Re: Steven Williams Case - more factual information

[RJLipkin]

In a message dated 12/16/2004 9:20:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The word is used loosely often, this I grant, but there is a difference between teaching about and proselytization howsoever easily one can drift from one to the other if unwary or if not trying to avoid doing so.         Conceptually, Steve must be right. Right? To denigrate this distinction means that at least in principle, we can draw the distinction.  Of course, in fact the distinction might be difficult to apply or even susceptible to abuse, but the cases where what was thought to be an important (interesting, useful, etc.) distinction proves wrong are, I would think, rare.            So it goes with the distinction between "teaching" and "proselytizing." If both sides in a controversy accuse the other of proselytizing not teaching, it is unlikely that the distinction is meaningless or incoherent, or that its use is always partisan. One can, of course, counsel others not to use the distinction, or at least not to use it as a dispositive mechanism. But such counsel presupposes the intelligibility of the distinction, not its incoherence, and certainly not the inevitability of its abuse in public discourse.   Bobby     Robert Justin Lipkin Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.