To the Editor:
The world was watching Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, as he delivered his controversial speech to Columbia University students and faculty Monday. Through his usual ambiguity, contradiction and, quite simply, lies, he paid lip service to tolerance, free speech, peace and other buzzwords he believes will magically erase his criminal history of intolerance, repression and violence. His circuitous discourse into science, academia and religion seemed as confusing and meaningless as his explanation for the right of the Jewish state to exist.
However, there is something to learn from this forum more than Ahmadinejad's senseless rationale. Universities must encourage conversation. When governments are placing political correctness over political integrity, universities remain the last hope for true exchange of ideas - even those that run against the free world. For that matter, Columbia should be commended, not criticized, for reminding the world American freedoms are nobler than those who use them.
Meanwhile, it is laughable that while Columbia invites the president of Iran, Vanderbilt invites Ben and Jerry to our campus. I understand that there are logistical considerations. However, while Vanderbilt administration complains of political apathy among undergraduates, there is simply no catalyst for sustainable political dialogue. In this age, where global issues become local, we must think outside the bubble. In the light of the recent hate crime on our campus, Ahmadinejad's denial of homosexuality in Iran exposes the global reach of homophobia and bigotry. Thus, we must continue to intensify our efforts to confront problems that intersect across cultures, oceans and history. Understanding the rationale for hate and confronting this issue with words, not wars, are the only ways to defeat it.
So I challenge you, Vanderbilt, to uphold the institution of free speech and to invite a speaker whose thoughts are at least controversial, not to merely imitate Columbia's example or to generate publicity, but to make this a university where exchange of ideas binds us as a free-thinking, intellectual enterprise.
Soo Ryum Yang
Sophomore, College Arts and Science.
Would inviting Mr. Ahmadinejad actually enhance dialogue?
I have no problem with the fact that President Ahmadinejad was given the right to speak last Monday but I do not think it would have been of much benefit to bring someone like him to Vanderbilt.
Ahmadinejad is a politician and he did not make controversial statements on Monday to get Americans to debate ideas with him. He made those statements so that the press in Iran would write about how Americans treated him poorly giving him fodder to rally his hard-line supporters for his upcoming re-election campaign.
President Bollinger, although not an elected official, is also really a politician as well. I agree with much of what Bollinger said in his introduction of Ahmadinejad. But I also can't help but think that he introduced him in that manner to make himself and the university look better, considering that they were already facing harsh criticism for inviting Ahmadinejad in the first place.
Bollinger was acting in the best interest of the university, which is his job. But acting in the interest of the university and acting in the interest of enhanced dialogue were at odds in this case.
I will add that I'm not even sure it's possible to even have a reasonable discussion with an idealogue like Ahmadinejad. But last Monday's event wasn't even an attempt. I don't see how I or anyone else would have gained anything by being able to watch this political theater in the Student Life Center or Memorial Gym instead of watching it on C-Span.
Controversial speakers
It isn't that I disagree that Vanderbilt should be inviting more provocative speakers. I agree with you. I think the Impact Symposium for the past few years has been a pretty good example of Vanderbilt not pushing discourse on this campus out of the mainstream, acceptable box it fits into everywhere else. But do we not consider Salman Rushdie and Gore Vidal to be controversial figures any more? I just think that to compare Columbia's invitation to Ahmedinejad to Vanderbilt's invitation to Ben and Jerry is a little unfair. It isn't as though Ben and Jerry are characteristic of the usual set of speakers Vandy brings here.
Haley, I made the
Haley, I made the connection between Ben+Jerry and Ahmedinejad mainly due to timeliness. However, speakers like Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal, and other speakers as such do not have the impact that an Iranian dictator would have in engaging the entire Vanderbilt community in intense political dialouge. On the other hand, I believe that Salman Rushdie, the writer of the "Satanic Verses," Gore Vidal, leader of "Moveon.org" and Ben+Jerry, non-traditional economists, will contribute to making Vanderbilt more aware of the political reality. What I am saying is that, in addition to those speakers mentioned above, we need to do more to cross the critical point where Vanderbilt students would be participating, on a normal basis, in substantial conversation regarding issues of deep controversy and complexity. And, I believe that a speech by a person with a dangerously provocative idea (within the lines of decency, of course) would shake Vanderbilt from its politcally apathetic drowsiness.
Ben and Jerry
I agree that it would be nice to have Vanderbilt make headlines the way Columbia has, but in all fairness, Ben and Jerry are not at all apolitical.
I agree, and I'd also like
I agree, and I'd also like to point out that the decision to invite a speaker shouldn't be as simple as SPEAKER A'S CURRENT CONTROVERSY > SPEAKER B'S CURRENT CONTROVERSY. You also have to consider a speaker's overall "fit" with the student body. Let's take a look at Vandy's students, for example. Vandy has a ton of aspiring professionals and businessmen growing increasingly interested in the field of corporate social responsibility, of which Ben and Jerry are pioneers.
You can't just look at things in terms of "This gets Vandy in the papers." You also have to consider "Is this the most relevant speaker we can find as far as Vanderbilt's student population is concerned?" By that metric, I would argue Ben and Jerry are a far better choice than Ahmadinejad.
(edited out a typo)
Ceaf, please read my opinion
Ceaf, please read my opinion completely before making comments. I have argued that Vanderbilt should invite a speaker with a greatly different perspective "not to merely imitate Columbia's example or TO GENERATE PUBLICITY, but to make this a university where exchange of ideas binds us as a free-thinking, intellectual enterprise". In addition, I have not said that Ben+Jerry should not speak in our University. In fact, I will be attending the lecture myself. I also understand that Vanderbilt students demonstrate a wide-range of interests- inlcuding economics and politics. The issue at hand is that there is a lack of speakers with ideas that can bring all Vanderbilt students in an intense, deep discussion about issues that we must all confront. It's all about awareness, free speech, social responsibilty, and dialouge.
"Ceaf, please read my
"Ceaf, please read my opinion completely before making comments."
I read your opinion. I also read Haley's and Mike's opinions and, as apparent by the indentation of my post, was partially responding to them and building on what they said. In addition, people need to realize that sometimes their printed words argue for things their thoughts may not.
"I have argued that Vanderbilt should invite a speaker with a greatly different perspective "not to merely imitate Columbia's example or TO GENERATE PUBLICITY, but to make this a university where exchange of ideas binds us as a free-thinking, intellectual enterprise.'"
I don't see how inviting Ben and Jerry are in any way incompatible with that goal. That was my point. Ben and Jerry are pioneers in their field and they have insights and experiences nobody else on the planet has just as Ahmadinejad does.
"In addition, I have not said that Ben+Jerry should not speak in our University."
"Meanwhile, it is laughable that while Columbia invites the president of Iran, Vanderbilt invites Ben and Jerry to our campus."
While this may not have been what you meant, that does read as if you think it's ridiculous that Ben and Jerry are coming to speak, and thus you believe they should not have been offered the opportunity. While your intentions may have been different, the only clue readers have as to your meaning until you tell them, as you are doing now, is what appears in the original text you sent for publication.
"In fact, I will be attending the lecture myself."
Good for you (seriously). Sometimes it's the speakers about whom you aren't too enthused, rather than the most high-profile/bombastic who can teach you the most. When I was at Vanderbilt I heard Howard Dean, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Al Sharpton, and many others speak. The best speaker I ever heard at Vanderbilt, however, was a freelance journalist named Sam Quinones who discussed immigration and his experiences in Northern Mexico. Now, when you imply that since Ben and Jerry aren't provocative enough (which is what your letter is arguing to many people, whether you agree with it or not), you imply that it's also "laughable" to invite fantastic speakers like Quinones just because they're choosing to touch on issues you don't particularly care about. "Encouraging conversation" doesn't just mean "having controversial thoughts" at all; it also includes bringing attention to issues people aren't necessarily thinking about as much, such as the intersection between business and morality. If you think that's a "laughable" topic, that discussion of it doesn't encourage "a free-thinking, intellectual enterprise," you have entirely missed the point of the university experience.
"I also understand that Vanderbilt students demonstrate a wide-range of interests- inlcuding economics and politics. The issue at hand is that there is a lack of speakers with ideas that can bring all Vanderbilt students in an intense, deep discussion about issues that we must all confront. It's all about awareness, free speech, social responsibilty, and dialouge."
Again, if such visionaries in their field as Ben and Jerry can't produce dialogue at Vanderbilt, I think the problem is with Vanderbilt and that NO speaker could create a meaningful dialogue there.
Now, for your response to Haley:
"However, speakers like Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal, and other speakers as such do not have the impact that an Iranian dictator would have in engaging the entire Vanderbilt community in intense political dialouge."
Again, if speakers of this caliber can't engage the Vanderbilt community, nobody can. If Vanderbilt can't debate Salman Rushdie, you could invite Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ to speak and they'd be met with silence.
"On the other hand, I believe that Salman Rushdie, the writer of the The Satanic Verses, Gore Vidal, leader of Moveon.org and Ben+Jerry, non-traditional economists, will contribute to making Vanderbilt more aware of the political reality. What I am saying is that, in addition to those speakers mentioned above, we need to do more to cross the critical point where Vanderbilt students would be participating, on a normal basis, in substantial conversation regarding issues of deep controversy and complexity."
Again, if a slate like this can't produce substantial conversation, the problem isn't with the speakers.
"And, I believe that a speech by a person with a dangerously provocative idea (within the lines of decency, of course) would shake Vanderbilt from its politcally apathetic drowsiness."
What's this "within the lines of decency" business? Do you want "a university where exchange of ideas binds us as a free-thinking, intellectual enterprise" or not? Who determines where that line of decency is, for one thing? All I've seen this letter promoting is "freedom of speech, as long as that speech discusses a topic I personally care about and think everyone else should care about."
Also, I'm amused that you think Ben and Jerry couldn't possibly produce dialogue at Vanderbilt. What the hell are we doing right now?
Ceaf, thank you for
Ceaf, thank you for responding. I will address some of the issues you raised:
1) My opinion's original title was "There is something to learn," not "Ahmadinejad's lecture shames Vanderbilt". There are, as always, editors from Hustler who desire to sensationalize controversial issues.
2) Saying it is laughable only means one thing- it is funny. Nothing more, nothing less.
3) I believe the Vanderbilt has the students, the resources, and the climate for substantial dialouge. But, you may be right. There might be an inherent problem in Vanderbilt. However, in order to change that, we can bring change from the outside (speakers mentioned previously) or bring change within (as you implied). I just want change, and bringing a controversial figure would not hinder the progress.
4) Decency means simply, no cursing, no inappropriate behavior, such as dancing naked, and other ridiculous stuff along those lines.
5) I do care about issues of politics. But I am also deeply interested in other issues. It happens to be that Ahmadinejad is a controversial political figure. I would be for bringing leaders in field of science, economics, culture, religion, and literature, with the same intensity of difference in idea that the Iranian president represents. And, I also realize that Ben+Jerry, Salman Rushdie, Gore Vidal fit well in the category. The question is, can we bring people who believe in Marxist economy, elimination of free speech, or anarchy? They don't have to be famous, but have ideas that allow us to review and re-examine our own social culture.
6) I like your last sentence. I agree. But, the only problem is that this dialouge is happening between less than 5 people. The dialouge I wish to see is one that involves the entire Vanderbilt body.
Ahh, now we're getting
Ahh, now we're getting somewhere. Thank you for responding as well!
1. The Hustler tends to favor "active" headlines rather than passive ones. This policy appears to be inconsistently applied these days but it does seem to have been applied unfairly against you. I apologize.
2. While "laughable" can mean "funny," it implies an attitude of derision. In an environment such as an opinion page where people don't necessarily get the choice to explain themselves precision of connotation as well as denotation is more important than a lot of writers think.
3. I suspect this is our main sticking point. I'm just not entirely convinced that attempting to bring change from without will be very productive (leading horses to water and all that). For there to be dialogue, people have to be willing to speak and take chances as well as listen and from what I've experienced I'd say the average Vanderbilt student tends to be very risk-averse. While I agree a controversial figure wouldn't hurt at all, I just don't think it would produce a dialogue students weren't willing to have in the first place.
4. This was just an issue of clarification, really. I don't disagree with you know that you've explained what you've meant.
5. The problem is that the most extreme people (the ones who believe in the elimination of free speech and such) don't tend to have as much name recognition (Ahmadinejad being a relatively rare exception), so they're more likely to be brought in by individual departments instead of by the university/VPB/what-have-you. This is for a couple of reasons, at least from what I can tell.
a) Many of the speakers "on the fringes" without as much name recognition can be brought in more cheaply so individual departments can pay their expenses and such.
b) The more extreme somebody gets, the more expert-level analysis has to be done to examine whether this person is just a crackpot or if he's really on to something with this unorthodoxy thing. I don't see VPB/the university administration putting in the time to do that for every potential field.
c) The more extreme somebody gets, the smaller their potential audience gets, so it might not be the best use of resources at the university level to bring in a speaker without broad-based appeal.
So what's the solution? Off the top of my head it might be interesting to fund the big-ticket speakers a little less and fund the department-level speakers more so those who want opportunities for dialogue/intellectual challenges can have them and "seed" dialogues among their friends. Basically, let's try a bottom-up/grassroots approach instead of a top-down one.
6. I agree with this and Vanderbilt is more apathetic about a lot of things than I would prefer, but I'm still not convinced that anyone can make Vanderbilt discuss anything it doesn't really want to discuss.
So Ahmadinejad has a different worldview...
First of all, while we may not all agree with His Excellency Dr. Ahmadinejad, I believe that Bollinger's behaviour was simply shameful. Instead of allowing students to decide for themselves, baased on Ahmadinejad's own words, what to believe, he began the introduction with a rant meant to embarass and criticize the Iranian President. Instead of opening the floor to questions directly from the audience, he hand-picked a select few questions to ask, questions designed, because of Iran's more traditional worldview, to create an inflammatory response.
For some time now, there are many advocates, some of them non-American, in Capital Hill demanding a war with Iran. And why should America take care of this threat? They do not pose a real threat to America. Even supposing Ahmadinejad's regime could develop nuclear weapons, their reach would be very limited, and even Ahmadinejad would (hopefully) realize the implications of nuclear weaponry in an already unstable region. Furthermore, if the United States is that concerned about nuclear non-proliferation, why have they remained silent about Israel's nuclear program? Israel has compromised American security more than Iran. Americans should not forget the bombing of the USS Liberty, or the fact that Israel has sent spies to America which then passed data onto America's enemies.
But I digress. Bollinger neglected to mention that Dr. Ahmadinejad, the son of a blacksmith, lead a distinguished career as a civil engineer before his role in politics. He neglects to mention Ahmadinejad's humble demeanor - from living in a simple apartment in Tehran, to caring for Iran's less fortunate, to eating meals brought from home while working late nights to better Iran.
Now, I'd also like to say a few more words about President Ahmadinejad.
