Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA00729 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 4 Oct 2001 21:28:34 +0100 Subject: RE: Questions for Martin E. Marty, a Scholar of Religion Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:22:34 -0400 x-sender: firstname.lastname@example.org x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <email@example.com> To: "memetics list" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20011004202330.AAA9715@email@example.com> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 10/04/01 11:14, Philip Jonkers said this-
>Without choosing sides, I believe you are [splitting hairs] Wade, as attack
>is usually considered the best defense.
I considered that argument, briefly, but, somehow deemed it not quite on
The 'offense as defense' is okay if one is threatened, backed up to the
wall. In fact, it becomes the only recourse. And, yeah, I can see where
fundy islamic thinking might present followers with 'up against the wall'
Still, I perceived a 'but' somewhere. Not sure where it is. Once engaged
in war, the citizen becomes the soldier, and the soldier is willing to
die, or should be. So, yeah, perhaps these were soldiers of allah.
Still, I want a 'but', if only for righteousness' sake.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 04 2001 - 21:33:57 BST