|
In a message dated 7/21/2005 10:51:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry over to using the name they chose. This thread seems to have little to do with the law of religion.
And I announced that I had done with it.
But this argument carries no water and can't be confused for one that
does.
Respect is a thing earned, not donated. George Washington earned the
respect of a nation before taking the helm as Chief Magistrate. Many
modern political leaders in our nation act as though respect is due TO THEM
because of the office they hold. They are frustrated when they learn that
the American people do not pass out respect for others like donuts at a church
social.
Also to the point is the self-examination demanded by your standard.
For example, do the readers of this list really refer to persons who
would amend the Constitution to permanently, forever and in all case bar
legalized abortion as "pro life?" I can't say whether they do
or don't. Each knows where the term falls
in his personal lexicon. Certainly the "pro life" movement has
faced a considerable uphill struggle in having their identifier of choice --
"pro life" -- pass into the news reporting and commentary lexicon, a struggle
difficult to understand when we recall that two centuries of our common national
history, abortionist were trusted even less than snake oil salesmen or
carpetbaggers.
And Richard Duncan also hits home with his question about the
"fundamentalist" appellation. To whom do you apply it? At their
preference? Because of administrative convenience? As a tactical
device to minimize and marginalize?
And what about the "abominable and detestable crime against nature"?
Must those who oppose same-sex marriage and legalization of homosexual conduct
be required to apply gladsome or neutral terminology when speaking
about those who engage in such acts?
And finally, how am I to respect a collective of individuals (those
Democrats) who have concluded that they must apply a pro-abortion litmus
test for its national leaders, major candidates, platform speakers, etc.?
I suppose it is technically feasible. But to say that it grates would
minimize the profound dyspepsia induced by such misarticulations.
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu 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.
