Freedom Fest certainly has a wide range of topics being covered. Everything from whether or not Islam is Radical or Peaceful, to whether or not Christianity is the Problem; and my personal favorite: The Pleasures of Bird Watching.
One of the Key Note Speakers: Robert Spencer!
They must be shaking in their boots, because how can they argue against the written evil word: The Quran.
No, I won't be debating Dinesh, although I'd love to. I'll be debating Daniel Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. He and I appeared on a radio show a few months back, and there weren't many fireworks, because we agreed on almost everything that came up. I later heard, however, that he had taken issue with my writing to that effect here at JW, because he disagrees with me on all sorts of things that just didn't come up during the show. So I guess we'll find out what they are at FreedomFest.
Hitchens always looks a couple of sheets to the wind. It's part of his charm. Don't they always say, "In vino veritas." I think one of the more amusing hypocrisies within various Islamic societies, is that while alcohol is prohibited, they all drink.
The Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, Egyptians, Emirates, Jordanians, LOL they all love their spirits...
So BYU has an Islamic studies department? I recall that when I was contemplating applying there as a student in 1991, seeing their brochure mention that one eschew beverages like coffee, tea, coke et al - made me drop any desire of wanting to go there. So here is an LDS institution (nothing against LDS, btw, I don't buy into the anti-Mormon bigotry) which is quite strict about its students following their rules, but which has a department of Islamic studies? What for? The only sane reason to do that is educate people about external threats, but somehow, I doubt that that's the charter of such a department.
"All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?" -- D' Souza
Sounds like pure realtivism to me: If a group thinks they're right and acting morally, everyone else must accept that they're right and acting morally, simple because they believe it -- To suggest otherwise is cultural and religious imperalisism.
Of course we should insist that Muslims get busy emancipating Women, stop the oppression of non- Muslims peoples, and eliminate a host of other dysfunctional and primitive practices and beliefs that are encouraged, and even mandated, in their theology.
If our insistence that they act morally is cultural or religious imperialiam, so be it. They are acting immorally, and we have a moral obligation to say so.
In D'Souza's relativist view, our founding fathers were wrong by insisting that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights, among these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What right did they have to insist that the the King of England, Mohammad or any other tyrant, or oppressor, was morally wrong in the treatment of their subjects? What right did they have to insist these tyrants adopt a higher moral code of conduct in the way they treated the rest of humanity?
Yes, our founding fathers were saying that their ideals and principles were morally superior to all others.
Thank God they did, and we should do the same, and without apology.
Islamic morality is backward, primitive and immoral. Our's is superior. There, I said it.
The press would take it as proof that RS is Jewish, blockheads that they are. So it's probably the wrong move from a PR point of view. Maybe not. Not my expertise.
That said, D'himmiSouza would probably be better off if he gave the Torah a studious read.
He might even gain a little insight from knowing something about the value system and philosophy that the mohammedans are so passionately eager to stamp out.
What galls me is that this bastion of reason and intellectual thought is up against Hitchens defending Christianity. I'd probably become an atheist, too, if I had him defending me.
Parini is scheduled to speak on whether Frost is a libertarian? Horowitz has him pegged as a socialist.
Here is my letter to FreedomFest. I will crosspost in the Coughlin topic.
"Tami,
I was horrified to hear of the termination of Stephen Coughlin, of the Joint Staff in the Defense Department. Could you contact him and see if he's available to speak on your topic of "Islam: Radical or Peaceful?" He is an American hero and truth-teller.
Thank you for helping put together this conference and especially for inviting Robert Spencer.
I have to say, though, that you could put up a stronger debater than D'Sousa against the brilliant Hitchens. There are minds more logical and with better debating rhetoric than D'Sousa.
"All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?" -- D' Souza
Sneaky. He's picking the most libertarian parts and ignoring the rest.
In a free country, people should be able to form their marriage contracts, as other personal contracts, to their liking.
In a free country, people should be able to educate their children as they like.
In a free country, freedom of association means that the aspects of tribalism that are not violent are free to remain in tact.
D'Souza needs to address the liklihood that "democracy" that brings Shariah will bring not only these freedoms, but also to limits on legit, genuine rights. Some of these limits are: legal tolerance of honor killings and wife-beatings, injunctions against women going out alone, and not covering their hair, driving, etc.
Hitchens looks a couple sheets to the wind even in his publicity photo.
Freedom Fest certainly has a wide range of topics being covered. Everything from whether or not Islam is Radical or Peaceful, to whether or not Christianity is the Problem; and my personal favorite: The Pleasures of Bird Watching.
One of the Key Note Speakers: Robert Spencer!
They must be shaking in their boots, because how can they argue against the written evil word: The Quran.
Oh, they'll find a way.
Robert
Who are you debating in the topic 'Islam: Radical or Peaceful?'? Dinesh?
Assuming Robert will be given a chance to actually speak.
Robert one more "gift" for D'Souza, a backbone.
Infidel Pride,
No, I won't be debating Dinesh, although I'd love to. I'll be debating Daniel Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University. He and I appeared on a radio show a few months back, and there weren't many fireworks, because we agreed on almost everything that came up. I later heard, however, that he had taken issue with my writing to that effect here at JW, because he disagrees with me on all sorts of things that just didn't come up during the show. So I guess we'll find out what they are at FreedomFest.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Hitchens looks a couple sheets to the wind...
Hitchens always looks a couple of sheets to the wind. It's part of his charm. Don't they always say, "In vino veritas." I think one of the more amusing hypocrisies within various Islamic societies, is that while alcohol is prohibited, they all drink.
The Iraqis, Iranians, Saudis, Egyptians, Emirates, Jordanians, LOL they all love their spirits...
So BYU has an Islamic studies department? I recall that when I was contemplating applying there as a student in 1991, seeing their brochure mention that one eschew beverages like coffee, tea, coke et al - made me drop any desire of wanting to go there. So here is an LDS institution (nothing against LDS, btw, I don't buy into the anti-Mormon bigotry) which is quite strict about its students following their rules, but which has a department of Islamic studies? What for? The only sane reason to do that is educate people about external threats, but somehow, I doubt that that's the charter of such a department.
"All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?" -- D' Souza
Sounds like pure realtivism to me: If a group thinks they're right and acting morally, everyone else must accept that they're right and acting morally, simple because they believe it -- To suggest otherwise is cultural and religious imperalisism.
Of course we should insist that Muslims get busy emancipating Women, stop the oppression of non- Muslims peoples, and eliminate a host of other dysfunctional and primitive practices and beliefs that are encouraged, and even mandated, in their theology.
If our insistence that they act morally is cultural or religious imperialiam, so be it. They are acting immorally, and we have a moral obligation to say so.
In D'Souza's relativist view, our founding fathers were wrong by insisting that "all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inaliable rights, among these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What right did they have to insist that the the King of England, Mohammad or any other tyrant, or oppressor, was morally wrong in the treatment of their subjects? What right did they have to insist these tyrants adopt a higher moral code of conduct in the way they treated the rest of humanity?
Yes, our founding fathers were saying that their ideals and principles were morally superior to all others.
Thank God they did, and we should do the same, and without apology.
Islamic morality is backward, primitive and immoral. Our's is superior. There, I said it.
The press would take it as proof that RS is Jewish, blockheads that they are. So it's probably the wrong move from a PR point of view. Maybe not. Not my expertise.
That said, D'himmiSouza would probably be better off if he gave the Torah a studious read.
He might even gain a little insight from knowing something about the value system and philosophy that the mohammedans are so passionately eager to stamp out.
It's instructive to know what somebody hates.
In any case I'd be amused.
What galls me is that this bastion of reason and intellectual thought is up against Hitchens defending Christianity. I'd probably become an atheist, too, if I had him defending me.
Parini is scheduled to speak on whether Frost is a libertarian? Horowitz has him pegged as a socialist.
Here is my letter to FreedomFest. I will crosspost in the Coughlin topic.
"Tami,
I was horrified to hear of the termination of Stephen Coughlin, of the Joint Staff in the Defense Department. Could you contact him and see if he's available to speak on your topic of "Islam: Radical or Peaceful?" He is an American hero and truth-teller.
Thank you for helping put together this conference and especially for inviting Robert Spencer.
I have to say, though, that you could put up a stronger debater than D'Sousa against the brilliant Hitchens. There are minds more logical and with better debating rhetoric than D'Sousa.
Kindest regards,
xxxxxxxx"
"All they are asking, to quote Victor Davis Hanson, is for Muslims to get busy "emancipating women...outlawing polygamy...insisting on secular education...and ending tribalism." Wow, Hanson, and can you also recommend a new holy book?" -- D' Souza
Sneaky. He's picking the most libertarian parts and ignoring the rest.
In a free country, people should be able to form their marriage contracts, as other personal contracts, to their liking.
In a free country, people should be able to educate their children as they like.
In a free country, freedom of association means that the aspects of tribalism that are not violent are free to remain in tact.
D'Souza needs to address the liklihood that "democracy" that brings Shariah will bring not only these freedoms, but also to limits on legit, genuine rights. Some of these limits are: legal tolerance of honor killings and wife-beatings, injunctions against women going out alone, and not covering their hair, driving, etc.