The "In Praise of the Clash of Cultures", published in the New York Times, is a piece that raises many questions about morals and the interaction between humans. Journalist Carlos Fraenkel, begins his argument by posing a drastic and somewhat harsh statement. "They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with." This claim makes the point of his piece extremely apparent and also acts as a "hook" that draws readers attention. He then goes on to explain the details: result of conversation, why these opinions exist, how this affects us in society today, and what we can do about these circumstances in order to enrich the quality of our lives. These sub claims lead the to the main question: what should be done? I believe that Fraenkel has many valid points and I do believe that an effort for unity and respect should be at least attempted for, if not achieved completely. …show more content…
He goes on to say, that whenever a heathy discussion/ argument has surfaced, the goal isn't always to completely change one's opinions completely in your favor, but to instead, to merely gain the respect and consideration of your opponent. I believe in the support of this sub claim greatly and can't support it enough. This is further backed through a quote from E. B. White when he says, "Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the