In Canada (and I believe many other countries), there's a legal concept called "negligent misstatement": someone who puts themselves forward in a way that suggests his or her opinion is reliable has a special obligation to ensure that any opinions they express publicly on the area of their expertise are well-founded. For instance, if I as an engineer say that an unsafe building is structurally sound, I can find myself liable if it comes out that I had no real basis for what I was saying. OTOH, if a non-engineer expressed an opinion that the building was safe without justification, their liability would be much less (or maybe zero).
Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:
- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.
- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.
Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.
Do you agree? Disagree? Why?
Applying this principle more broadly, I draw a distinction between two classes of religious believers:
- everyday believers who happen to have become convinced that their religion is correct.
- proselytizers, evangelizers, and ministers who present religious beliefs to others as reliable, either to convince them to adopt the religion or to keep them in the religion.
Now... I'm not suggesting that ministers and evangelizers be legally liable for their preaching, but it seems to me that those who try to convince others of their religious beliefs are ethically obligated to have good support for those beliefs in a way that the typical congregant in the pew isn't.
Do you agree? Disagree? Why?