RE: Assaults on the England language
Shouldn't your second rationale lead you to oppose the word "Democrat" in all instances, including as a noun? I don't know what you would put in its place, but if the word "Democrat" is less mellifluous, that finding would obviously apply to the noun form. In fact, one might be more concerned about its use as a noun (very common) than as an adjective (quite a bit more rare). Best, Stuart Buck From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics , "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" CC: Douglas Laycock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Assaults on the England language Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 18:18:50 + Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it (although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective: They're addressing the public, and they couldn't care less how we Democrats respond to the term. As I understand it, "Democrat" is used as an adjective for two related reasons: First, McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive* connotations that are associated with the word "democratic." Second, apparently numerous surveys have shown that audiences hear the word "Democrat" as much less mellifulous, and harsher, than "democratic." Something about connotations with words such as "bureaucrat" and "technocrat." Audiences cringe when they hear the ending hard "t" much more than when the word ends in "tic." Or so I've been told. > ___ > 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. << message3.txt >> ___ 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. _ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ ___ 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.
RE: Judeo-Christian?
Here is an article on the origin of "Judeo-Christian Tradition": http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_JC.htm It is a quite recent phenomenon. Whatever language Scalia may use, I think that the politically correct version now to include Islam is "Abrahamic Tradition". *Howard M. Friedman Disting. Univ. Professor EmeritusUniversity of Toledo College of LawToledo, OH 43606-3390 Phone: (419) 530-2911, FAX (419) 530-4732 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Marty LedermanSent: Thu 7/21/2005 12:05 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Judeo-Christian? And anyway, the proper formulation is now "Judeo-Christian-Islam," the better to distinguish us from the other 2.3% of "believers." See Scalia, J., dissenting in McCreary County. - Original Message - From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
RE: The Test Oath and Confirmations
Shameless self-promotion: I wrote about some of these issues in "The Confrontation of Religoius Faith and Civil Religion: Catholics Becoming Justices," 39 DePaul L. Rev. 1047 (1990), reprinted in Levinson, Wrestling With Diversity (2003). Roberts is Catholic, and the Church is increasingly interventionist re the views of Catholics who hold public office. There have been some suggestions that Catholic civil servants in Spain should simply refuse to cooperate in enforcing the new gay- and lesbian-marriage laws that were recently passed there. Scalia has written an article, "God's Justice and Ours," First Things, May 2002, at 17-21 (discussed in Wrestling With Diversity pp. 252-255), in which he suggests that he would feel a duty to resign if the Church had really and truly condemned capital punishment and made it the equivalent of abortion, but, fortunately from his point of view, he thinks that it hasn't and, therefore, he doesn't need to resign. Many persons of faith, including, among others, Bill Clinton, say things like "Those of us who have faith should frankly admit that we are animated by that faith, that we try to live by it--and that it does affect what we feel, what we think, and what we do." (See Fred Barnes, "Rev. Bill," The New Republic, Jan. 3, 1994, discussed in Wrestling With Diversity at 242). So why, precisely, is it inappropriate to ask persons what the linkage is between whatever religious faith they might have and their conception of their political duties? I think it is fair to say that the "No Test Oath" clause had much more to do with demands that one swear allegiance to particular theological tenets like the Trinity than with a general imperative that religion never be treated as relevant (especially if the person, like Clinton, has suggested that it IS relevant). I have no idea at all whether Roberts has ever said anything public about his religious faith. If he hasn't, then I'd probably stay away, though, with respect, I think it is the Catholic Church that has made it relevant, once more, to ask the kinds of questions that were directed at Brennan and other Catholic nominees about their willingness to "defy" the views of the Church. It might well be best, on rule utilitarian grounds, simply to stay away from questions about religion. But this view, I believe, has almost nothing to do with the No Test Oath Clause. sandy ___ 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.
Re: The Test Oath and Confirmations
Now you are back to a constitutional religionlaw issue. Thanks. The constitutional prohibition relates to public office AND public trust. The Founding Fathers' only religion commandment: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Art. 6., Sec. 3.). The line is crossed at any point in respect to any religion test for any office or public trust under the United States. (Just to avoid a grammar discussion, "religion" can be an adjective or a noun; just like "basketball.") The only appropriate questions for a judiciary committee must relate to the words of the Constitution, which does include the words of the religion commandments of the Constitution. Of course every candidate for any office or public trust can be asked about his acceptance of the Constitution as written because it is the supreme law of the land to which the Founding Fathers demand a sworn oath or affirmation, Art. 1.(8), including the religion commandment in the original text drafted by the Founding Fathers and the religion commandment added by the First Congress via the First Amendment. All of which is why upon entering this discussion, I grounded my entrance by citing the primary source document written by the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, Jr., known as "Detached Memoranda." As everyone knows, James Madison, Jr., personally helped word both the Constitution and the First Amendment (co-chair of the six-member joint Senate-House conference committee which produced the final draft of its wording). If there is a primary source authority, it is James Madison, Jr. The Constitution's religion commandments obviously forbid any test (questions) relating to a candidate's personal religion, regardless of which brand or of none. However, it is certainly not improper for confirmation committees to attempt to determine if a candidate will uphold the actual wording of the Constitution, which clearly commands "no religious test" and no law respecting an establishment of "religion," which commandments, in the words of James Madison, Jr., strongly guard "separation between Religion and Government" (William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555). Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any thoughts on when the line is crossed? Is it only, as the Constitution demands on its face, at the point when such an oath is tendered to the putative office-holder? Why may the Senate Judiciary Committee inquire into the religion of John Roberts? When may it do so? Does it matter that a nominee adheres to a major world religion versus a personality cult? If it does, how does the gravity of that consideration get fair play when no religious test may be administered? Remember that Harry Reid, the Democratic Party's Senate Minority Leader, several years ago, claimed the senatorial authority to conduct an inquest into the religion of nominee John Ashcroft. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Judeo-Christian?
I think it is fair to say that there is no "Islamic-Christian tradition" historically and, in any deep sense, is not now, though there was a deep and extremely rich Judeo-Islamic tradition prior to the disastrous reconquest of Spain and the forced expulsion of both Jews and Moslems by the triumphalist Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. The rise of the "Judeo-Christian-Moslem" nomenclature is explained entirely on politial grounds, involving the obviously increasing presence of Moslems within the United States and, just as importantly, their clustered location in such a strategic state as Michigan, just as the "Judeo-Christian tradition" was constructed after World War II as part of the attempt to overcome centuries of Christianity-linked anti-Semitism. One of the things that might be said to unite Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is monotheism (if one puts certain theological problems with the Trinity to one side). This is a problem, incidentally, with attempting to bring the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints into the pantheon, at least if Richard John Neuhuas was correct in a long and fascinating article in the March 2000 First Things, available, among other places, at http://www.irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html that argued that LDS theology is polytheistic. That won't really stop anyone, though, because all of this public nomenclature about "traditions" has to be understood on political grounds. To paragraphse Mae West, "Theology has nothing to do with it." sandy From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marty LedermanSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:20 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Judeo-Christian? Touche. Sorry for the (unintentional) slip. - Original Message - From: Ann Althouse To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Judeo-Christian? As long as we're obsessing about adjectives, should that be "Judeo-Christian-Islamic"? Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Marty Lederman wrote: And anyway, the proper formulation is now "Judeo-Christian-Islam," the better to distinguish us from the other 2.3% of "believers." See Scalia, J., dissenting in McCreary County. - Original Message - From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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 no
The Test Oath and Confirmations
Any thoughts on when the line is crossed? Is it only, as the Constitution demands on its face, at the point when such an oath is tendered to the putative office-holder? Why may the Senate Judiciary Committee inquire into the religion of John Roberts? When may it do so? Does it matter that a nominee adheres to a major world religion versus a personality cult? If it does, how does the gravity of that consideration get fair play when no religious test may be administered? Remember that Harry Reid, the Democratic Party's Senate Minority Leader, several years ago, claimed the senatorial authority to conduct an inquest into the religion of nominee John Ashcroft. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/21/2005 2:39:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This has nothing to do with religion law and has only to do with the desire to strike a pose. Let's move on to something that actually matters. Well, go read my posts. I did note that this was off topic. But don't confuse provoking discussion with seeking to draw attention to oneself. And while we're at it, don't confuse provoking discussion with intending offense. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it (although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective: They're addressing the public, and they couldn't care less how we Democrats respond to the term. As I understand it, "Democrat" is used as an adjective for two related reasons: First, McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive* connotations that are associated with the word "democratic." Second, apparently numerous surveys have shown that audiences hear the word "Democrat" as much less mellifulous, and harsher, than "democratic." Something about connotations with words such as "bureaucrat" and "technocrat." Audiences cringe when they hear the ending hard "t" much more than when the word ends in "tic." Or so I've been told. Marty, you're overthinking this. Jim uses "Democrat" as an adjective for one reason - to draw exactly this kind of attention to himself. He has all but admitted that in a message a little while ago in which he said, "Is my adherence to the Democrat Party label a glaring inconsistency? Indeed. And its glaring nature draws attention to it, often provoking discussion about why I choose to use the label." He's trying to provoke exactly this kind of reaction and everyone is dutifully jumping when he says jump. And this list has now spent the better part of 2 days giving it far more attention than it deserves. This has nothing to do with religion law and has only to do with the desire to strike a pose. Let's move on to something that actually matters. Ed Brayton No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/21/2005 2:20:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First, McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive* connotations that are associated with the word "democratic." Do you equate anyone that uses the term "Democrat" today as the modern day counterpart of McCarthy? Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
Actually, I don't think giving or taking offense has much to do with it (although offense certainly is taken). Indeed, Republic Party folks aren't even addressing their Democratic counterparts when they use the adjective: They're addressing the public, and they couldn't care less how we Democrats respond to the term. As I understand it, "Democrat" is used as an adjective for two related reasons: First, McCarthy and his modern-day counterparts wish to deny Democrats the *positive* connotations that are associated with the word "democratic." Second, apparently numerous surveys have shown that audiences hear the word "Democrat" as much less mellifulous, and harsher, than "democratic." Something about connotations with words such as "bureaucrat" and "technocrat." Audiences cringe when they hear the ending hard "t" much more than when the word ends in "tic." Or so I've been told. > ___ > 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. --- Begin Message --- Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stuart BUCKSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:23 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Assaults on the England languageI.e., is it the case that people take offense at "Democrat Party" for absolutely no reason other than that offense is intended, and that correspondingly people use "Democrat Party" sheerly for the purpose of causing offense? Precisely. Douglas Laycock --- End Message --- ___ 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.
Re: Judeo-Christian?
If I recall correctly, Arthur Cohen wrote a book "The Myth Of The J-Christian Tradition" deploring this phrase and pointing out it came from Enlightenment folks who hated Christians and Jews. For Christians, a better phrase is "Hebrew-C Tradition," meaning Old and New Testament. God bless you all. John Lofton, recovering Republican, GodFamilyRepublic.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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Stuart BUCKSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:23 PMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: Assaults on the England languageI.e., is it the case that people take offense at "Democrat Party" for absolutely no reason other than that offense is intended, and that correspondingly people use "Democrat Party" sheerly for the purpose of causing offense? Precisely. Douglas Laycock ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
"England" is a counterexample, but nouns are quite often used as adjectives. One can properly say, "California legislators" rather than "Californian legislators," or "New York police" rather than "New Yorker police." The phrase "Democrat Party" could be also read grammatically as "the party composed of Democrats," just as a "Parent and Teacher Association" would be an "association composed of parents and teachers." More generally, this may be because I'm completely unfamiliar with the history of the term, but I'm intrigued that it is possible either to (1) intend offense or (2) take offense at the use of the word "Democrat." What does "Democratic Party" actually *mean* that "Democrat Party" doesn't, or vice versa? Is this all merely a case of blowing a trivial semantic issue into a huge fight over no particular reason other than mutual escalation? I.e., is it the case that people take offense at "Democrat Party" for absolutely no reason other than that offense is intended, and that correspondingly people use "Democrat Party" sheerly for the purpose of causing offense? Or to put it another way, would anyone bother to take offense at the term "Democrat" if no offense had ever been intended (or would anyone bother to use the term if they didn't know that offense would be taken)? Best, Stuart Buck From: Ann Althouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:29:15 -0500 I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we say "women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective. Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Mark Graber wrote: I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to accept amendments. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/05 10:03 AM >>> I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only one you use? Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party or Xmas. But I am offended when the word "Fundamentalist" is used in an effort to marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who don't self-identify as "Fundamentalists." Another word that gets tossed around in circles like this is "homophobe" to describe reasonable folks who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, since we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words "extremist" and "outside the mainstream" used to describe reasonable conservatives like Roberts and Scalia. Cheers, Rick Duncan Eric Treene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as well. Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followers of Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters). Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer will come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years from now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party." Eric Treene (in my personal capacity). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Assaults on the England language At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like "Xtians"? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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 mess
Re: Civility versus Respect
In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:16:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I respectfully disagree, Jim. I was raised to show a set amount of respect to everyone. That level of repsect is subject to change depending on the recipient's behavior. And regardless of how low a person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively showing disrespect for their humanity. That way lies the Shoa and genocide. Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility. In between are abuse and discrimination. We all live in this society and the constant rubbing of human beings in the brownian motion of life demands the lubricant of good manners, civility, and respect. Without it, all our lives would be the worse. Kindly show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic party. I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature you request. And I respectfully disagree that respect, as the dictionaries define it, is due to everyone. "Deferential regard." Again, perhaps this reflects internal inconsistencies in my thoughts and practices. My children, the youths in my church group, the students I teach, the attorneys across from whom I have practiced, all will tell you, I believe, that I treat people decently, that I am not a "taker," that I give place to others, that I often model preferring others over myself in love and devotion. No, I am not perfect. In fact, this approach is a characteristic of my nature. But "deferential regard" is another matter entirely. When the flag of the United States is saluted with a performance of the National Anthem, I stand still with my hand on my heart. In major part that act of "deferential regard" reflects on the selfless devotion of those who gave for our liberty-blessed land the last full measure of their devotion. And, when the Pope speaks -- and I am not Catholic -- I listen in duly respectful silence and then consider his words. But I'll be dog-gonned if I am going to stand still and salute the flag of the Chicomms or the North Koreans. Some folks have purchased my respect by their labors, their faithful service, their self-sacrifice, their devotion to duty. Others than them, I recognize to be true objects of God's love and affection, and I treat them accordingly. But "deferential disregard" is not due to them. Nor, have I yet been responsible for Shoa or Holocaust, because those who see in every other person the object of God's love and affection need not respect the desire of others to be called right when they are wrong but they do no harm to those others for that reason. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Judeo-Christian?
Touche. Sorry for the (unintentional) slip. - Original Message - From: Ann Althouse To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: Re: Judeo-Christian? As long as we're obsessing about adjectives, should that be "Judeo-Christian-Islamic"? Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Marty Lederman wrote: And anyway, the proper formulation is now "Judeo-Christian-Islam," the better to distinguish us from the other 2.3% of "believers." See Scalia, J., dissenting in McCreary County. - Original Message - From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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. ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: Judeo-Christian?
As long as we're obsessing about adjectives, should that be "Judeo-Christian-Islamic"?AnnOn Jul 21, 2005, at 11:05 AM, Marty Lederman wrote: And anyway, the proper formulation is now "Judeo-Christian-Islam," the better to distinguish us from the other 2.3% of "believers." See Scalia, J., dissenting in McCreary County. - Original Message - From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: Civility versus Respect
In a message dated 7/21/2005 12:02:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: one that includes a presumption for honoring the names they wish to be called Now, here we agree. On the individual level, I absolutely adhere to this rule, Bobby. And I model it for my own children. Is my adherence to the Democrat Party label a glaring inconsistency? Indeed. And its glaring nature draws attention to it, often provoking discussion about why I choose to use the label. But if Rush Limbaugh wants me to call him El Maharushi, and if Albert Gore wants me to call him Al, then these are the names that I use. Jim "Born James, grew up Jamie, became Jim, just who am I?" Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
Point taken. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann AlthouseSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:44 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Assaults on the England language The correct adjective is "female," but people avoid it because they feel it has the wrong connotation. That's really the same thing you're seeing with those who avoid the adjective "Democratic" when referring to the party. And I'm on the side of calling people and groups what they want to be called -- unless I want to express contempt for them. And, really, that's what we're seeing here. I recommend only saying "Democrat Party" if you mean to express some serious contempt. For those who don't like it: that's the whole point! It's a taunt. And, to go back to this "woman" thing. Note that you don't say "men lawyers." Oh, look, Bush picked a man justice! That sounds subliterate or nutty. But we say, Bush failed to pick another woman justice, without even thinking of the lack of parallelism. What's with that? This sense that there's something wrong with using "female" ought to be examined. It reminds me of the way some people feel there's something wrong with calling someone a Jew. Might there not be an unexamined prejudice in there? Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote: But there isn't any corresponding adjective that serves the purpose. "Womanish lawyers," "womanly lawyers," or "feminine lawyers" would all mean something very different. "Female lawyers" is sometimes used, but sounds more clinical. Female is also used as both noun and adjective, and English is sufficiently flexible that a word like "women," which is usually a noun, can be pressed into service as an adjective and no listener or reader would be confused. The claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on the fact that with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearly differentiated the noun from the adjective. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we say "women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective. Ann ___ 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.
Re: Civility versus Respect
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Respect is a thing earned, not donated. I respectfully disagree, Jim. I was raised to show a set amount of respect to everyone. That level of repsect is subject to change depending on the recipient's behavior. And regardless of how low a person sinks, I will never follow them down to that level by actively showing disrespect for their humanity. That way lies the Shoa and genocide. Nearer to, there lies rudeness and incivility. In between are abuse and discrimination. We all live in this society and the constant rubbing of human beings in the brownian motion of life demands the lubricant of good manners, civility, and respect. Without it, all our lives would be the worse. Kindly show me the respect of refering to my party as the Democratic party. I'll return the favor by addressing you by the nomenclature you request. Sincerely, Jean Dudley ___ 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.
Judeo-Christian?
And anyway, the proper formulation is now "Judeo-Christian-Islam," the better to distinguish us from the other 2.3% of "believers." See Scalia, J., dissenting in McCreary County. - Original Message - From: Brad M Pardee To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:59 AM Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee ___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
Judeo-Christian does not (usually) refer to a person. It refers to a common tradition. It is undeniable that they have much of their tradition and morality in common. There is a REALLY thick book of ancient writings that both ascribe to as history and as moral teaching (though Christians would say there have been some updates). It would be silly to deny that there is this commonality of tradition. You could refer in the same way, I suppose, to the "Judeo-Christian-Mormon tradition," since Mormons accept the holy scriptures of Jews and Christians, and add more. "Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition" would also have some meaning, but would be more of a stretch, even though the Muslim tradition arguably arises out of Judaism and Christianity, because they don't accept the same scriptures. Sam Ventola Denver, Colorado On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no > such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are > not Jews. > This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or > rejection. It recalls a battle line that brewed below the surface, and then > boiled over, in the Petrine-Pauline disputes. Nonetheless, having > represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented > that they were "Jews" who believed in "Jesus," I have my doubts that your > categorical fiat must be right. > > On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are > the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus > is the promised Messiah are not Jews. > > Jim Henderson > Senior Counsel > ACLJ > ___ > 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.
Re: Civility versus Respect
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 LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
Another quibble. Whatever Xn means, James Madison used it. I have just been informed the link uchicago.edu does not work. Sorry. Just search "Detached Memoranda" and many sources are available. Gene Garman, M.Div. America's Real Religion americasrealreligion.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or rejection. It recalls a battle line that brewed below the surface, and then boiled over, in the Petrine-Pauline disputes. Nonetheless, having represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented that they were "Jews" who believed in "Jesus," I have my doubts that your categorical fiat must be right. On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah are not Jews. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
Gene Garman wrote: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. I think you are misconstruing the term. The term "Judeo-Christian", at least as I have seen it used, generally refers to a worldview drawn from that common ground which does exist between Judaism and Christianity. Nobody who uses the term Judeo-Christian does so assuming that there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian or that Jews and Christians are interchangable. Brad Pardee___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:38:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians are not Jews. This, of course, is a doctrinal formulation, calling for adoption or rejection. It recalls a battle line that brewed below the surface, and then boiled over, in the Petrine-Pauline disputes. Nonetheless, having represented Jews for Jesus, and having been told by those that I represented that they were "Jews" who believed in "Jesus," I have my doubts that your categorical fiat must be right. On the other hand, if the Israeli Supreme Court and the law of return are the definitional gold standard for who is a Jew, then Jews who believe Jesus is the promised Messiah are not Jews. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
The correct adjective is "female," but people avoid it because they feel it has the wrong connotation. That's really the same thing you're seeing with those who avoid the adjective "Democratic" when referring to the party. And I'm on the side of calling people and groups what they want to be called -- unless I want to express contempt for them. And, really, that's what we're seeing here. I recommend only saying "Democrat Party" if you mean to express some serious contempt. For those who don't like it: that's the whole point! It's a taunt.And, to go back to this "woman" thing. Note that you don't say "men lawyers." Oh, look, Bush picked a man justice!That sounds subliterate or nutty. But we say, Bush failed to pick another woman justice, without even thinking of the lack of parallelism. What's with that?This sense that there's something wrong with using "female" ought to be examined. It reminds me of the way some people feel there's something wrong with calling someone a Jew. Might there not be an unexamined prejudice in there? AnnOn Jul 21, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Douglas Laycock wrote:But there isn't any corresponding adjective that serves the purpose."Womanish lawyers," "womanly lawyers," or "feminine lawyers" would allmean something very different. "Female lawyers" is sometimes used, butsounds more clinical. Female is also used as both noun and adjective,and English is sufficiently flexible that a word like "women," which isusually a noun, can be pressed into service as an adjective and nolistener or reader would be confused. The claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on thefact that with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearlydifferentiated the noun from the adjective. Douglas LaycockUniversity of Texas Law School727 E. Dean Keeton St.Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax)-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Ann AlthouseSent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:29 AMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: Assaults on the England languageI like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to sayDemocrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we say"women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective.Ann___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
