirely on-topic. A discussion of whether >Falwell acted in sad or sinful ways under one's own theological view >(however sincere or well-reasoned) of what behavior is sad or sinful >strikes me as no more on-topic than a discussion of whether, say, >Justices Brennan or Blackmun acted in sad or sinful ways. > > Eugene > > > >>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/17/07 9:01 AM >>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >>In a message dated 5/16/2007 9:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight >>Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>Please remember that this is a list devoted to the law of >>government and religion -- not on whether some people >>(recently dead or otherwise) acted in sad or sinful ways, >>except insofar as that pretty closely connects to the law of >>government and religion. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am incredulous that an open discussion of one of >>the most important operatives in religion and >>constitutionalism in the last three decades should be >>inappropriate on this List. Of course, this is Eugene's List >>and therefore I will respect his wishes. But I could not >>disagree more with his sense of relevance or appropriateness >>in this matter. >> >>Bobby >> >>Robert Justin Lipkin >>Professor of Law >>Widener University School of Law >>Delaware >> >>Ratio Juris >>, Contributor: _ http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/_ >>(http://ratiojuris.blogspot.com/) >>Essentially Contested America, Editor: >>_http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/_ >>(http://www.essentiallycontestedamerica.org/) >> >> >> >>************************************** See what's free at >>http://www.aol.com. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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.
