On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 06:57:36AM -0700, Norbert Cartagena wrote:
>
> > You know, that's part of the problem with many
> > Americans today. They see
> > their car, their house, their job as the most
> > important things on Earth.
> > But there are things as or more important than one's
> > own or one's
> > family's safety, security and comfort. They seem to
> > think that what they
> > do and say have no effect on the broader zones of
> > activity. So long as
> > they get theirs, all is good. Honor, principles and
> > patriotism seem to
> > have gotten lost.
> >
>
> Now, Paul, if you could just apply to this
> Environmental issues as well, then you'd understand
> where I come from ;)
>
I understand where you're coming from; I just don't agree.
Environmentalists don't realize that there is and must be "collateral
damage" to the environment as a result of commercial and industrial
activity. And in general, nature heals itself quite admirably. But
that's an argument for another day.
> "They seem to think that what they do and say have no
> effect on the broader zones of activity. So long as
> they get theirs, all is good."
>
> But question: The family safety issue, is that NOT why
> we fight for freedom? To guarantee the safety of the
> family?
>
I had a friend who worked all human motivations around so that they all
related to what made him personally comfortable or uncomfortable. He
didn't cheat on his wife, not because it was wrong, but because he knew
it would cause him grief by way of his wife.
You could say that we have and defend freedom because it's "good" for
our families, but that misses the broader scope of motivations.
Take an extreme example. People do things (good things) in the name of
God or religion. Now, if they're doing them to get into heaven, they've
got it wrong; they've got it worked around so that they're still doing
things for their own benefit, even though they're telling people it's
because of God. If someone _truly_ does something in the name of God or
the deity, then they're doing it because they believe that this is the
"right" thing to do in relation to their god.
Likewise with doing something in the name of mankind, which is probably
where this shows up the most clearly. In this zone, you're doing
something for the good of mankind. Often when doing so does not benefit
you personally or your family at all.
It is often true that acts which promote the greater good of a larger
sphere often benefit oneself. But if you're doing them for your own
benefit, you're not really acting on the basis of that broader sphere,
but just to satisfy yourself.
To me, the good of the nation and the cause of freedom are things worthy
of fighting for simply because they are intrinsically part of a greater
good. And naturally, I must balance the plusses and minuses of the
greater good with those of myself and my family. But I don't consider
freedom good simply because it benefits me and my family.
> > I heard a story today about a newly promoted Chief
> > Petty Officer who
> > went to a restaurant in San Diego with some friends
> > (all in uniform)
> > before being deployed. As he and his friends got up
> > to leave, people in
> > the restaurant began clapping. In a short time, all
> > the patrons were on
> > their feet. I heard this on the way home, and had to
> > wipe my eyes so I
> > could continue driving. I still choke up as I think
> > of it again. _This_
> > is the spirit of America that should prevail, even
> > when there isn't a
> > crisis.
>
> Frankly, I'm _GLAD_ that I'm not the only one making a
> fool of myself when I go up to someone in military
> uniform and tell them "Thanks" anymore. I mean,
> granted, I'm not a big fan of the military. This is
> because I'm not a big fan of war - I understand it's
> an unfortunate necessary evil at this point in human
> history. I just wish that people would remember that
> we are NOT at war against the Afghans, but rather that
> we are at war with terrorism and those that support
> it. I say this because I've heard the wish of some to
> see a new lake in the map - "Lake Afghanistan". Where
> we could make a glorious military build up and show of
> force. GIVE ME A BREAK! I wish I could have explained
> to this person to think of it this way:
>
> Ussama bin Muhammed bin Laden => Hitler
> The Taliban => The Nazis
> The Afghan people => The Jews.
>
> (rolls played a bit different than the original cast)
>
I guess we'll have to suspend Godwin's law for the sake of this
discussion. ;-}
I agree with you. Muslims and Afgans aren't the enemy. And in fact, I
think this all has very little to do with any religion. It has to do
with a lot of psychos who are using religion to as a way to damage us
and augment their own power and standing. I also understand many
Americans' irrational desire to kill all muslims. I don't agree with it,
but I understand it as an irrational impulse. All we can do is educate
these people and try to restrain them. And prosecute them along with
other criminals.
Of course, at the same time, I don't mind "Lake Afghanistan" jokes. But
then again, I can laugh at almost anything. I just don't take jokes very
seriously for the most part.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:41:35 EDT