Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been

[RJLipkin at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/17/2007 7:10:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu writes:

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 is sometimes difficult to engage in meaningful dialogue 
about the case  law. On issues of sin and sadness, I think the gulf leads 
quickly to a  deteriorated discourse – cheerleading for us and expressions of 
contempt for  them – from both sides. 



        If Alan is right  about "deteriorated discourse" and "cheerleading," 
then I suggest we're not  trying hard enough to engage in meaningful dialogue 
about sin and I am  confident that we can do a better job. After all, the 
issue of sin defines,  in part, western civilization. It cannot be that 
"cheerleading for us and  expressions of contempt for them" is inherent to discussions 
of "sin" and not  other critically important cultural norms. Right? More 
importantly, it is  just when we begin from such "extraordinary different world 
views" that  we should put our intellectual imaginations into over-drive and try 
to  replace "cheerleading" with comprehensive reflective arguments even if in 
the  end we fail to persuade our conversational partners to renounce their  
"extraordinary different world view" and to adopt ours.
 
        Even when we expect  not to be able to provide knockdown arguments in 
support of our system of  beliefs and values, we can with some luck continue 
to reform and refine our  arguments in such a manner that precludes labeling 
our claims as  "cheerleading." In short, there's the Scylla of rationalist or  
objectivist belief in the finality, at least in principle, of argument and the 
 Charbydis of cheerleading. But we can avoid both if we recognize the  
possibility of refined arguments that better express our perspective just as our  
conversational partner better expresses hers. It takes intellectual  commitment 
and a penchant for self-consciously trying to expand our moral  imagination 
and conceptual scheme, and so it might not be everyone's cup of tea.  But it is 
in just such cases as discussing the life of someone like Jerry  Falwell that 
this middle course pays off but only when we recognize the danger  of imposing 
controversial restrictions on the scope of the  examination. 
 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070517/a7d89946/attachment.htm