Ultimately, its seems to me that this exchange boils down to context and intent. Almost any word can be used in a way (with appropriate inflection, intent and context) that makes it appear pejorative.
As a matter of practical concern, I am curious as to what term might be offered as an appropriate substitute for someone attempting to address the issue of proselytism (the effort to introduce or convert one person from one state -- i.e. believer in an alternate tradition or no tradition -- to that of believer in the faith of the one making the effort) as a legal or social construct? For example, evangelism doesn't work in a multi-religious context because it is a Christian theological term (i.e. proclaiming the "Good News.") What is the appropriate alternative? David International Human Rights Law Institute DePaul University College of Law ----- Original Message ----- From: "A.E. Brownstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Law & Religion issues for Law Academics" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 1:59 PM Subject: Re: proselytization > I think Bobby's is correct that while the term proselytize is strongly > associated with religious contexts, that does not mean that the term always > has a pejorative meaning. There are obviously benign examples of > proselytizing that would be effectively described by using this term in a > non-pejorative sense. Bobby gave some personal examples. There are others. > When a Jehovah's Witness knocks on my door to discuss religion, I would > characterize his or her conduct as proselytizing, but I mean nothing > pejorative when I do so. I have never felt offended or burdened by such > encounters and have always responded politely to my visitor. > > Also, there are legitimate, non pejorative reasons for using a term to > distinguish religious advocacy from political or other kinds of advocacy. > As many list members recognize, religion plays a role in a person's > identity and life that is seldom if ever matched by secular beliefs. Thus, > advocacy directed at persuading persons to change their faith urges a more > fundamental change in the person addressed than occurs in most political > debates. Further, there is a one-sided dimension to proselytizing for > religious purposes that does not exist in political discourse. Some > religions are committed to proselytizing (as Bobby notes) while other > faiths, such as Judaism, do not engage in proselytizing. Thus, from the > perspective of most Jews, proselytizing is a form of advocacy that is > always directed at them, but which is rarely a part of their own discourse. > Such distinctions are less common in political speech where all sides argue > the merits of their positions and try to get others to accept their views. > > Still, I think that a term with both benign and pejorative connotations may > be understood to reflect only one of its meanings in certain contexts. The > term "discrimination" is usually employed in a pejorative way in > discussions about civil rights and equal protection doctrine, although the > word obviously has more benign meanings. > > I think the same is true for discussions on this list. It is rare that we > discuss situations that involve the respectful sharing of beliefs among > individuals of other faiths. (While many of us have experienced such > interactions, there is usually no legal dispute that arises out of these > events.) Much more typically, our discussions will be directed at legal > disputes involving speech that invokes government support for a religious > message (e.g. the teaching of religious truth in schools), or an encounter > where someone is alleged to be taking advantage of their position of > authority to urge acceptance of religious doctrine, or speech to a captive > audience etc. When this is the context of most of our discussions, it is > hardly surprising that the term proselytizing will often carry with it a > pejorative meaning -- at least when it is employed by list members who > object to persuasive religious speech in these kinds of circumstances. > > Alan Brownstein > UC Davis > > > > At 04:50 PM 12/20/2004 -0500, you wrote: > > Both Webster's Third International and the Shorter OED define > > "proselytize" as having special application to religious contexts, and > > indicates that the term is not always used pejoratively. Further, any > > religion embracing the commitment to convert others should be able to use > > the term in good faith. Why isn't the statement "Some (if not all) > > Christian religions encourage (if not require) proselytizing, while > > Judaism frowns on proselytizing." If a person's religion encourages or > > requires her to proselytize, how can the term only "apply to the other guy"? > > > >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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
