Unfortunately, Jean's point needs to be emphasized. Being characterized as a
hater is dreadful. Being subject to hate is at least a couple of quanta
beyond dreadful. That's why, in my view, the hate speech controversy always
begins with the wrong baseline, an inordinate concern with the
This is from Slate. The condemnations of Falwell from people like Senator
McCain illustrate that in fact he practiced a politics of hate and his desire
to eliminate all public schools, his attacks on Jews, Moslems and others were
in fact the practice of a kind of constitutional politics in the
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
May I suggestion a variation on this theme. On the one hand, as a
person who takes a very broad view of constitutionalism, I am inclined
to think that a good deal can be said about Falwell that is quite
relevant to this list, even if the comments are not precisely doctrinal.
On the other hand,
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
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
One more difference is this: Williams was tolerant of those he
disagreed with and welcomed such people into the community. It is hard
to imagine Williams asserting that the Antichrist would be a Jew;
Williams was tolerant of all faiths and believed the government should
not be in the business of
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
I wish that it were clear that there is a sharp line dividing the two.
There is, after all, a powerful dynamic relation between law and
morality, as there is between law and psychology, law and theology, and
any number of other relevant and germane factors and considerations.
Falwell obviously
All law is inescapably religious, our own Western law being based on the
Christian Church/Bible. See, please, among other books, Harold Berman's 2-vol
work Law And Revolution. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com; Recovering
Republican...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
When a major figure in American constitutional politics--concerning the First
Amendment--dies, we are in a position to evaluate his completed life in all its
aspects and therefore assess just what his final impact on American society
was. In my view, debating whether we should draw a line
Fair enough; if we want open season on whether, for instance,
Justice Blackmun's votes on abortion -- or for that matter the
Establishment Clause -- were sinful and sad, and other list members are
fine with that, by all means go ahead. I had tried to stop people from
doing that sort of thing
With due respect to Bobby, from my perspective, I think Eugene and
others are right that evaluations of conduct as sinful and sad don't
contribute anything useful to list discussions. Many members of this
list approach even doctrinal issues from such extraordinarily different
world views that it
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?
In a message dated 5/17/2007 2:53:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
All law is inescapably religious, our own Western law being based on the
Christian Church/Bible. See, please, among other books, Harold Berman's 2-vol
work Law And Revolution. John Lofton, Editor,
This does point up what I see as the Constitutional problem with Falwell
and other religious figures, and their involvement in the electoral
process and with counseling government officials.
In Israel, where I live, various religious (Jewish) groups are actively
involved in politics and
18 matches
Mail list logo
