Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 16:56:34
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re:
Rob,
I've reread your legal opinions and am prepared to respond, if you REALLY want my non-legal opinion. WARNING: It won't be pretty.
Regards,
Frank
Date: Tue Nov 04 16:39:36 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Conceptual Bigamy
At 04:56 PM 11/4/97, you wrote:
I've reread your legal opinions and am prepared to respond, if you REALLY want my non-legal opinion. WARNING: It won't be pretty.
It's entirely up to you. Pretty? Turnabout is fair play I suppose. I don't think I could deny you an opportunity to voice your reactions.
When you say "non-legal opinion," are you saying merely not "educated in the law" and you'll be attempting, layman that you are, to reply to the legal arguments I raise? Or are you saying "non-legal" meaning you'll not be using legal arguments, but instead relying on the Bible as your primary source of authority?
As to the first, I try real hard not to "pull rank" as a lawyer on you, and give you slack in that department, but if you're going to venture into my domain, I'll expect you to play by the rules. That means no personal or political swipes at "liberals" or "activist judges." No sweeping generalizations either about the moral decline of our nation. I'd also expect to be permitted to reply to yours, and that this may take us back and forth a few times.
As to the second, then you should preface your remarks with the acknowledgment that you'll not be making legal arguments, but religious, philosophical, social and political statements. If so, I'll reserve the right not to reply, discretion and valor and all that. However, if that is your approach, I would hope for credibility sake that you'll incorporate answers to all the questions I've tendered you over the months.
As to either, be forewarned that arguments predicated in "historical precedent," original intent, public opinion, or calls to patriotism will be met with considerable skepticism, try as I shall to view them objectively.
If the rules are clear, then it's your serve.....
Date: Tue, 04 Nov 1997 19:13:22
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Conceptual Bigamy
“I've reread your legal opinions and am prepared to respond, if you REALLY want my non-legal opinion. WARNING: It won't be pretty.” It's entirely up to you. Pretty? Turnabout is fair play I suppose. I don't think I could deny you an opportunity to voice your reactions.
Let me give it some consideration. Perhaps I can say it in a less vitriolic and less personal way. Not that I'm worried about what you would say in return, I just want to be as kind as I can and not risk damaging our friendship.
When you say "non-legal opinion," are you saying merely not "educated in the law" and you'll be attempting, layman that you are, to reply to the legal arguments I raise? Or are you saying "non legal" meaning you'll not be using legal arguments, but instead relying on the Bible as your primary source of authority?
My use of "non-legal opinion" really meant "personal opinion" based on my knowledge, experience, personal standards of conduct, sense of what is right and wrong, and gut level emotions. As you may have noticed, I have not been making references to the Bible lately. I realize that if it is accepted as truth, you would find yourself at a disadvantage. I'm giving
you a break. ; )
As to the first, I try real hard not to "pull rank" as a lawyer on you, and give you slack in that department, but if you're going to venture into my domain, I'll expect you to play by the rules. That means no personal or political swipes at "liberals" or "activist judges." No sweeping generalizations either about the moral decline of our nation. I'd also expect to be permitted to reply to yours, and that this may take us back and forth a few times.
Oh, I know I can't compete with your cleverness. Hey, it's your job. But I thought we were communicating friend to friend, not lawyer to layman in these basic philosophical discussions!?! My hope is to talk to Rob, the man, the American, not Mr. Weinberg the lawyer. Can we?
Hey, why can't I use labels and political swipes? You do. Do you have ESP? Have you been reading my "mail" before I send it? Shucks! Not being able to call them by their first name takes a lot of the fun out of it! Oh, yes. I'm a Christian. I've got to play by the rules and be nice! I'll try, but thank God I can be forgiven if I fail! ; )
As to the second, then you should preface your remarks with the acknowledgment that you'll not be making legal arguments, but religious, philosophical, social and political statements. If so, I'll reserve the right not to reply, discretion and valor and all that. However, if that is your approach, I would hope for credibility sake that you'll incorporate answers to all the questions I've tendered you over the months.
I'll try to put the appropriate disclaimer in the header.
As to either, be forewarned that arguments predicated in "historical precedent," original intent, public opinion, or calls to patriotism will be met with considerable skepticism, try as I shall to view them objectively.
Hey, if you declare the facts to be inadmissable, you've defined the argument decidedly in your favor! Methinks you find it difficult to step out of the lawyer role. You want to play with loaded dice!
If the rules are clear, then it's your serve.....
The rules aren't clear. But I guess it is still my serve. Perhaps I'll take a time out to study your proposed rules, look over your (cleverly designed) questions again (You know that I find them difficult to ignore), and consider the discretion and valor stuff a little more.
Rob, I just think you are wrong in (some of) your presumptions, your assertions, and your methods with respect to the general prayer issue. As a citizen, but more importantly, as friend, I'd just like to explain to you why I think so. I don't even want this to be a philosophical argument. I don't win or lose, by saying what is on my mind; expressing my personal opinion. My hope is that you would consider my opinion as representative as that of a large percentage of Alabamians, and somehow use that understanding to better serve all of us. I'd like it to be constructive criticism. If you are not willing to accept it in that light, it is probably not worth my time to write it and your time to read it.
The problem is, we have no common basis of agreement. If I quote the Bible or history, you discount it. When you quote some of the contemporary legal decisions, I find them totally baseless. My assumption early on was that we could both agree on at least the Old Testament scriptures. Where do we go from here? Can we agree that if it is government decree, law, or policy, that it is okay and we citizens should be good citizens and honor, respect, and obey those in authority over us? Can we agree with that statement without dispute?
Man! This trying to fix the world's problems is heavy! }: )
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment