On Wed, 3 Oct 2001, Nick Arnett wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Marvin Long, Jr. > > [snip] > > > And yet, "a city on the hill cannot be hid." Christ exhorts us to let our > > lights shine. While I've always argued that our alleged city on the hill > > needs a hell of a lot of work, that's no reason to deny that in certain > > areas, we are a hell of a lot better than al Qaeda and the Taliban, and > > those things are worth fighting to preserve. > > The fact that I consider Friedman's essay to be a dangerous line of thinking > should not imply that I deny that we should fight against terrorism. Is the > world so simple that one can equate any criticism of America as denial of > our right to defend the values it stands for? Or worse, equate it with > support for the terrorists?
Sorry, that wasn't what I intended to imply. But you've ignored the main point, which is that there's nothing wrong with acknowldging the things that are good about the US, the positive role those good things play in encouraging the creation of wealth, and in asserting those things in the face of accusations from the terrorists that we are a people utterly without values. > It is intellectually and morally lazy to label every argument, every > *person*, as either good or bad, right or wrong, with no gray in between. > That is fundamentalism at its worst, the self-centered illusion that one can > point to a particular set of values and rules at a particular point in time > and proclaim that these are, for all time, the only correct and proper > truths, insisting that people to choose between one and the other. > Fundamentalists of all species imagine, as was written here, that history > has ended, they have the truth in their back pockets, and anyone who > expresses doubts or suggestions for improvement must therefore be siding > with the enemy. And all of this has exactly *what* to do with anything I've said, or with what Friedman said? I'm not a person arguing that history has ended, or that the US is without flaw, or even that your argument about wealth in general is all bad...just that you've misread Friedman's piece and are going to extravagant lengths to defend that misreading. > Truth is complicated and often seemingly contradictory: > > "Whoever is not against us is for us." > "He who is not with me is against me." Now you're just being pedantic, and you've ignored the whole thrust of my argument to lecture me for taking a stance I haven't adopted. Heh. I said "thrust." Marvin Long Austin, Texas Allah is great, but Miss February ain't half bad, either.
