|
I agree with Joel's
powerful remarks. If members of a particular religion are obligated to
share the good news, but they also recognize there are basic constitutional
reasons in a pluralistic democracy for placing limits on (virtually)
confrontational "sharing" or if not limits seeking indirect ways of
sharing, then let them share the good news by example. If love is a basis
religious value, then share the good news by loving others. And, of course, it's
question begging to insist that what the student or adult does when he tells a
Jewish kid he's going to Hell. I think Paul got it right when he insisted that
moral (religious) requirements to convert me away from Judaism to Cristiantity,
can only be explained by enmity towards the Jewish religion, and therfore to me
or to my basisc self-definition. That can't, in my view, be an
_expression_ of love and respect for me. Sometimes loving and respecting me as an
autonomous human being means letting me go to Hell, in your view, by being
dedicated to my own religion.
Bobby
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.
