|
In a message dated 12/23/2004 10:07:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure why this should be relevant. If the term is typically used by a particular party in a certain type of context, then engage that party by asking him or her to explain the term's use, and then argue against this use if it's incorrect. Why not take this approach rather than seeming to disable the term even when used to describe conversations about religion between neighbors? It depends upon what your
mean by such an approach "working." Of course, words can be (and are) used
to wound. And so it is with the word âcult.â The user might use it to denigrate
deliberately, even viciously. The
standard forms of hate speech ânigger,â âkike,â âfag,â you know the drill, in
most contexts are simply used as weapons to wound. When you call me a âkikeâ
your goal, in all probability, is simply to hurt me. It is not to engage me in a debate the
goal of which is to persuade me about something or to arrive at some new
position we might both embrace. In the normal course of debate, calling me a
âkikeâ is a âconversation-stopperâ if anything is. Or maybe worse. It is
difficult to see how the term can be rehabilitated or how we can reconstruct
this verbal attack to anything we might both embrace.
This is not the case, in my view, with the term âcult.â Referring to someone's religion as a cult is predicated on the belief that the religion is illegitimate or radically unorthodox in some way. That belief is the basis for new understanding if our goal is to try to reconstruct our ordinary discourse, and to reach a new understanding. It opens up the possibility, if both parties engage in discourse sincerely, of achieving a new understanding or at least a partially new understanding. It opens up debate about orthodoxy and tradition in religion. Since most religions were at one time unorthodox and nontraditional, if calling someone's religion a âcultâ means this, everyone's religion was at one time or another a cult. Realizing this is helpful to the parties in a sincere exchange over orthodoxy and tradition in religion. Sure the term can also be used as hate speech. But if we are ever able to rehabilitate American discourse, to turn it away from its present course, so that positions are not entrenched, that is, frozen in partisan implacability, such attempts are worthwhile, in my view, even with the term âcult.â Ask the speaker what he or she means by âcult.â Determine for yourself whether it is used as hate speech or is a misguided, even negligently misguided, point about the evolution of religions. See for yourself whether this is possible.
My point is more than simply defending the terms "proselytize" or "cult." I think we need to discover ways to rehabilitate problematic terms, or particular uses of unproblematic terms, so that our public discourse can begin the arduous, some might say quixotic, task of revivifying deliberation about fundamentally important issues in American deliberative democracy. If you believe that our current discourse is radically distorted, impoverished and probably inimical to consensus (or to understanding the depth and nature of our disagreement), you might want to join the attempt to rehabilitate and reconstruct our differences. If you don't believe this or if you don't care about understanding, you probably won't want to join this attempt.
Bobby Robert Justin
Lipkin
Professor of Law Widener University School of Law Delaware |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