The quibble over language in this string: If any of you want to see use of
"Xn" in a sentence written by the "Father of the Constitution" you may click
on the following link:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI . Regardless, every
one of you should read James Madison's entire essay, "Monopolies, Perpetuities,
Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments." It is undated, but commonly dated
after Madison's leaving the Presidency (ca. 1817). It routinely gets ignored
by Supreme Court Justices and opponents of "separation between Religion and
Government" ("Detached Memoranda, William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555).
A wording which I find less acceptable is "Judeo-Christian." There is no
such thing as a Judeo-Christian. Jews are not Christians, and Christians
are not Jews. I apologize for not being a part of earlier discussion.
Gene Garman, M.Div.
America's Real Religion
americasrealreligion.org
Richard Dougherty wrote:
I agree entirely with Mark Graber; we have had fruitful discussions in the past about the use of terms such as "Judeo-Christian" and "totalitarian," and I think Rick's addition of terms such as fundamentalist and homophobic, as well as anti-choice or
anti-abortion might be thrown in the mix.
Richard Dougherty
Mark Graber wrote:
I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best
convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this
list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to
accept amendments.
MAG
___
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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/21/2005 11:25:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on thefact that with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearlydifferentiated the noun from the adjective. Which is another way of saying that if we keep hammering at the England language, eventually women can be made into an adjective. For that matter, as my personal hero, H. Dumpty so adequately explained, "Words mean precisely what I say they mean." Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
Civility versus Respect
In a message dated 7/21/2005 10:51:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And, again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry over to using the name they chose. This thread seems to have little to do with the law of religion. And I announced that I had done with it. But this argument carries no water and can't be confused for one that does. Respect is a thing earned, not donated. George Washington earned the respect of a nation before taking the helm as Chief Magistrate. Many modern political leaders in our nation act as though respect is due TO THEM because of the office they hold. They are frustrated when they learn that the American people do not pass out respect for others like donuts at a church social. Also to the point is the self-examination demanded by your standard. For example, do the readers of this list really refer to persons who would amend the Constitution to permanently, forever and in all case bar legalized abortion as "pro life?" I can't say whether they do or don't. Each knows where the term falls in his personal lexicon. Certainly the "pro life" movement has faced a considerable uphill struggle in having their identifier of choice -- "pro life" -- pass into the news reporting and commentary lexicon, a struggle difficult to understand when we recall that two centuries of our common national history, abortionist were trusted even less than snake oil salesmen or carpetbaggers. And Richard Duncan also hits home with his question about the "fundamentalist" appellation. To whom do you apply it? At their preference? Because of administrative convenience? As a tactical device to minimize and marginalize? And what about the "abominable and detestable crime against nature"? Must those who oppose same-sex marriage and legalization of homosexual conduct be required to apply gladsome or neutral terminology when speaking about those who engage in such acts? And finally, how am I to respect a collective of individuals (those Democrats) who have concluded that they must apply a pro-abortion litmus test for its national leaders, major candidates, platform speakers, etc.? I suppose it is technically feasible. But to say that it grates would minimize the profound dyspepsia induced by such misarticulations. Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ ___ 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
But there isn't any corresponding adjective that serves the purpose. "Womanish lawyers," "womanly lawyers," or "feminine lawyers" would all mean something very different. "Female lawyers" is sometimes used, but sounds more clinical. Female is also used as both noun and adjective, and English is sufficiently flexible that a word like "women," which is usually a noun, can be pressed into service as an adjective and no listener or reader would be confused. The claim of the people making the gramatical argument depends on the fact that with Democrat and Democratic, the language has clearly differentiated the noun from the adjective. Douglas Laycock University of Texas Law School 727 E. Dean Keeton St. Austin, TX 78705 512-232-1341 (phone) 512-471-6988 (fax) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Althouse Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 9:29 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Assaults on the England language I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we say "women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective. Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Mark Graber wrote: > I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe > best > convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this > list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding > whether to > accept amendments. > > MAG > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/05 10:03 AM >>> > I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters > when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did > you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you > abbreviate > lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use > the X > because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do > you > often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only > one you use? > > Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party > or Xmas. > > But I am offended when the word "Fundamentalist" is used in an > effort to > marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word > gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who > don't self-identify as "Fundamentalists." Another word that gets > tossed > around in circles like this is "homophobe" to describe reasonable > folks > who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, > since > we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words "extremist" > and "outside the mainstream" used to describe reasonable conservatives > like Roberts and Scalia. > > Cheers, Rick Duncan > > > > Eric Treene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes > used > an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was > told, > is > why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be > acceptable as > well. > > Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the > followers > of Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and > sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some > quarters). > Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer > will > come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years > from now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party." > > Eric Treene > (in my personal capacity). > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden > Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: Assaults on the England language > > > At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: > > >> I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all >> > that > >> surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with >> middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really >> having any discernable meaning and without being very clever >> > > Like "Xtians"? > > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 > > > ___ > 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 subscrib
Re: Assaults on the England language
I agree entirely with Mark Graber; we have had fruitful discussions in the past about the use of terms such as "Judeo-Christian" and "totalitarian," and I think Rick's addition of terms such as fundamentalist and homophobic, as well as anti-choice or anti-abortion might be thrown in the mix. Richard Dougherty Mark Graber wrote: > I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best > convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this > list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to > accept amendments. > > MAG ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
The grammatical argument is only one factor for saying the "Democratic Party" instead of "Democrat Party." What's dispositive, in my view, is that "Democratic Party" is the chosen name of a particular group of fellow citizens. And, again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry over to using the name they chose. I suppose there are exceptions to this rule. If, for instance, someone adopted a name for the express purpose of denigrating another individual or group of individuals, for example, if someone (presumably a non-Jew) asked to be called "Kike," the respect generally presumed should be overridden. But "Democratic" in "Democratic Party" doesn't remotely fall into that category. Bobby Robert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
I like the title of this thread "Assaults on the England language," which suggests the grammatical argument for why it's wrong to say Democrat Party. But if the grammatical point is so strong, why do we say "women lawyers"? "Women" isn't an adjective. Ann On Jul 21, 2005, at 9:20 AM, Mark Graber wrote: I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to accept amendments. MAG [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/05 10:03 AM >>> I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only one you use? Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party or Xmas. But I am offended when the word "Fundamentalist" is used in an effort to marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who don't self-identify as "Fundamentalists." Another word that gets tossed around in circles like this is "homophobe" to describe reasonable folks who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, since we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words "extremist" and "outside the mainstream" used to describe reasonable conservatives like Roberts and Scalia. Cheers, Rick Duncan Eric Treene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as well. Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followers of Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters). Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer will come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years from now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party." Eric Treene (in my personal capacity). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Assaults on the England language At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like "Xtians"? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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 a
RE: Assaults on the England language
I suppose the best solution is that we all use the words we believe best convey our meanings, keeping in mind the virtues of civility on this list. Others may challenge our usages, and we then deciding whether to accept amendments. MAG >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/05 10:03 AM >>> I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only one you use? Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party or Xmas. But I am offended when the word "Fundamentalist" is used in an effort to marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who don't self-identify as "Fundamentalists." Another word that gets tossed around in circles like this is "homophobe" to describe reasonable folks who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, since we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words "extremist" and "outside the mainstream" used to describe reasonable conservatives like Roberts and Scalia. Cheers, Rick Duncan Eric Treene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as well. Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followers of Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters). Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer will come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years from now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party." Eric Treene (in my personal capacity). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Assaults on the England language At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: >I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that >surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with >middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really >having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like "Xtians"? