Civility versus Respect
JMHACLJ at aol.com
JMHACLJ at aol.com
Thu Jul 21 08:23:55 PDT 2005
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
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Religionlaw