Civility versus Respect

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2005 10:51:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
RJLipkin at aol.com writes:

And,  again in my view, respect for those citizens should carry over to using 
the  name they chose.


This thread seems to have little to do with the law of religion.
 
And I announced that I had done with it.
 
But this argument carries no water and can't be confused for one that  does.
 
Respect is a thing earned, not donated.  George Washington earned the  
respect of a nation before taking the helm as Chief Magistrate.  Many  modern 
political leaders in our nation act as though respect is due TO THEM  because of the 
office they hold.  They are frustrated when they learn that  the American 
people do not pass out respect for others like donuts at a church  social.
 
Also to the point is the self-examination demanded by your standard.  
 
For example, do the readers of this list really refer to persons who  would 
amend the Constitution to permanently, forever and in all case bar  legalized 
abortion as "pro life?"  I can't say whether they do  or don't.  Each knows 
where the term falls  in his personal lexicon.  Certainly the "pro life" movement 
has  faced a considerable uphill struggle in having their identifier of 
choice --  "pro life" -- pass into the news reporting and commentary lexicon, a 
struggle  difficult to understand when we recall that two centuries of our common 
national  history, abortionist were trusted even less than snake oil salesmen 
or  carpetbaggers.
 
And Richard Duncan also hits home with his question about the  
"fundamentalist" appellation.  To whom do you apply it?  At their  preference?  Because of 
administrative convenience?  As a tactical  device to minimize and marginalize?
 
And what about the "abominable and detestable crime against nature"?   Must 
those who oppose same-sex marriage and legalization of homosexual conduct  be 
required to apply gladsome or neutral terminology when speaking  about those 
who engage in such acts?
 
And finally, how am I to respect a collective of individuals (those  
Democrats) who have concluded that they must apply a pro-abortion litmus  test for its 
national leaders, major candidates, platform speakers, etc.?   I suppose it 
is technically feasible.  But to say that it grates would  minimize the 
profound dyspepsia induced by such misarticulations.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050721/bf5f80a7/attachment.html