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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. Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 "When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/21/05 10:04:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? No, don't often use GREEK letter to shorten English words but do use a lot of abbreviations and don't spend at time at all, until this thread, analyzing where the abbreviations came from. Frances, whose daughter is currently taking New Testament Greek at Harvard (had to throw that in as it is, and is likely to remain, my only connection to the Greek language--LOL--that is, listening to someone tell me that Greek is MUCH harder than German, which was harder than French, which was harder than Spanish). ___ 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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
I think, as the Court likes to say in EC cases, that purpose matters when someone uses Xmas or Xtian instead of Christmas or Christian. Did you use the abbreviation merely as a shortcut (if so, did you abbreviate lots of other words in your sentence or paragraph), or did you use the X because you think the name of Christ is offensive to non-Xtians? Do you often use Greek letters to shorten English words? Or is this the only one you use? Frankly, my dears, I don't give a darn about words like Democrat Party or Xmas. But I am offended when the word "Fundamentalist" is used in an effort to marginalize a Baptist or a Methodist or an evangelical. And that word gets used on this list all the time to describe people, like Jim, who don't self-identify as "Fundamentalists." Another word that gets tossed around in circles like this is "homophobe" to describe reasonable folks who merely believe in traditional sexual morality. And, of course, since we now have a Supreme Court vacancy, we will see the words "extremist" and "outside the mainstream" used to describe reasonable conservatives like Roberts and Scalia. Cheers, Rick Duncan Eric Treene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes usedan X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, iswhy X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable aswell.Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followersof Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair andsometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters).Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer willcome into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 yearsfrom now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party."Eric Treene(in my personal capacity).-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will LindenSent: Wednesday,! July 20, 2005 4:32 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Assaults on the England languageAt 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote:>I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that>surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with>middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really>having any discernable meaning and without being very cleverLike "Xtians"?--No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, seehttp://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed asprivate. Anyone c! an subscribe to the list and read messages that areposted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly orwrongly) forward the messages to others.___To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduTo subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlawPlease 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.Rick Duncan Welpton Professor of Law University of Nebraska College of Law Lincoln, NE 68583-0902"When the Round Table is broken every man must follow either Galahad or Mordred: middle things are gone." C.S.Lewis, Grand Miracle"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, i! ndexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered." --The Prisoner__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.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.
RE: Assaults on the England language
I recall being taught in Sunday school that early Christians sometimes used an X to signify Christ, in order to avoid persecution. That, I was told, is why X-mas is perfectly acceptable. Xtians would seem to be acceptable as well. Indeed, the term Christian originated as a put-down applied to the followers of Christ (like the term "Christer" used by Madelyn Murry O'Hair and sometimes used by others to denigrate Christians today in some quarters). Christians eventually took on the label. Who knows, perhaps Christer will come into vogue among Christians. Language is funny that way. 50 years from now Democrats may prefer "Democrat party." Eric Treene (in my personal capacity). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Will Linden Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:32 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Assaults on the England language At 09:19 AM 7/20/05 -0500, you wrote: >I never associated Democrat Party with McCarthy, although I'm not all that >surprised to learn that he originated it. I always associated it with >middle school. It is intended to be somehow insulting without really >having any discernable meaning and without being very clever Like "Xtians"? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.2/53 - Release Date: 7/20/05 ___ 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.
Re: Assaults on the England language
In a message dated 7/20/05 11:10:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Like "Xtians"? "X" is, as I am sure you know, the Greek for Christ (if memory serves me right). Thus, "Xtian" is an abbreviation for Christian. Many years ago I used it in religion courses I took in college. In fact, a professor explained it to us. I remember another that was an oval with a line through it and represented "God." No doubt there are others in the field. Nowadays, I write SCt and abbreviate the name of the Supreme Court without disrespect to the institution it stands for. Are you telling us that abbreviations related to religions are disrespectful, per se? And that although I can use a sort of shorthand for all manner of secular subjects, I shouldn't for religious subjects because doing so is disrespectful. But we don't hear that using abbreviations for secular things is disrespectful of them. So it must be that religion is special, unique. And if it special, then it cannot simultaneously claim that it should be treated like everything else. Frances R. A. Paterson, J.D., Ed.D. Associate Professor Department of Educational Leadership Valdosta State University Valdosta, GA 31698 ___ 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.
