Con Law issues (was re: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been)

[Susan Freiman]

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 legislation, and although rabbis give religious 
guidance to voters, to the point of instructing congregants what to do, 
they are not supposed to bribe the voters by gifts of holy objects.

Susan

Brownstein, Alan wrote:
>
> 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 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.
>
> I would be happy to be proven wrong – but some one will have to inform 
> me of my error after the fact. I certainly don’t intend to read future 
> posts about Mr. Falwell’s saintliness or sinfulness.
>
> Alan Brownstein
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] *On Behalf Of *Volokh, Eugene
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:50 PM
> *To:* religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> *Subject:* RE: Lofton / Falwell Not Preacher He SHOULD Have Been
>
> 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
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>