[lit-ideas] Re: Religion, Public Reason, and Islamism
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:01:52 -0700
Mike,
In two recent notes you invoked names in lieu of arguments. I like to argue
from evidence or present assumptions and then draw conclusions from them.
After a series of such notes you responded more or less to them all by
invoking one name, Bloomberg.
Now today I mentioned in passing that the arguments of McCarthy have been
largely vindicated by evidence. The KGB files have been opened and evidence
has been produced regarding the names and activities of Soviet spies in the
U.S. What do you argue in response? You in effect say, "you referred to
McCarthy without cursing him, therefore all your arguments must be
rejected."
You remind me a bit of Oxford, that is, of what Jonathan Swift thought of
him when he wrote, "In your public capacity you have often angered me to the
heart, but, as a private man, never." [Swift letter to Oxford, 3 July 1714]
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 6:29 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Religion, Public Reason, and Islamism
Well, have fun with all that, Lawrence. Sorry, but I can't take anyone
seriously who would stoop to defend Joseph McCarthy. Why you would want to
buddy up to such a slimy, fascist creep, I can't imagine.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
The subject note was posted at
http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2010/08/religion-public-reason-and-islamism.html
Lawrence
Other related posts:
