Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think

Thu May 17 23:22:11 PDT 2007

Thanks.  I appreciate this. 

I appreciate barbs, too, but only if they're clever. 

Susan

Paul Horwitz wrote:
> Pace Paul and Susan, the question is whether such a discussion, which 
> takes place over the body of the deceased, as it were, is likely to 
> elicit any actual discussion of law and religion issues, even broadly 
> construed, or whether it will devolve into a simple trading of barbs 
> over whether Falwell himself was a good or bad man, or over the 
> political views of the Moral Majority.  I confess that I thought that 
> Jim Henderson's original email, although well-intended, was unlikely 
> to lead to such a discussion, and should best have been passed over in 
> respectful silence by the rest of the list.  Not much I have seen 
> since on the list has led me to conclude otherwise.
>
> Now, one could use the occasion to discuss matters of more moment to 
> the list.  I could think of several such questions.  First, what was 
> more relevant to the growth of the movement that Falwell spearheaded: 
> the Court's rulings in cases such as Roe v. Wade, or its rulings in 
> cases involving the application of antidiscrimination laws to private 
> schools and universities?  Was the broader moral component of the MM, 
> including advocacy on issues like abortion, its wellspring, or was it 
> simply part of a decision to focus on issues that best conduced to 
> coalition-building among disparate religious and ideological groups?
>
> Second, and I think related to the first question, is this: For a time 
> in the 1970s, Falwell advocated that evangelical Christians retire 
> from the political fray and concentrate on prayer and the formation of 
> a more perfect religious community.  That position has its roots as 
> far back as Roger Williams' concern that the garden of religion would 
> be corrupted by the wilderness of politics: not that separation 
> (voluntary or legal) was necessary to protect politics from religion, 
> but in order to protect religion from politics, in the sense that 
> religious involvement in politics would corrupt the religious 
> participants.  It continues to find occasional echoes in calls for 
> religious retirement from active involvement in politics from folks 
> like David Kuo.  Falwell obviously ultimately took a different route.  
> But which was the right route?  Were the MM and other such groups 
> salutary for both religion and politics, or is there a genuine 
> *spiritual* concern about the corrupting effects on religion of 
> political involvement?  And even so, is that longstanding concern one 
> that has mandatory implications for the Establishment Clause, or is it 
> merely a statement about the risks of voluntary participation in 
> politics by religious individuals, and one that perforce is for 
> religious individuals to decide for themselves without any threat of 
> legal enforcement?  Even if that's so, is it not cause for deep 
> reflection by the religious individuals themselves, and does one run 
> any risks in the religious/political community for saying so?
>
> Third, one might more provocatively note the parallel between the 
> death of Falwell and the contemporaneous death of Yolanda King, 
> daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose own involvement in politics 
> was both profound and profoundly motivated by religious concerns.  
> Aside from the possibility that many folks on this listserv might 
> praise King's positions and condemn Falwell's positions, is it not the 
> case that both deaths are reminders of the salutary, emancipating 
> effect of two leaders who gave voice to, and helped others find a 
> voice for, the view that religious individuals can be 
> paradigm-shifters when they are fully entitled to participate in 
> political discussion?  And is it a meaningful or relevant distinction, 
> or even true, that the civil rights movement succeeded more deeply 
> than the MM, in part because it found ways to translate its concerns 
> into secular as well as religious language?  Whatever the answer to 
> that question, is it fair to say that, however different their 
> positions might have been, we can see deep linkages between Falwell's 
> death and the death of a member of the King family?
>
> Finally, although I'm not sure this is really a religionlaw 
> discussion, one might note that Falwell was responsible for the rise 
> of what might be a distinctly new and influential creature, although 
> others might offer earlier examples: the genuinely and openly 
> religious law school and, more to the point, the genuinely and openly 
> religious lawyer, at least of the (speaking broadly) evangelical 
> variety.  One might fairly ask what deep conflicts face the person who 
> wishes to be both a good lawyer and a good Christian, or Jew, or what 
> have you: what conflicts there are between serving one's client, or 
> one's political mission, and serving a higher duty; whether all the 
> tools available to cunning lawyers, in both the judicial and the 
> political process are appropriate tools for the religious lawyer; or 
> whether the deeply religious lawyer is bound by obligations of 
> integrity and ethics that necessarily hobble him or her as a lawyer.  
> This, it seems to me, is the interesting question surrounding figures 
> such as Monica Goodling, and I've written on my blog that while I have 
> absolutely no problem with the mission of Regent Law School to place 
> its graduates in positions of power, such schools, rather than 
> boasting about the positions of influence its graduates have reached, 
> ought to ask whether they are graduating enough whistle-blowers, 
> enough individuals who were willing to sacrifice their influence for 
> the higher good of demanding integrity in the performance of public 
> office.
>
> I think these are all useful questions, and am happy to offer them up 
> to the list for discussion.  But I doubt they will occur in a context 
> in which we are simply asking: Falwell -- good or bad?
>
> Paul Horwitz
> Visiting Associate Professor
> Notre Dame Law School
>
>
>> From: Susan Freiman <susan.freiman.law.65 at aya.yale.edu>
>> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics 
>> <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu>
>> Subject: Re: Falwell:  Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
>> Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:44:27 +0300
>>
>> I would appreciate a continuation of the discussion.  I lurk on this 
>> list because I enjoy learning about this area of law.
>>
>> Susan
>>
>> Paul Finkelman wrote:
>>> much of Falwell's life was dedicated to undermining the establishment
>>> clause, and indeed quite openly working for the establishment of his
>>> faith as the official faith of America; it seems to me that any
>>> discussion of his career is in the end a discussion about 
>>> constitutional
>>> law, unless Eugene, Will, and Sandy somehow think that on law, and
>>> especially con law, is only about legal cases. If that is so then we
>>> should just discuss Hustler.
>>>
>>> I have always wondered why Falwell (or any of those in his church) were
>>> reading Hustler in the first place.
>>>
>>> Paul Finkelman
>>> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
>>>      and Public Policy
>>> Albany Law School
>>> 80 New Scotland Avenue
>>> Albany, New York   12208-3494
>>>
>>> 518-445-3386 pfink at albanylaw.edu
>>>
>>>>>> SLevinson at law.utexas.edu 05/16/07 10:28 PM >>>
>>>>>>
>>> On this one I tend to agree with Will (unless we want to get into a
>>> discussion of Falwell v. Hustler, one of the shining lights of our
>>> contemporary jurisprudence!).
>>>  sandy
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Will Linden
>>> Sent: Wed 5/16/2007 8:57 PM
>>> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
>>> Subject: Re: Falwell: Not Necessarily The Person That You Think
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    OK, what are the LEGAL implications of Falwell's death? Or will the
>>> list
>>> just become all-argue-about-Fawell, all the time?
>>>
>>>
>>> Will Linden  wlinden at panix.com
>>> http://www.ecben.net/
>>> Magic Code: MAS/GD S++ W++ N+ PWM++ Ds/r+ A-> a++ C+ G- QO++ 666 Y
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.