Date: Tue Nov 04 20:02:53 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Conceptual Bigamy
Are you SURE you're a right wing fanatic Christian whacko? This was a great email! I think there must be a liberal hidden away in you trying to get out. ; )
At 07:13 PM 11/4/97, you wrote:
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. ; )
OK, with that qualifier, I'll know how to receive it. If I tender a legal argument and am met with personal opinion, I'm likely to think I'm still in the legal arena and would then begin to dissect the opinion, not knowing you've switched forums on me, which would then be received as a personal attack, when it wasn't.
And yes, I HAD noticed the reduction in biblical references. Thanks for the handicap. ; )
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?
It's not just cleverness to compete with. It's a different mind set in analytical problem solving. Interesting question about whether you can talk to Rob the man and not talk to the lawyer at the same time. I've been accused far too often in personal relationships of not being able to separate the two, although I've tried fairly successfully to do so in this marriage over the last few years. I AM a lawyer 24 hours a day, seven days a week. But I used to be worse, much worse.
Hey, why can't I use labels and political swipes? You do.
Do I really? I thought about that after I'd emailed it and realized what I've said about Moore and the "Christian right" or how I've said it could be considered labels and swipes. It was you though that started this with the question about what the rabbi said of the threat from the Christian right. I tried to use specific examples of how and why, not make generalizations other than necessary to further the examples. I'll have to contemplate to what degree I do make labels, but I like to think I've not done so. It's just kinda' anathema to me. That's why even favorable ones like "the chosen people" rubbed me wrong or made me uncomfortable.
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!
Hee Hee. But how'd I do anticipating the approach of what you were going to say?
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!
Guilty as charged, it is very difficult for me to step out of the lawyer role. That's why it's so important to define the rules of the game up front. In law, evidence is judged by three criteria: relevance, materiality and competence. What I was saying was that the "facts" you would tender might be admissible, but they may or may not carry the same weight you'd want ascribed. Oops, playing lawyer again.
“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.
Let's not jump in the game before we know the rules, but we're making tremendous strides here! The questions weren't designed to be clever for their own sake, more to hold the mirror up for you so you can see what I see. I'm really glad to hear you say you find them difficult to ignore. When I wasn't getting answers I was afraid you found them too tough to confront honestly and were just dismissing them for that reason.
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.
Perfect. That's great! Although I don't see how you can express your personal opinion without comparing philosophies. But that's OK. See, if you do that I know what playing field we're on. You can share, I can share. No winners or losers. This is major headway stuff here. Forgive the generalization, but you always had the advantage over the majority of the "right" that I've encountered anyway. And look at what you're doing. Breaking the discussion down into topic areas of presumptions, assertions and methods. Perfect. Beautiful. That's the "defining common terms" concept that we talked about early on. And it doesn't have to be a legal debate. The approach is the same whether it's philosophical, personal, political, whatever. Oh, we're onto something now.
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.
Outstanding!!! Now, most people at this juncture throw their hands up and walk away in disgust, both sides. Recognizing this point and not walking away is half the battle. You've just recognized the inherent conflict in ... most conflicts that involve a linear as opposed to a plane approach. So.... we look for that point out in space on which we can both agree and work there from our respective positions.
For example, can you find a way, using your view of history and the Bible to justify the ends I seek, namely: freedom from government sponsored, promoted or endorsed religion? At the same time, can I find a way, using law, and my understanding of constitutional principles, where individuals who happen to be in a government setting can express their personal religious beliefs so that government is not perceived as outright hostile to religion in general? We may have some stops and starts, but that could be an approach.
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?
Oooh, now who's getting clever on who? It's a good thought, but are we talking constitutional principles, legislative mandate, or judicial fiat? Y'know legislative mandate is going to be majority rules, judicial fiat is supposed to merely implement interpretation of the law. Constitutional interpretation is, of course, what we've been dancing around for some time. Recent events may make us both hesitant to agree on the terms of this one. Watch the news tonight and read the papers tomorrow.
I learned just before leaving work that Judge Moore has today orchestrated a direct confrontation on the school prayer issue with Judge DeMent, by declaring that the state school board can not implement Judge DeMent's DeKalb County decree in Etowah County. He's put the state school board in the middle between a state court and a federal court. Now, I told you I had problems with DeMent's order, and today I told Bill Pryor that I thought it was overbroad and easily challenged on appeal. I offered my thoughts and assistance. Why? Because I believe in the rule of law, even when the judge is wrong (for the right reason). We were handling it just fine and Judge Moore has now jumped in the middle just daring the federal court to make him a martyr. There are significant supremacy clause issues that Moore is toying with. Whether you agree with DeMent or not, Moore has just declared he's above the law. It's an invitation to lawlessness. And mark my words, someone will get hurt or killed. It was unnecessary for him to do that. We were taking care of it. Foolish man.
Oops, someone turned on soapbox mode. [Soapbox mode off.] Anyway, my mind is bulging trying to anticipate the legal possibilities of where this is going to go in the next week or so. And ultimately that becomes the question: how we reconcile the rule of law with some men's interpretations of the law of God.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment