Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
Don't forget discriminating. Although sometimes some people use words to label another's views negatively, or at least in the sense of I disagree, that is not the only (or main) way those same words are used outside the political arena, or at least inside academic or serious discussion groups. If one goes too far down the philosopher's game of trying to define every word and every nuance of every word and every possible interpretation of every possible word or if one goes too far down the pop-psyche game of seeing the psychological bias or motive behind each word, substantive communication becomes nearly impossible, or so tedious that many will be excluded from it. I think we can agree that being judgmental is generally used in a negative way -- you are being improperly or inappropriately or unfairly judgmental -- as is the term discriminating, -- despite their more narrow, possibly acceptable uses which do not carry the negative connotation. Where we appear to disagree in part is the umph we put upon such words as proselytizing. I find it accurate and descriptive though I don't like it to be done to me univited -- so in that sense I do consider it a negative thing to do -- but disguising proselytizing with words like sharing the good news does not change the nature of the act one bit. And I dislike it just as much. Even when it is someone with whom I substantively agree. Steve On Wednesday, June 2, 2004, at 10:34 PM, Francis Beckwith wrote: On 6/2/04 9:08 PM, Steven Jamar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Speak for yourself. That is not how I use the words or how many people I regularly discuss things with use them. Your assumption that that is how they are being used creates problems. That would make me sectarian. :-) All kidding aside, what I was trying to say--in a somewhat humorous way--is that sometimes we use words (and I include myself here) in ways that disguise disputed beliefs so that we don't have to defend them. So, my guy shares the good news, the other guy proselytizes; my faith is a relationship whereas the other guy's is a religion; I believe in principles while the other fellow embraces dogmas. The one I particularly like is the guy who condemns being judgmental, which of course, requires a judgment. Frank -- Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ Love the pitcher less and the water more. Sufi Saying ___ 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
Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
In a message dated 6/2/2004 10:34:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The one I particularly like is the guy who condemns "beingjudgmental," which of course, requires a judgment. The above remark, I suspect, reveals the poverty of the 'reasoning' behind this sort of contention. There's a significant difference between "being judgmental" and "judgment." Condemning "being judgmental" involves rejecting certain types of judgments, judgments that are made for arguably insufficient or otherwise inadequate reasons, for example, judgments that condemn before attempting to see the other fellow's perspective, and so forth. (The above quoted perspective is similar to saying that it is intolerant to reject intolerance. Or that one is being inegalitarian for rejecting those who embrace inequality. Whatever these remarks might mean.) The mere fact that Jones uses judgment to reject"being judgmental" hardly entails that Jones is "being judgmental" as the term is ordinarily used inmoral suasion.In short, the general class of judgments is considerably larger than the subclass of judgments that qualify as being judgmental. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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
Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
In a message dated 6/3/2004 9:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont think it was fair of you to isolate my last sentencewhich, admittedly, I poorly phrased--from the larger point I was making: we use terms like judgmental, dogmas, sectarian, etc. in ways that permit us not to carefully examine them. Of course I agree with Frank's larger point. I took the last sentence--"The one I particularly like is the guy who condemns "being judgmental," which of course, requires a judgment"--as equating "being judgmental" with "judging" in the same manner that some people equate "rejecting intolerance" with "being intolerant." Further, the language "[t]he one I particularly like" suggested (to me) that the sentence I quoted wassignificantly differentfromthe rest of his post. I agreed with the rest of the post but not this last sentence. That is why I responded by quoting it only. Moreover, I find the structure ofthe last sentence, onewhich too many people embrace especially when discussing intolerance, to be anobstacle toour understandingthe nature of judgment or tolerance.I'm relievedthat I misunderstood Frank, but I did not do so intentionally, and thus I thinkthe chargeof unfairness to bepremature. BobbyRobert Justin LipkinProfessor of LawWidener University School of LawDelaware ___ 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
Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination
Title: Re: And proselytizing Re: religious indoctrination Thanks Bobby. Its my fault for a bad choice of words. Frank On 6/3/04 9:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/3/2004 9:05:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont think it was fair of you to isolate my last sentencewhich, admittedly, I poorly phrased--from the larger point I was making: we use terms like judgmental, dogmas, sectarian, etc. in ways that permit us not to carefully examine them. Of course I agree with Frank's larger point. I took the last sentence--The one I particularly like is the guy who condemns being judgmental, which of course, requires a judgment--as equating being judgmental with judging in the same manner that some people equate rejecting intolerance with being intolerant. Further, the language [t]he one I particularly like suggested (to me) that the sentence I quoted was significantly different from the rest of his post. I agreed with the rest of the post but not this last sentence. That is why I responded by quoting it only. Moreover, I find the structure of the last sentence, one which too many people embrace especially when discussing intolerance, to be an obstacle to our understanding the nature of judgment or tolerance. I'm relieved that I misunderstood Frank, but I did not do so intentionally, and thus I think the charge of unfairness to be premature. 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 ___ 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
