Civility versus Respect

[Newsom Michael]

Does this mean that if some people doesn't respect you that they are, in
your view, free to call you anything they want to?  Can they call you a
fundamentalist, or a homophobe, or bigot, and would that be OK?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: JMHACLJ at aol.com [mailto:JMHACLJ at aol.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:24 AM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Civility versus Respect

 

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/20050722/db6fb8a3/attachment.htm