As a civil engineer, Dr. Ahmadinejad put his skills to use when he was elected Mayor of Tehran by the second City Council of Tehran on May 3, 2003, after a 12% turnout led to the election of the conservative candidates of Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran in Tehran. During his mayorship, he reversed many of the changes put into effect by previous moderate and reformist mayors, putting religious emphasis on the activities of the cultural centers founded by previous mayors, going on the record with the separation of elevators for men and women in the municipality offices, and suggesting that the bodies of those killed in the Iran-Iraq War be buried in major city squares of Tehran. Such actions were coupled with an emphasis on charity, such as distributing free soup to the poor.
On 24 June 2005 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected as Iran's president, in a legitimate election. Ahmadinejad swept to the presidential post with a stunning 17,046,441 votes out of a total of 27,536,069 votes cast in the runoff election. When he took office in August 2005, Ahmadinejad became the first non-cleric president to lead Iran in 24 years.
Ahmadinejad rose from relative political obscurity to go head-to-head with a prominent national figure, former president. In style and substance, the two men had different visions for Iran -- one is heavily associated with the Iranian business class, supporting a centrist position and appeasement of the US; the other held a steadfast commitment personal modesty and to the Iranian people. Today, Ahmadinejad leads the a new conservative movement in the Islamic Republic, fearlessly resisting the poison of liberalism and decadence that has hurt the West.
Just because the West has chosen to legalize sodomy and feminism does not make them right. Using this assumption when judging Iran makes those who do so guilty of assuming that Western culture is superior to all others.
Indeed, if anything, Ahmadinejad should be praised. He is one of the remaining truly conservative leaders in the world today, unlike the "neo-conservatives" in Washington who have nothing to do with true social and moral conservatism. I hope people will now really examine what Ahmadinejad has done for the people of Iran and for the culture of Iran.
You can't possibly be a
You can't possibly be a student at Vanderbilt.
Mr. Muhammad, in the future
Mr. Muhammad, in the future please keep such reactionary, proto-fascist rants to yourself. I am sure there is a place for them, but this forum is not it. There exists a difference between upholding freedom of speech and allowing a hateful criminal such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be given a podium at a prestigious institution such as Columbia University and rant away his anti-Americanism which is already known of him. It is preposterous that in this day and age, Holocaust-deniers and racists are given the opportunity to speak out in our universities. Hate speech is illegal and goes against the very nature of our Constitutional principles.
Dr. Bollinger did an excellent job in exposing Ahmadinejad for what he really is: "a cruel and petty dictator." Mr. Muhammad, the American people do not want to hear Ahmadinejad's diatribe. The American people can learn about him by reading a newspaper, for example. Freedom of speech is not the issue in hand, what we have here is a cruel dictator who used Columbia University solely for propaganda purposes in order to inform his terrorist buddies that he is with them. And what better place to espouse the terrorist Islamofascist ideology but right in their enemy's territory, the United States of America! It is insulting that you defend this coward who has no regards for human rights whatsoever.
Mr. Muhammad, you live in a fantasy world. Our beloved country is in a war against terror. Israel is America's strategic ally, and it is dedicated in helping us defeat terrorism in the Middle East. Iran has already attacked Israel by its funding of Hezbollah (also a terrorist organization). It is preposterous to say that Israel has compromised the security of the United States more than Iran has. Israel is a democracy in a region of the world that has none. The United States must defend that democracy if the Middle East will ever have the chance to stabilize itself. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel's destruction and has denied the Holocaust on numerous accounts. We cannot allow this terrorist to acquire nuclear weapons. I find it quite unequivocal that the United States and Israel must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The fear is not whether they will use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but rather whether they can send nuclear weapons materials to terrorist organizations. We've already seen last year what Iran is capable of doing with the Hezbollah-Israeli war in 2006.
It is also insulting that you call Ahmadinejad a genuine "conservative". True conservatives uphold human rights and human dignity. Ahmadinejad has tarnished his country and is keeping his fellow citizens in constant fear of execution. People of different sexual orientations are targeted and kept under strenuous surveillance in the face of persecution. Sodomy is not equivalent to homosexuality. I find it quite insulting that you generalize homosexuality to sodomy. I think it is quite clear that you are ignorant of science and have no respect towards fellow human beings.
Women are also targets in Iran's hateful laws. Ahmadinejad is no conservative, he is a fascist dictator who only cares about himself and his failing ideology at the expense of his people and country regardless if he was elected "democratically." The Iranian press is state-owned, so it's quite obvious that the Iranian people were fooled into voting for Ahmadinejad since the hard-line clerics practically own the place! What a democracy!
my thoughts..
After reading Mr. Muhammad's pro-Ahmadinejad rant, I had the notion that I should at least attempt a positive, constructive response instead of going on about how bigoted and perverted Mr. Muhammad's views are. Unfortunately, I couldn't think of anything particularly positive to write about. So, instead, I'll just tell you that it is our responsibility to ensure that Mr. Muhammad understands that his hate speech, and his endorsement of a murderer who is perhaps even worse than George Bush, is not welcome. On Wednesday, he took out a full-page ad calling homosexuals immoral and pushing the Islamic view on all of campus. In case he hasn't noticed, in America there is this little idea of Separation of Church and State. This means that any religion -- in particular Christianity but to a lesser degree Islam -- has no place in our laws. Morality is not something to be legislated, and I say this as someone raised in a Christian home myself. In fact, the Bible also says horrid things bout homosexuals, but if I can be completely honest, I'd rather those verses be removed from the Bible than have them actually enacted in society, so that fundamentalist elements can continue to use them to justify this sort of thing.
That being said, it is very clear that Mr. Muhammad has an agenda which he has hidden behind religion. He has repeated the same rhetoric used by the Spanish Inquisition and by the Nazis to justify his incoherent, intolerant right-wing worldview, and he is hiding not only behind the Quran, but also our beloved Constitution. He is out to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes. And by not speaking out against such hate-drenched propaganda, we become accomplices. Notice the venal tendency of his sentiments. His idiotic claim that Ahmadinejad was "democratically elected" or that he has done good things for Iran is nothing more than a statement meant to infuriate. The things Ahmadinejad's done for Iran are irrelevent, and aren't an issue here. Hitler also improved the quality of life for Germans, yet was a mass murderer. The issue is Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust (the worst atrocity in all of human history), his call for the extermination of Jews, his abuse of liberal intellectuals, and so many more. Ahmadinejad should not be praised, but brought to trial.
I truly contend that we should show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by proposing that Mr. Muhammad is not given a voice any longer in the Hustler. Even though Mr. Muhammad might try to say he is "only debating," which is a common excuse for those who voice intolerant opinions. But the truth is, unfortunately with him, that his arguments are hardly worth a response, and people don't want to hear them. That being said, Mr. Dawud Muhammad is pretending to be a moral person and a guardian of virtue and manners. However, when it comes right down to it, what Mr. Muhammad is pushing is both self-aggrandizing and misinformed. He misses the fact that it is immoral, not to mention un-American, to deny people basic human rights on any basis. His politics and his worldview are degenerate, backwards, and barbaric and have no place in the 21st century, and certainly no place at Vanderbilt. If there are any who really think that he acts in the name of equality and social justice, they need to only read his essays, and realize that they are the same in form and substance as those who bombed abortion clinics and martyred Matthew Sheppard in the name of Christianity. If we let Mr. Muhammad make our lives miserable, all we'll have to look forward to in the future is a public realm devoid of culture and a narrow and routinized professional life untouched by the highest creations of civilization. Mr. Muhammad needs to get off his soapbox of hate and maybe take a class on reality.
Mr. Muhammad claims that liberalism is "poison". Yet the very same thing could be said about religion -- that it is the "opiate of the People" to quote Marx. The claim that liberals are somehow damaging society, is another one of Mr. Muhammad's ultra-hostile, ethically bankrupt quips. Mr. Muhammad apparently thinks that he deserves control over everyone's lives on campus, and he's not about to let facts or reason get in his way. He wants to break down age-old institutions and customs. Is this so he can impose ideology, control thought, and punish virtually any behavior he disapproves of? I will let the readers be the response of this. In either case, his beliefs are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, he thinks that he is a tireless protector of civil rights and civil liberties for all people. The truth couldn't be farther from his lies.
Questions for Chris Davis
Mr. Davis, you claim to be a Christian, but do you follow Christian beliefs? Everything you say seems to indicate that you do not truly follow Christian beliefs, or if you do, you do so poorly. The way you talk, I would guess that you bow before the false idol of liberalism more than to the sign of the Cross. You state that, in order to appease this deconstructionist, post-modern society in which we live, you would go so far as to strike out passages from the Bible. This makes me wonder if you truly believe in the message of Jesus (peace be upon him). Is it not written that, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine"? If you accept this, then you must accept that the entire Bible is infallible. Is it not also written that those who remove words from the Bible will be punished on the Day of Judgement? It seems that you are picking and choosing which beliefs to believe in.
Furthermore, you also quote Karl Marx. As you probably know, Marxism, and ideas derived from it -- Bolshevism and Communism, were responsible for the murders of 100 million Orthodox Christians in Russia, and massive human rights abuses throughout the entire globe. Therefore, as a Christian, how can you associate yourself with a phrase that is not only anti-religion, but responsible for persecuting the Christian faith?
If you are a Marxist, then please be honest here. Perhaps you would even earn sympathy among the politically correct majority. If you are only claiming to be a Christian so that you can attempt to gain a moral high ground, then wouldn't you be as guilty as you claim I am for "hiding behind religion"?
You talk about "Separation of Church and State". Yet, this phrase has little value outside of semantics. It is not mentioned in the Constitution or in the Declaration of Independence. The reality is quite the opposite, the Founders' political views, as evidenced by the references in the Constitution to God, based their ideas on their religion. The First Amendment says that there is no established denomination of the government, and that the government has no right to interfere with worship. It does not prohibit politicians from being religious, nor bringing a religious perspective to the debate. And in fact, as an American who claims to be Christian, you should hope that they do so. But, perhaps I digress because none of us here are politicians.
You also mention human rights, but then turn around to say that you hope that I am "not given a voice any longer in the Hustler", and imply that my opinions, and consequently, I, do not belong at Vanderbilt. I can think of no other explanation for this statement other than the gross hypocrisy which is so prevalent to leftists here on this campus.
I find that much of your letter contains personal attacks. Your comparison of my person to those who bombed the abortion clinics and those who killed Matthew Sheppard is without basis, and rather extreme. You have chosen to judge me because I do not agree with you. Did I compare you to those people who hate Abu Bakr and all the companions of the Prophet? Did I compare you to the Americans who are now in Iraq? I think that you are being quite unfair and speaking without thinking. In the future, you should perhaps show some respect to yourself and choose your words with care.
Tell me, Mr. Davis -- exactly what are the "age-old institutions" that I wish to break down? The cult of liberalism has lasted for less than half a century. Islam has lasted for 1200 years. Christianity has lasted for 2000 years. It is in fact liberalism which is destroying the age-old institutions, not the other way around. Therefore, it is in every way acceptable to speak of liberalism as the poison to society.
In conclusion Mr. Davis, I will say this -- you seem to be quite confused as to your own beliefs. How then, are you justified in criticizing mine?
i shouldn't even bother debating this but...
You obviously know nothing about Christianity. Christianity is about my own personal relationship with Jesus Christ. You assume that because I don't agree with your peverse right-wing views on persecuting women and gays and anyone you disagree with that I am not a Christian. You're wrong. It's the conservatives that have Christianity wrong, not liberals. Biblically documented teachings of Jesus Christ clearly show that Jesus is a Liberal. His philosophy, based in compassion, equality, inclusion, forgiveness, tolerance and peace is 100% liberal. How I choose to worship Jesus and God is my own personal business, and if you don't like it you might as well go jump off a cliff because it isn't going to change.
The most important commandment Jesus gave was not to judge others. You Muslims seem to be pretty good at judging anyone who disagrees with you. If you people are so religious, what are you doing with all the wealth that you have in Muslim countries? Hoarding it and building golden hotels for rich people to enjoy, or are you helping the poor? If you are so religious, why do you have the death penalty for even the smallest violations? Try answering that one, Mr. Muhammad, and try using your own brain, not the Quran.
It is not hypocrisy that I think your hate speech shouldn't be allowed in the Hustler. Hate speech is not free speech. It's simple as that. Ahmadinejad is a man who denys the Holocaust in preparation for a second one at his own hands. The fact that you praise this man shows that you are either delusional or part of some sort of propaganda campaign aimed at demoralizing identifiable minority groups on campus. Mr. Muhammad, you know the implications of your words in that article, and what you said was unforgivable. We live in a civilized, tolerant society, which is dependent on unity for its very survival. Your article was specifically designed to foment hatred and interfere with the peace and unity of society, and you need to be held accountable for that.
"Your comparison of my person to those who bombed the abortion clinics and those who killed Matthew Sheppard is without basis, and rather extreme."
Fine, you have the same attitude as the terrorists who did 9/11. Happy now?
"The cult of liberalism has lasted for less than half a century."
Excuse me? "Cult of liberalism"? I've never heard anything more ridiculous in my life, Mr. Muhammad. Conservatism is what's wrong with the world. In every country that endorsed a conservative mindset, dictatorship was soon to follow, Nazi Germany being a prime example of this. Not only this, the Founding Fathers of America were liberals. Calling liberalism a "cult" is nothing but another one of your thinly-veiled attacks on America, and God knows what else you were trying to say. I won't be intimidated by your crass statements and your attempt to twist and distort facts to justify your immoral and cynical outlook on the world. Nor will I be intimidated by the fact that you are trying to paint me as a "fake Christian" simply because I am a liberal.
also: Marx has practically NOTHING to do with what went on in the USSR, those were states that ignored many aspects of Marxist principles, they were simply were a corrupt dictatorship hiding behind an ideology. I've spoken to some real socialists and they would never embrace that kind of anti democratic regime.
Your postings here on this website bear all of the hallmarks of a hateful manifesto having been written by a vitriolic social outcast such as the Unabomber. It's you that needs to learn how to respect other human beings as human beings, not the other way around. Otherwise I highly doubt that you belong at Vanderbilt, but in a mental institution.
"I truly contend that we
"I truly contend that we should show principle, gumption, verve, and nerve, and I have formalized my commitment to this high ideal by proposing that Mr. Muhammad is not given a voice any longer in the Hustler. Even though Mr. Muhammad might try to say he is 'only debating,' which is a common excuse for those who voice intolerant opinions. But the truth is, unfortunately with him, that his arguments are hardly worth a response, and people don't want to hear them."
While I understand how you feel (and I agree with you to a large extent about Mr. Muhammad's views) censorship really is the greater of the two evils in this situation. Let him make a fool of himself, because attempting to silence his voice only lends him legitimacy.
Legalizing feminism?
I'd just like to add to that excellently made statemenet by ALH that there is no need to legalize feminism... it is a set of beliefs that does not need to be made legal. It would be like saying we had to "legalize" new religions or new philosophies. I take extreme offense to Mr. Muhammad's implication that women and homosexuals have no right to identity.
We accept you for who you are, we do not judge you for your religion (although we may judge on your backwards beliefs on human rights), learn to accept us for who we are and you might be okay. If you cannot learn to do this, I would advise to keep your strict and fascist ideals to yourself or you may find yourself crossing the wrong person in the future. Not everyone can rationalize and have conversations about what upsets them.