Chip,
Denigration would need to be clearly defined. I know that there are those who would say that it is denigrating to simply say you believe a person's faith is wrong, but there's an important distinction. When two different religions teach things that are mutually exclusive, then either one of them is wrong or they are both wrong, but they can't both be right. The best example is the teaching of my own faith that Jesus rose from the dead. If somebody is a member of a faith which does not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, then intellectual honesty requires them to say that they believe my faith is wrong, and that doesn't denigrate me. It simply acknowledges that we believe different things to be true. If they move on to say, "And consequently, anybody who believes in the resurrection is an idiot," that's when it becomes denigration. Even when it is a governmental entity such as a military academy, drawing the distinction between disagreement and denigration keeps the institution from having to choose between the Establishment Clause on the one hand and the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses on the other.
Brad
Chip Lupu wrote on 10/07/2005 12:21:13 PM:
> But in that sort of highly controlled environment, the government
> should be unusually sensitive to religious harassment -- that is,
> unwanted conversion efforts, or denigration of the faiths of fellow
> cadets (by students or anyone else).
>
> Chip Lupu
_______________________________________________ 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.
