| Brad, I'm not generally very persuaded by "slippery slope" arguments. We always need to draw lines between what is ok and what is not. I am one who thinks the international norms of hate speech should be followed here and that we can draw the line sufficiently toward the really bad end of the spectrum to avoid the parade of horribles or from going down the slippery slope. I think Bobby Lifkin made the point much more eloquently than I in his post responding to Rick's. I do not misunderstand the motivation of the witnessing evangelical Christian. But from my lights the evangelical Christian ought to understand how some others will perceive his or her witnessing and in a civil pluralistic society ought to show more respect for others than what we often see or hear or get from evangelicals. But regulating this sort of mutual misunderstanding and miscommunication and the dissonance and "strife" that arises from it is not the stuff of law. In any event, I was responding to Rick's post, not setting up a paradigm of best ways of approaching these issues. I believe in responding with a compassionate attitude toward those who say I am damned -- and to assume that they in fact are acting out of love and concern and respect, almost no matter how aggressively or even abusively they present themselves and how closed they are in return. Indeed, it was a curiosity to me one time that I was, in the words of my client, "chosen by God," to represent them (fundamentalist evangelical Christians). I felt obliged to explain how I was an athiest and disagreed with many of their interpretations of the Bible and even much of what they were doing, as a matter of policy. But, as a matter of constitutional law, I thought they were right. Interestingly to me, I showed them a way I thought we could win the case on other grounds, but they said that they were, through that case (or series of cases), "witnessing for Jesus" and required that we present the case only on constitutional religious freedom grounds. People who say others are damned ought to understand that they are going to be perceived (generally legitimately in my view) as intolerant of the beliefs of the person they are saying is damned. Saying this as an interpersonal truth or psychological truth does not transmute it into a legal principle. Steve On Aug 4, 2005, at 12:14 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:
-- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8428 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar "Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man." - Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963 |
_______________________________________________ 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.
