Date: Sun Nov 16 12:39:55 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: File
At 10:39 PM 11/15/97 0600, you wrote:
Hey, am I considered only "a constituent?" : ( I thought I was your friend and your teammate in the pursuit of truth, peace, and world bliss, and your right wing Christian patsy that gives you information on which to build your anti-Christian tactics. ; ) Besides all that, I'm contributing to your education and professional thoroughness. I am genuinely hurt!
; ) We wear many different hats. When we're talking about cases I’m involved in, I am more professionally removed than when we talk about other things. It's important that I maintain that professional objectivity in order that I can put my client's and the state's legal interests first, regardless of what I think about "the bad guys." Because of the role I play, I will still be somewhat more reserved, even though it appears I'm being quite open and disclosing my mental thought processes. Usually I don't do that until after the fact. I will say, however, that your suggestions have always been very good and I use them often.
On the "anti-Christian tactics" side, I don't think you're giving me anything I don't already know, but perhaps so. What I'm looking for is a way to communicate, in terms you appreciate, the convictions I have. You ask questions, I try to answer them (although I see lately a tendency to repeat the questions as though I've never tried to answer them). I ask questions, you.... aren't always so responsive. Because we've been able to keep the dialog open so long, we're still exploring where the openings are to effective communication. There are many barriers, indeed walls of separation, that I'm looking for ways we can get through to each other.
My first wife was a law student when we married. I'd just graduated. I had the absurd notion that as far as the differences between men and women went, we'd have an advantage in that we were both legally trained. Thus, so I thought, our arguments would be governed by informal rules of civil and procedure and evidence comparable to what lawyers use in court. Because we were trained to be objective and argue both sides of an issue, I thought we could be our own judge in matters of dispute. The next girlfriend I had was also a lawyer and, silly me, I thought the same thing was worth a try again. I can tell you, the first thing that goes out the window when you get in a relationship with another lawyer is the rules of civil procedure and evidence.
What I've learned since, if you can call my present marriage successful (and I do), is that men and women approach communication from very different angles. In order for me to hear what my wife is saying, I have to understand why she's trying to communicate in the first place, and then what her frame of reference is as she does so. Then, I understand where she's coming from. She in turn, if she understands where I'm trying to come from, won't be so quick to ascribe malevolent motives to what I'm saying, but can listen to the real me.
It's the same between us. There are certain presumptions we make about one another early on that we have to revisit and scrutinize. Do I think all Christians are whackos or anti-Semites? No. Do you think the ACLU is the devil incarnate? (Bad example.) But it illustrates some of the barriers we put before ourselves in trying to communicate. We both think we're trying to get closer to God, but our approaches are often antagonistic to the concept that the other will get there.
We will never agree on the meanings of the Bible. And I don't believe I'll ever be able to read it according to Acts, 17:11. That doesn't mean I can't try and understand where you're coming from as it influences your thought. It also doesn't mean that I reject its teachings outright. Considering your approach though, I do seriously question how well you can appreciate where I'm coming from in matters of spirituality and faith, and whether you'll ever be able to, but that's what keeps me coming back. Although the distinctions between us in certain matters of faith are critical, nonetheless there is much on which we can agree, at least in terms of general principles to live by.
We'll probably never agree on what the law should be on many subjects. That doesn't mean we can't agree on a common framework for *discussing* what the law is, how it got that way, and where it could and should go. That's the lesson of my wife/girlfriend story. We may not agree on whether the Bible was written by God, but we certainly can agree the law was written by men (can't we?). I will not agree that any laws that have governed us for the last two hundred years are divinely inspired. That does not mean I can not concede that many are consistent with divine law.
So, if we agree that the law is written by men we should be able to agree on how to approach discussion of the law. I have certain fundamental prerequisites to doing so. Cite and discuss cases in context that are relevant, acknowledge contrary authority and precedent, acknowledge when you are hypothesizing or speculating about history or original intent, do not make vague and general assertions about what was said when the source is readily available, don't get personal, and don't duck hard questions with appeals to "majority rules" or the Bible, or simply by ignoring them. Those are the rules I live by.
Because you're not trained in the law, I've cut you a lot of slack in this department, while trying to educate you on the "rules" of discussion. I don't pull rank on you, neither do I erect unnecessary barriers to your participation in a legal discussion just because I'm a lawyer. It may be difficult, but then we never said it was supposed to be easy.
As to contributing to my education and professional thoroughness, hmmmmm..... I think a better approach would be for you to ask questions when I make a point that seems incongruous to what you've heard elsewhere. You contribute to my ability to communicate by questioning something you don't understand in relation to what you've been told. In that way you assist me in being more professionally thorough, because obviously if I'm not getting through to you, I'm not communicating well. But it's very presumptuous to offer me things like Barton and say you're making a contribution to my education, when I've already analyzed those arguments in considerably more depth. Question me and call me out all you want if it's because I'm saying something you don't understand. But I wouldn't presume so much on the "contributing to my education" idea. You are the expert on how you feel and why you believe as you do. You should defer to me on matters of legal education, at least until I've got you up to speed.
Vote for you??? Well, you're not running now, and we Christians have faith. If God could part the Red Sea for your forebears, there is a chance he can bring a intolerant, left wing, anti-Christian lawyer more toward the middle of the road. In which case, I'd be happy to vote for my friend. (Surely you wouldn't expect me to vote for someone I perceived as a threat to the freedom I hold dear.)
I wonder if you'll ever be convinced that being anti-religion-in-government is not the same thing as being anti-Christian. Now, not voting for me because I'm left wing, is something I can respect. Suggesting I'm intolerant though, compared to the views of the "right" on political issues, is clearly to me a case of the pot calling the kettle black. My view is that government should be as inclusive of cultural diversity as humanly possible, and that as a people we should rejoice in our cultural diversity, because to me, God made us all different for a reason. Now, you may say the Bible instructs otherwise. To me, whether biblically inspired or not, *that* is a very narrow minded and intolerant approach to the facts of life. But that is the problem with our faiths. And that difference in political philosophy if grounded in our different faiths, is to me, why religion in government is inherently unworkable and dangerous because of its tendency toward divisiveness.
More on your response to my opinion of your Opinions coming.
Uh, oh.....
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment