On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:00 PM, Stephen R. Prescott, Esq. wrote: It seems to me that the suit seeks far more than a ban on "involuntary" conversion. It seeks to ban attempts to convert or prostylize OR attempting "to involuntarily convert . . ." It looks like the plaintiff contents that any attempt to convert or prostylize (I think that is what chaplains do) is per se off limits. Short of a gun the head, attempting to "involuntarily convert" is an oxymoron.
Not at all. Look at the word "attempt." "I'm going to try to convert you whether you want me to or not" -- is not an oxymoron -- it happens every day. I doubt that the real objective of the plaintiff is to prevent attempts at involuntary conversion.
Why? Why is it likely at all that the "real objective" is to "compel silence from any person with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees? The relief requested is far from that and I have never ever seen the ACLU or others in these suits seeking to silence people to that extent! To prevent them from using their positions of authority in a coercive manner -- yes -- and to prevent them from exposing a compelled audience from proselytizing, yes. But silencing? No.
As to the grammar -- I guess one who is suspicious could read it the way you do -- I guess I read them all as just examples of involuntary exposure to unwanted attempts at conversion.
While I think with Brad I have mostly a semantic problem, it seems to me that Mr. Prescott and I have such radically different world views that it is much more. The point is not just religious services -- it is all the other encounters too. If the only goal of the suit is to prevent service men and women from being forced to attend religious services against their will - I doubt if anyone on this list would disagree. However, it appears to be an attempt to compel silence from any person with whose religious views the plaintiff disagrees.
Wow! This is quite a stretch! Steve Prescott
From: Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: Air Force sued over religious intolerance
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:14:09 -0400
Brad,
let me quote what you quoted: On Oct 6, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:
2) The lawsuit "asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting 'to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty.'"
emphasis added by me.
Isn't this exactly the standard you are asking for? Does it not allow voluntary discussions of the type you want?
I also think you are overestimating the internal strength of most people, armed forces leaders included, if you think a senior cadet or any teacher is not in an inherently superior position to a new recruit, or even another student peer. I think you may also be underestimating the effect of years of propaganda on even the most internally focused person. People can be persuaded by constant refrain of many heinous things, let alone by more seemingly benign promises of salvation.
Steve
-- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
"In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on."
Robert Frost
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
-- 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
"For all men of good will May 17, 1954, came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of enforced segregation. . . . It served to transform the fatigue of despair into the buoyancy of hope."
Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1960 on Brown v. Board of Education
|
_______________________________________________
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.
