Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been

[rjlipkin at comcast.net]

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 distinguishing appropriate (List-relevant) from inappropriate posts is contrary to the likely purposes of articulating such a rule in the first place. Any such rule inevitably will be contentious and instead of spending time on substantive issues concerning Mr. Falwell's impact on American society and its constitutional character, we will, in my view, waste time debating procedural questions of relevance. Under ordinary circumstances such a debate might be appropriate. But when we're in a position to begin understanding Mr. Fallwell, the influences that prompted him to believe (and act upon the belief) that religion and politics ought to be integrated concerning a certain kinds of values an!
 d not o
thers, there's bound to be posts that are irrelevant to the List's purposes.  I think it would be far better to err on the side of irrelevance than to inhibit the discussion in the way that Eugene's proposed rule, or any other proposed rule, might. Let me post my conscientious evaluation of Mr. Falwell's impact on American constitutionalism and society, whether relevant to the List's purposes or not, and if my post is truly irrelevant let it die the death of no response. I prefer participating in an open--no holds barred--discussion of Mr. Falwell's completed life. 

Whether Mr. Falwell was a hypocrite or acted in sinful (morally pernicious) ways is clearly, in my view, relevant to his role as a religious leader and political operative who believed the Constitution should include certain religious values. And, if one wants to argue that Justices Brennan or Marshall was a hypocrite or acted perniciously, in a discussion of their lives and impact on American cconstitutionalism, I'd be happy to hear the argument. Procedural arguments about relevance in certain contexts is essential and in other contexts it is not only not essential, but instead it often distorts the discussion and blocks insight that may only be articulated in an open discussion. 

Bobby

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Volokh, Eugene" <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> 

> 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 
> 
> > >>> RJLipkin at aol.com 05/17/07 9:01 AM >>> 
> > 
> > 
> > In a message dated 5/16/2007 9:59:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight 
> > Time, VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu 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 at 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 at 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. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070517/84a1a84d/attachment.htm