Leavings the Last Thing I Thought You Would Do

Part IX (Luke's Response)

What if I postulated the following: not only is extremism generally the best policy, but it's the only moral policy. Such an argument would be an extension (albeit a distant extension) of the idea that the opposite of love isn't hate; the opposite of love is apathy. That is to say, lukewarmness is the ultimate evil; the stance for which there is no moral defense. This principle would oblige one to shed a commonly held view of balance as the ideal. "Balance" would either need to be redefined or abandoned.I'm curious of your response to such a value system as herein-above described. (You're welcome for writing "herein-above." I figure you probably don't get enough legalese.)

I agree with your statement that the real question has to do with our interactions with others. I actually think one can be both extreme and non-abrasive. Although, such a person is ultra-rare, almost a myth, like a Native American rapper.

I also empathize with your extremism/religion mental connection. Religious extremism is probably the most public. Last week in an office discussion about local politics and election time, the topic of church and state came up. My opinion (the correct opinion) is that a step towards a divorce between church and state is a step in the right direction. The actual wording of the proposed action was in the vein of posting the 10 Commandments on governmental/school buildings, etc. I made a statement that America must make moves in a direction away from a theocracy. A statement for which I was silently, ocularly persecuted. I said Christianity/religion is a good personal policy, but a bad political one.

I realize a discussion of church and state is not the same as a discussion on the virtue of extremism, but it's where my mind went. I'm just along for the ride.