Very well put, David.  I agree entirely, as do, I suspect
(or, at least, certainly hope) the overwhelming majority of
faculty, administrators, and staff at UTC.

Lee Robinson
Sociology


At 12:25 PM 10/18/2001 -0400, David Lambkin wrote:
>Dear All:
>
>         Sorry to be contentious, BUT I think that despite the sorrow and
>disbelief that arise from the Sept 11 tragedy these kind of statements are
>completely counter-productive.  1st everybody who is even partially
>educated should know that "America Love it or leave it" is a classic
>example of a false dichotomy a very common logical fallacy.  Imagine your
>history if, like the United Empire Loyalists during and after the
>Revolutionary War, every resident only had the two choices of loving what
>this country was or leaving it.  Hell the Vietnam war could have gone on
>forever.  Civilized dissent and the resulting government policies are what
>make this country great--nothing else.  We must always have the right to
>express our opinions.  However, this right is a personal one -- it does not
>mean that our personal opinions will become public policy.  Renee and Barry
>forgot to point out that the Constitution mandates the separation of Church
>and State.  Furthermore I would argue that the freedom to do things (a
>personal right) must be balanced by the freedom from certain things being
>societally imposed (public responsibility).  I'm not really up on American
>history, but it seems to me that I remember reading that the phrase "In God
>we trust" is really an aberration decided on during the dominance of the
>Eisenhower years.  What I am saying is that the freedom to pursue one's own
>version of religion must be balanced by the freedom from the imposition of
>the majority culture's religion in public places.  People have to go to
>schools, unemployment offices, courthouses.  We should respect their rights
>by not pushing their faces in our religion.  If you don't think this is
>pushy think about living in a country where you are Christian and every
>public place contains the phrase "There is no god but Allah".  So the piece
>by Loudermilk is both illogical and contradicts basic tenets of the
>Constitution.  The Constitution really exists to prevent a "tryanny of the
>majority" as de Toqueville pointed out sometime in the 1700's I think.  The
>majority should rule but not be tryannical.  Furthermore there is nothing
>so offensive and dangerous as an unthinking, blind patriotism.  "My country
>right or wrong" is a certain prescription for disaster.  Don't let your
>sorrow and anger lead you into writing a blank check for people like Bill
>Bennett and George W.  Finally the tone or voice I hear is offensive,
>confrontational.  It is deliberately, I think offensive, stating that if
>you don't love what America is doing or "its Christian God" get the hell
>out.  The civilized dissenters who peaceably and politely try to bring some
>logic and pragmatic issues to the table, especially in times of crisis, are
>the ones who will keep this country great.  If all those people leave then
>they will simply make other countries great.  Power, righteous anger, and
>money don't make a country great.  As we have seen it is always the people
>who make a country great.
>
>Dr. David Lambkin
>Theatre & Speech
>
>P.S.  I'm the speech part.  It is my business to examine political
>discourse and its effects.  Believe it or not I would define Loudermilk's
>piece as a really crude and at least potentially effective piece of
>political rhetoric.