|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Jul 21, 2007 21:35:17 GMT -5
it seems perfectly clear to me and makes perfect sense. Everyone has the right to 1) preach their religion. 2) evveryone has the right to have their own religion with out their views being attacked.
It seems to me the policy is saying you can talk about your belief and share you beliefs with others as long as you aren't disparaging their views or attacking them as sinners or going to hell for not sharing your beliefs or living a certain way. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
I haven't seen anyone on georgetown's campus accoasting anyone else in this manner, but i could imagine groups doing it. I cna see some radical religious group following people around with a megaphone telling them that they need to convert or repent. their are plenty of fanatics out there, and I don't think should be able to do that.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 22, 2007 13:29:12 GMT -5
The article seems to take a strange tone, as if the Protestant groups should be seen but not heard. I've never run into a lot of street preaching at Red Square nor someone with a bullhorn preaching fire and brimstone, so I can't tell if this policy is somehow proactive or reactive. I see that often at UNLV (often when I am going over to the Newman Center for noon Mass ).
|
|
CWS
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 272
|
Post by CWS on Jul 23, 2007 5:49:34 GMT -5
The Post has not exactly been clear in any of its coverage of this controversy. Some of the anecdotes I heard 3rd and 4th hand (so, grain of salt): one group inviting people over to an evening social with food, where they were supposedly going to talk about some interesting, upbeat issue. When people arrived they found themselves "forced" to sit through a fire and brimstone sermon, including lines (of course... ) that singled out Jews for condemnation. Another evening session where the organizers asked their members to specifically target their invitations to Catholics, who, they were told, needed to become biblical before they could be Christians. People on campus handing out proselytizing flyers in an aggressive and intrusive way. It's a hard line to draw. On the one hand, you don't want to require that people accept all religions as equally true/good/salvific as their own (I'm always reminded G.K. Chesterton's line: "Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions"). But, on the other, we want to cultivate an atmosphere on campus where people feel respected, including being respected in that sphere which is central and important to the identity of many, the sphere of religious convictions. That said, I'm not clear from the Post article what exactly is the policy. Btw: I believe this policy is only binding for the Affiliated Protestant Ministries (a distinction the Post was not clear about in its earlier coverage of the controversy), and is not binding on student groups in general. Free speech on campus gives students a lot of protection. Any group on campus can reserve space and, presumably, say some intolerant things about other religions. Something "higher" is required, though, for those Protestant groups who want an official "affiliation" with Georgetown Campus Ministry (and who, in turn, get some perks dealing with classroom reservations, I believe).
|
|