Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Judt, Spitz, and crossing the road to have a fight

In the NYROB article I quoted from (see ) there one can red Freedland observing “. . . Judt is also clearly a man who will cross the road to have a fight.”

In the article posted yesterday, , Chales Jones seemed to suggest that McCarthy and I might also be people who would “cross the road to have a fight.

This morning there was a response to that note. It was from Rev. Don Spitz. I looked him up. He is also known as someone who will cross the road to have a fight.” His comment was as follows:

“You seem to imply there is something wrong if a babykilling abortion mill is burned or bomb. Which do you prefer, a pile of bricks or a pile of dead babies? Innocent unborn babies deserve to be protected just as born children deserve to be protected. You would have no problem protecting born children if they were about to be murdered.

“SAY THIS PRAYER: Dear Jesus, I am a sinner and am headed to eternal hell because of my sins. I believe you died on the cross to take away my sins and to take me to heaven. Jesus, I ask you now to come into my heart and take away my sins and give me eternal life.”

I read this before having my first cup of coffee and was quite sure I had not introduced the subject he was referring to and responded with, “Are you just spamming? Your note has nothing to do with the note you are purportedly responding to that I can see. Please explain the "implication" you are referring to.”

But just now I read the whole article and see that the Reverend Don Spitz is referring to something Charles wrote. Here is the paragraph (written by Charles) the Rev. Don is taking offense at:

“Additionally, I think it is normally a mistake to call for punishment. It may be logically correct, but it lacks sensibility and judgment. It's like anti-abortionists calling for the killing of abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics. Or Islamist mullahs saying it’s OK to kill certain writers, bomb certain TV stations, or kill unbelievers. I even think blacklisting Hollywood communists was a mistake and hauling fellow-travelers before HUAC was counter-productive. Although I supported it at the time, I now think impeaching President Clinton was a mistake. Every punishment move distracts from the exposure role. If you argue for punishment then you've got to try to show that the punishment is justified, that all objections to punishment can be countered, that there are no mitigating circumstances, that the punishment can be put into practice, that there are no unforeseen consequences of punishment, that collateral damage is limited, etc. In the meantime, no exposing is getting done.”

I didn’t write that, Reverend Don! Charles wrote that. You are viewing the wrong person as destined for “eternal hell.”

Now, if I were the right person, I would cross the road to have a fight with you, Rev. Don, but I am not. I have been interested in combating Islamists and objecting to spying and dirty tricks in the U.S. – I think if you were to review everything I’ve written on this blog, you would not find one objection, written by me, to blowing up abortion clinics.

I’ll grant you, now that I’ve read Charles note once again that he does indeed seem opposed to “bombing abortion clinics.” I won’t offer my own opinion on the subject, for then I might be seen as once again doing that thing I have been criticized for, and rightly so: crossing the road to have a fight.

Charles, I shall post this note as another reply to the Reverend Don Spitz by way of apologizing to him for thinking his note was spam, but also so he can have the correct focus for his attention. Whether or not you choose to cross the street to . . . talk to discuss that with him will be up to you.

Lawrence Helm

No comments: