I note with some interest that in a recent piece on the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Mariazell in Austria, includes a statement to the effect that progressive Catholics might not like the Holy Father's "proselytizing for the traditions of the faith." I seriously doubt that the word as used can be fairly said to be pejorative.
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 5:13 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: "But that's what it MEANS" I agree with Mr. Linden to a certain extent -- that if an identifiable group considers a term offensive, others should in general respect their desire that it not be used. But the word "proselityzation" does not identify a group in the same way that Chrisitan, or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, or Black does. To say "someone shared the spirit with me" is cryptic jargon known only to those ina particular community that talks that way. Steve On 9/8/07, Will Linden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he > considers the "accurate" denotational meaning of words, we should ignore > connotations. > > I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling > "cults" by proclaiming what they say is an "accurate" and "objective" > meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect > between their "accurate" "scientific" usage and the real world's use of the > word as a bogeyman label. > > I doubt that Jamar would accept the "accuracy" criterion in regard to > the "fat Jewess" reference I cited. > > As for something being an "accurate description of their > behavior"..... precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied > to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in > the "religion" box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be > indignantly "corrected" if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are > "proselytizing" for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who > engage in "face to face confrontations", even abuse ones, to demand that I > change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of > leisure activities. > > What about people who insist that "Jew" is ipso facto "offensive", > and insist on "Jewish person" instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten > us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over > Google search rankings and jewwatch.com > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- Prof. Steven Jamar Howard University School of Law _______________________________________________ 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
