In the context of government-employed chaplains, I just don't agree
with drawing any line between denigration and teaching. If a
Christian or a non-Christian cadet asks a chaplain about Christian
belief, the chaplain should of course answer. But if the chaplain
knows the cadet to be a non-Christian, the chaplain has no
business "teaching" the non-Christian about the chaplain's view of
whether Jesus rose from the dead. That teaching is outside the
chaplain's authority (and officially authorizing the chaplain to so
"teach" would violate the Constitution, because it exceeds the very
limited jurisdiction that government has to "teach" religion to cadets
or soldiers.)
Chip
On 7 Oct 2005 at 12:56, Brad M Pardee wrote:
>
>
> 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
Ira C. ("Chip") Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
The George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington D.C 20052
(202) 994-7053
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
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.
