Does the religious lawyering movement take issue with the adversarial system?
I can’t speak for all religions, but Christians at least would embrace the adversarial system as affording procedural protections consistent with non-negotiable notions of human dignity. A system built on the dispersal of authority is needed given the reality of human sin. But Christians believe that sin is structural, not just individual, so that we cannot short-circuit our own moral agency by turning a blind eye to institutional failure. In other words, Christians cannot use their narrow role within the system as the justification for turning a blind eye to specific instances of injustice perpetrated by the system. How do you view the standard account of legal ethics in the United States? Does it accommodate your approach? The formalized American legal ethics regime is fine as long as its scope and ambition are clearly understood. The codes provide a baseline of conduct for lawyers, period. Our approach to the codes becomes dangerous to the extent it facilitates lawyers’ (and clients
Related Questions
- How can you "diminish" the influence of Judeo-Christian religious symbols in the Golden Dawn system? Isn’t the Golden Dawn a form of esoteric Christianity?
- How does that-- you explained how the rule which affects the scientific conclusions, how does it affect the religious issue?
- Why is techno-eugenics an issue for the environmental movement?
