Does Friendship Demand Agreement?

December 23, 1776 

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated…

Thomas Paine wrote these words 235 years ago when the severe suffering caused by the American Revolution caused many soldiers to walk away from the fight.  It is surprising how applicable his words are to one of today’s more interesting debates in the wake of the assassination of Osama bin Laden.

The War on Terror looks, feels and smells nothing at all like the infantry-based conflicts of the twentieth century, but it is still war.  When William Tecumseh Sherman said ‘War is hell,’ he wasn’t just talking about battlefields littered with the casualties of cannons and muskets and bayonets and daggers, although he might have thought he was.  No less hellish are the challenges posed by a war with hidden enemies, covert operations, stealth tactics, and intelligence guaranteed to be refuted by somebody, somewhere.

The recent execution of Osama bin Laded has resurrected a moral dilemma for me that, in the scheme of things, is of little global consequence.  I am bedeviled, though, by the question of what to do when a valued friend in a debate takes a position I cannot fully endorse. 


I could just rely upon the teaching of my grandfather:  If you can’t say anything nice about a person, say nothing at all.  That works in polite or even impolite conversation to an extent.  But what if my silence serves as silent assent to the point of view of a person known to be my friend and ally?  In such a case, saying nothing is tantamount to telling a lie if I happen to disagree, at least in part, with what my friend is saying.  I’m not comfortable with that at all.

My natural inclination is to say something along the lines of “I love you, my friend, but this time I don’t entirely agree.”  That, in fact, is what would be required to make me feel I have been completely honest in a free exchange of ideas.  But what if the friend in question is inclined to feel betrayal instead of disagreement?  What if that friend is used to having people agree with him or her on most things and has shown a decidedly short fuse when it comes to entertaining opposing opinions?

I have noticed that many people simply say whatever they think the friend wants to hear and move on.  Those people seem to feel it is not worth jeopardizing the friendship to publicly disagree.  They find a way to couch their comments in vague terms that can easily be viewed by the friend as assent, but can always be explained away if challenged by a third party.  Doing that makes me feel as if I have let myself down.

Ideally, a true friend allows room in the relationship for all kinds of interaction, including the occasional differences in points of view.  The truth is – and I know this because I do it just as much as the next person – when a person is having a strong emotional reaction to a situation, all they want to hear is commiseration. The rest of the peanut gallery can take their opinions and go to hell!

I wish I didn’t have such a deep aversion to lying.