Urging the government to assassinate someone vs. urging others todo that

[Michael Zimmer]

"Conscientious Christian" and Pat Robertson is quite the conflation. If
nothing else, this episode should acknowledge the strength of the free
exercise clause but also reinforce the absolute necessity of the
establishment clause.

Michael J. Zimmer
Professor of Law
Seton Hall Law School
One Newark Center
Newark, NJ 07102
973.642.8833
973.642.8194 fax


                                                                           
             RJLipkin at aol.com                                              
             Sent by:                                                      
             conlawprof-bounce                                          To 
             s at lists.ucla.edu          nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com,          
                                       CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu           
                                                                        cc 
             08/23/05 04:37 PM                                             
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: Urging the government to        
                                       assassinate someone vs. urging      
                                       others   todo that                  
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




In a message dated 8/23/2005 4:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com writes:
 Again, maybe I am missing something, but I did not see anything in
 Robertson's statement suggesting that he was making a religious call to
 take out a foreign leader. Nor does he appear to be asking fellow
 Christians to take the law into their own hands. He was acting as a
 citizen making a strident political statement calling for the government
 to take secular action. It is protected political speech I am quite sure,
 but also certainly speech that I and most others disagree with and judge
 to be strident.

         Sure, no one is suggesting that the example of Pat Robertson means
that Christianity calls for assassination. But I thought the point of Jesus
Christ's message diametrically opposes to assassination. Thus, a committed
follower of Christ cannot avoid "making a religious call to take out a
foreign leader" if he advocates assassination politically. There no
difference, or so I would have thought, between a committed Christian
advocating assassination as a religious matter and advocating assassination
as a political matter without defeating the very character and purpose of
his religion.

        I am seriously perplexed. Is the view that on matters of life and
death Christians distinguish between religious statements and political
statements? My understanding was that what is morally right, from the
Christian perspective, is indistinguishable from what is religiously
required at least when it comes to matters of life or death.  Thus, when a
Christian leader calls for the death of Chavez, his conduct cannot be
merely a political statement.  As a conscientious Christian he must be
committed to the moral (and therefore the religious) judgment that, in this
case, at least assassination is religiously sanctioned.

        I am not a Christian, and so I'm reluctant to embrace my own
remarks above.  But I would benefit from an explanation of how a
conscientious Christian can compartmentalize and separate moral/religious
imperatives from political judgments. Generally, religious values, for
those who embrace them, should be the ultimate foundation for all other
systems of beliefs and values--moral, political, practical.  So is Rick
stating that in Robertson's case his endorsement of assassination is
unchristian or not. Clarification would be greatly appreciated.

        I agree Robertson's speech is constitutionally protected.  But that
doesn't address the question of whether a conscientious Christian can,
conceptually and morally, call for assassination without it simultaneously
being a religious endorsement of assassination at least from the
perspective of that particular Christian.

Bobby

Robert Justin Lipkin
Professor of Law
Widener University School of Law
Delaware_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

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.