Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been

[Volokh, Eugene]

    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 in the past, but recent experience from the
CONLAWPROF list has taught me that constraints of this sort can't really
endure in the face of substantial noncompliance on the list.  I just
want to make sure that both the Right and the Left recognizes that they
are free to express their moral and theological views about legal and
political figures they dislike (or even loathe).
 
    Eugene 


________________________________

	From: rjlipkin at comcast.net [mailto:rjlipkin at comcast.net] 
	Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:14 PM
	To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; Law & Religion
issues for Law Academics
	Cc: Volokh, Eugene
	Subject: RE: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been
	
	
	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 ! concern ing a certain kinds of values and not others,
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! .blogsp ot.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/20070517/01617d3f/attachment.html