Moore, Particular Religions and Tolerance
Robert Justin Lipkin
RJLipkin at AOL.COM
Fri Nov 2 15:25:22 PST 2001
In a message dated 11/2/2001 1:38:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
willesser at YAHOO.COM writes:
> I believe that it would be a much different message
> and "intolerant" if I placed a jar of urine with a
> crucifix inside in my office. My expression has now
> gone from one of expression of my religious beliefs to
> denigration of someone else's beliefs. I believe that
> there is a big distinction between an expression which
> says "I outwardly express my belief" and "I outwardly
> express my rejection of someone else's belief." The
> first is not intolerant; the second is. And the first
> does not necessarily imply the second.
How does this distinction apply if (unfortunately) someone's conscientious
belief requires the denigration of someone else's religion? To follow your
example, suppose my religion required that I place a crucifix in a jar of
urine in public (and private) places as a denigration of your religion.
Please understand this is purely a hypothetical question. My own intuitions
recoil at the idea of someone being conscientiously required by her religion
to denigrate another religion in the manner you describe. But can you
maintain your distinction between conduct which is an outward expression of
your religious belief and conduct which outwardly expresses your rejection of
another's religion in light of this hypothetical?
Widener University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw