This is a course blog authored by the students in the seminar on Law and Theology at the University of Akron School of Law in the Fall of 2010.
I think this approach sounds good in theory but maybe not so much in practice. I think that if the anything goes approach is used it may fuel legitmacy for religion because it will make non-believers seems extremely angry and over the top. Who wants to act like that? Civil discussions are much more effective methods of portraying ones message. I also don't think that religious people should criticize non-believers in harsh terms either because it then makes believers seem extreme. No body wants to be constituted as an extremist, especially in today's world.
The only way that one can avoid offending others is to keep their mouth shut. Everytime someone speaks publicly about how they believe, they are going to offend somebody. It is the persecution of those willing to speak that needs to be avoided. I don't think that the show of respect is in holding our tounges when we disagree (that's self-inflicted oppression). I think that a show of respect toward others when we do not share in their beliefs is to respect their entitlement to their opinions. Sometimes, it is best just to agree to disagree.Argument doesn't work well if one side fails to argue; nor does it work well if one side is so inflamed that it absolutely refuses to hear the other side. When people get inflamed, they don't hear everything that is being said because they are too busy formulating their defense.Neither suppression nor the "anything goes" approach are very effective in achieving a discussion that will actually yeild a harmonious result.