Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
Thanks. I appreciate this. I appreciate barbs, too, but only if they're clever. Susan Paul Horwitz wrote: 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
Re: Jesus for President?
Surely you should be allowed to say any prayer you want, in private. To give a Christian prayer in church is no problem for me, and if you pray to Jesus in a military service for Christians, fine. To pray to Jesus in a general military service is improper, and I see problems with any law which expressly allows you to do that. I respect your feeling deeply about what you see as an important issue. Allow me to feel equally deeply about your imposing a Christian prayer on non-Christians. You don't see a violation of the separation of church and state here? Susan Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt WND Exclusive Commentary Jesus for president? Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary about my interview with Jewish Week newspaper http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/JewishWeekStewartAin3Jun05.pdf, telling how I was punished for requesting Kosher meals for my Jewish sailor. Shall I tell them Senator Clinton doesn't care about Jewish service members? I asked. Fearing bad press, Clinton signed a letter of inquiry to the Navy http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/Senators.pdf for me that same day. But later, after Navy officials justified to her how I was also properly punished for praying in Jesus' name and how chaplains really should pray non-sectarian prayers in public, my sources witnessed Sen. Clinton taking bold action /against me/. Opposing a House bill to let chaplains pray according to their faith http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WarnerSpeech2.pdf, Clinton personally attended meetings to block our legislation, preferring to let the Pentagon censor our prayers. Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't any better. While campaigning in Iowa last month, Obama was asked his opinion about Judge Roy Moore, who couldn't display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and about me, a chaplain who was discharged for praying in uniform. First, Sen. Obama falsely claimed he wasn't aware of the chaplain situation, when I'd personally faxed my whistleblower complaints to his office http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy10/ChapsToObama.pdf, and his staff acknowledged placing them on his desk. Even worse, Obama disrespected the Ten Commandments, claiming, If you are not a believer, there would be a feeling that you wouldn't be treated as fairly as a Christian. We want everybody to feel they are treated equally. http://thechurchreport.com/news_article.php?day=16mon=04yr=2007 Apparently, Obama believes God's Ten Commandments are unfair since they might hurt people's feelings (as if his pro-abortion laws don't hurt the feelings of the unborn). Would President Obama appoint judges who oppose Roy Moore and would jackhammer the 44 displays of the Ten Commandments from our U.S. Supreme Court? He still won't debate Judge Moore on the subject http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/judge_roy_moore_says_obama_nee.php, yet Barrack Hussein Obama campaigns like a good Christian, soft-pedaling his Muslim upbringing. Conversely, Sen. Sam Brownback votes like he says he believes. When I first came to Washington, D.C., Sen. Brownback welcomed me to speak at his weekly Values Action Team meeting, where I enlisted dozens of pro-family groups and senators to vote for allowing prayers in Jesus' name. Brownback personally wrote President Bush to help chaplains, and when our legislation came to the Senate, Sam Brownback again reminded Values Action Team members to stand up for religious liberty. (But he'd never brag about this; he's too humble.) If elected, I've no doubt President Brownback would immediately sign an executive order protecting all chaplains' right to pray according to their faith.
Re: Jesus for President?
Jesus for President? Why would He allow Himself to be demoted? He's already King of kings, Lord of lords and has ALL power in Heaven and on earth. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering Republican... Accursed is that peace of which revolt from God is the bond, and blessed are those contentions by which it is necessary to maintain the kingdom of Christ. -- John Calvin. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri, 18 May 2007 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Jesus for President? Clearly he neither sees a violationa, nor believes that there should be a separation. 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] 05/18/07 4:10 AM Surely you should be allowed to say any prayer you want, in private. To give a Christian prayer in church is no problem for me, and if you pray to Jesus in a military service for Christians, fine. To pray to Jesus in a general military service is improper, and I see problems with any law which expressly allows you to do that. I respect your feeling deeply about what you see as an important issue. Allow me to feel equally deeply about your imposing a Christian prayer on non-Christians. You don't see a violation of the separation of church and state here? Susan Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt WND Exclusive Commentary Jesus for president? Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary about my interview with Jewish Week newspaper http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/JewishWeekStewartAin3Jun05.pdf, telling how I was punished for requesting Kosher meals for my Jewish sailor. Shall I tell them Senator Clinton doesn't care about Jewish service members? I asked. Fearing bad press, Clinton signed a letter of inquiry to the Navy http://www.persuade.tv/againstgoliath/Senators.pdf for me that same day. But later, after Navy officials justified to her how I was also properly punished for praying in Jesus' name and how chaplains really should pray non-sectarian prayers in public, my sources witnessed Sen. Clinton taking bold action /against me/. Opposing a House bill to let chaplains pray according to their faith http://www.persuade.tv/Frenzy6/WarnerSpeech2.pdf, Clinton personally attended meetings to block our legislation, preferring to let the Pentagon censor our prayers. Sen. Barrack Hussein Obama wasn't any better. While campaigning in Iowa last month, Obama was asked his opinion about Judge Roy Moore, who couldn't display the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, and about me, a chaplain who was discharged for praying in uniform. First, Sen. Obama falsely claimed he wasn't aware of the chaplain situation, when I'd personally faxed my whistleblower complaints to his office http://www.persuade.tv/frenzy10/ChapsToObama.pdf, and his staff acknowledged placing them on his desk. Even worse, Obama disrespected the Ten Commandments, claiming, If you are not a believer, there would be a feeling that you wouldn't be treated as fairly as a Christian. We want everybody to feel they are treated equally. http://thechurchreport.com/news_article.php?day=16mon=04yr=2007 Apparently, Obama believes God's Ten Commandments are unfair since they might hurt people's feelings (as if his pro-abortion laws don't hurt the feelings of the unborn). Would President Obama appoint judges who oppose Roy Moore and would jackhammer the 44
Re: Jesus for President?
