To the Editor:
When I read Mr. Rothfarb's column (Oct. 4), I was struck by two immediate items. One is that he is right on the money in assessing how the country's tone has moved to unification in the face of an attack and the various viewpoints that have sprung up. I also agree that whether you favor military or peaceful means of resolution to this current issue, your opinions are valid.
That's about where my agreement with Mr. Rothfarb ends.
The United States is not perfect, but just as Mr. Rothfarb is willing to argue that no collateral damage is ever acceptable, why then does this outrage not apply to the 6,000+ people dead not three miles from where I sit now?
The flaw in Mr. Rothfarb's logic here is that it's okay to be critical, but God forbid that you should then be responsible in any way for what you say. This is not the spirit of the First Amendment. The First Amendment allows you to stand up and speak your convictions. It takes personal courage to stand up against the status quo because one is liable for what one says. Herein is the great hypocrisy laid bare in a time of crisis.
Perhaps the most "offensive" thing I read in his column was the assertion that one should not stand with fellow citizens as brothers and sisters in the aftermath of this attack. Congratulations sir, I applaud you for your stand against people of different backgrounds and creeds coming together and looking for the commonality between themselves.
Our country does not demand allegiance, it asks it in return for a bounty of rights and freedoms found nowhere else on this planet. It even grants those rights to those who would not defend them by any means, peaceful or otherwise. Perhaps Mr. Rothfarb is so conflicted because for once, the majority is not silent and the majority is right.