|
Jim confuses descriptions
with proper names. Such terms as "pro-life," "fundamentalist," and "abominable
and detestable crime against nature" are descriptions of people or their
positions on various issues. My recent post about respect takes no stand on
Jim's concern about such descriptions.
Proper names, such as "the
Democratic Party" or "the Republican Party" do not describe; they are
appellations which refer to a particular person or group of people. If the
Republican Party, at some future date, became committed to socialism, the name
"the Republican Party" would still be its name, unless changed by the Party.
Names cannot be falsified as can descriptions. "The White House" may have
started out as a description, but it has become a name. As I recall, the
White House is a pale or light gray not white, but I'll repudiate this
claim if challenged.
In my view, everyone
deserves an elementary form of respect, one that includes a presumption for
honoring the names they wish to be called. This does not apply to the
descriptions they use, although respect still applies to them as
people, it need not carry over to their descriptions of various
constitutional, political, or social positions. Indeed, my devout Christian
friends insist that Christians should love even detestable people, though
not their detestable conduct. But if love applies to detestable people, I would
think an elementary form of respect would also.
Jim's heated post is
fighting a battle in which I, in no way, engaged. My post simply replied
to Ann's post challenging, as I understood it, the grammatical defense of
requiring the adjective "Democratic" in "the Democratic Party." My reply is that
the grammatical argument is only one argument in favor of using that
term. Respect for an individual or a groups' choice of names is
another. "Respect" is the correct word, in my view, because presuming to
honor a person's choice of names (not necessarily her choice of
descriptions), in my weltanshaung, is not earned but presumed.
I remain Bobby, and hope you will honor my choice of "Bobby" as the
name I wish you to use generally when referring to me. I also
describe myself as "remarkably handsome," but alas that description can
be falsified and so using "Bobby" does not, regrettably, require you to
respect that description. Thanks.
Robert Justin
Lipkin
Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ 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.
