----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 10:33 PM Subject: Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
> > Haven't read the book - nothing I saw about him > suggested even vaguely it was worth my time. I didn't read the book, I merely read some interviews and quotes from the book in places like the Houston Chronicle online. The Chronicle article was balanced enough to sound like a fairly reasonable commentary...liked and disliked things about the book but thought it was a worthwhile read. He criticized the "welfare industry" for maintaing people in poverty instead of fighting poverty...that sounds a lot like something I've heard from you. I thought that his criticism of the Democratic party was very close to yours. In particular his criticism that the Democrats are/were so out of touch with religious people that they forced them into the Republican camp seems very close to what you've written. He even was quoted as criticizing the anti-war movement for not taking evil and tyranny seriously enough to be fully authentic. Among > other things, btw, as Slate wrote convincingly, his > visio of the United States seems far less religiously > pluralistic than, say, the President's. But given > that he opposed intervening in _Afghanistan_, I don't > see how that's possible. He seems to be effectively a > pacifist. He seems to have a very limited view of the just war theory, I'll agree with that. But, he seems to be with you in criticizing "the welfare industry" as patronizing and contributing to poverty. His criticism of the Democratic party often seems to match yours. His "universal support of life" from being anti-abortion to favoring working for the poor is not identical to you, but it is quite close to the Catholic church. >In Vietnam he supported the North > Vietnamese. I mean, at that point you're actually _on > the side of_ tyrants, so I just don't quite see how > that makes sense. Since he now criticizes the anti-war movement for not being strong enough in opposing tyrants, it would make sense for him to admit his own past sins in this regard. I haven't seen such an admission...but it would be interesting to see if that just didn't come up or if he wasn't repentant and evaded the question. Nick might be able to tell us if he used his own past mistakes to illustrate points here during their limited conversation. For me the book is out on him. I think at a minimum, I would say he got some things right in what he is saying now. I would also agree that he got some things horridly wrong in the past. I think that my view of him as either someone I could reasonably differ with or someone who is simply posturing would depend on whether he accepts as valid criticisms like yours of his own unwillingness to criticize anti-American tyrannies. If so, then he might be more reasonable than you think. If not, you would have to at least allow that he is right on the topics he agrees with you on, or quickly change your viewpoint. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