Great questions, Susan and Paul On the contrary, true separation would require the military chaplain prays the same way his civilian bishop requires (even in public), NOT the way the commanding officer orders him to pray. When a commander orders a chaplain to censor his public prayers, violate his religious orders, and pray to the government's civic god or face government punishment, (as I faced), certainly the government has established (and enforced) a non-sectarian state religion, and forced it on all chaplains and all Sailors of diverse faiths. The better solution is to take turns and let each pray according to the dictates of his own conscience, without enforcing conformity to one government-sanitized faith expression. Federal law agrees with me, and since 1860 has protected chaplains rights, today codified in 10 USC 6031: An officer in the chaplain corps may conduct public worship according to the manner and forms of the church of which he is a member. And the Supreme Court has already ruled against government enforced non-sectarian prayer content in 1991 Lee vs. Weisman: The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds...The State's role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. Principal Lee provided Rabbi Gutterman with a copy of the Guidelines for Civic Occasions and advised him that his prayers should be nonsectarian. Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, Engel v. Vitale, (1962), and that is what the school officials attempted to do. Susan, Paul, do you disagree with the statute, or with the Supreme Court's interpretation? Incidentally, somebody asked if I'm still a chaplain, and the answer is yes, because my church ordained me for the ministry of chaplaincyalthough I'm no longer a lieutenant and no longer an officerhaving been honorably discharged after 15.5 years. I pray in Jesus name, Chaplain Klingenschmitt Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clearly he neither sees a violationa, nor believes that there should be a separation. Paul Finkelman -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/18/07 4:10 AM Surely you should be allowed to say any prayer you want, in private. To give a Christian prayer in church is no problem for me, and if you pray to Jesus in a military service for Christians, fine. To pray to Jesus in a general military service is improper, and I see problems with any law which expressly allows you to do that. I respect your feeling deeply about what you see as an important issue. Allow me to feel equally deeply about your imposing a Christian prayer on non-Christians. You don't see a violation of the separation of church and state here? Susan Gordon James Klingenschmitt wrote: Since Eugene gave us the green light to talk politics Below is my op-ed for today's Worldnet Daily, explaining the likely views of four Presidential candidates (Clinton, Obama, Brownback, Hunter) on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus name. Jesus for President? http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55725 Enjoy! Chaplain Klingenschmitt WND Exclusive Commentary Jesus for president? Posted: May 17, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Gordon James Klingenschmitt OK, I admit, Jesus Christ is not running for president this year. He promised to return soon enough, to assume public office, but meanwhile, where do the 2008 presidential candidates stand on a military chaplain's right to pray publicly in Jesus' name? I'm not naming names, but let's start with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. When the Navy punished me, a chaplain, for quoting the Bible in the chapel during optionally attended Christian worship, I faxed a formal whistleblower complaint to my New York senator, asking for help. Did she protect her evangelical chaplain? No. I called her office nearly every day, but nobody returned my phone calls for weeks, until finally, I voice-mailed her press secretary
Jerry Falwell: A Catalog of Contributions
Truth be told, if I had the sufficient good sense not to have opened my digest version of the list three days ago, I wouldn't have posted that little story about Jerry Falwell. When the previous to mine post mentioned the nature of some of the blogging about his death -- none of which laid any greater claim to a reasoned discussion of principles of law than did my story -- I thought I would offer a balancing bit, and I did. No regrets. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ P.S. As for how much any of the posts on the lists contributes, or fails to contribute, I would be careful not to confuse prolixity with persuasiveness, verbosity with wisdom, or post-hoc rationalizations with truth. The men (sorry ladies, but a commitment to gender fairness cannot fairly serve its purpose if it unfairly recasts history) who crafted the constitutional bulwarks of our religious liberties did it with few words but much resolve. And it would serve us all better to recall that if there was any value to the later posts in this discussion, those posts were provoked by the ones earlier and the responses to them. ** 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.
