|
In a message dated 12/17/2004 12:20:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If its importance is not
subject to dispute, then why the fuss? Many distinctions, dichotomies, and
terms may in certain circumstances distort discourse. Why not just
view "proselytizing" as one more term to explicate and argue about. In other
words, rather than insist that some terms are inevitably used pejoratively and
accordingly steer the conversation away from rationality, include these terms in
the conversation and deliberate about whether they are useful or not.
I had a neighbor, who
characterized himself as "a born again Christian." Knowing that I am
Jewish, he one day presented me with literature from "Jews for Jesus." He
explained to me his reasons for doing so, and I told him that I've thought about
religion a great deal, even taught the philosophy of religion, and I have
well-decided beliefs on the matter and essentially concluded thanks but no
thanks. Our "good neighbor" relationship was none the worse--indeed, it probably
became richer--as a result of this episode. Had he pursued his religious
inclinations to convert me, or had I persisted in challenging
his convictions, our relationship might not have withstood the test of
time. But neither one of us pursued his inclinations in this regard, and
in my view, that's the way it should be.
Bobby
Robert Justin
Lipkin
Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.
