Ma Boy Dinesh

Dinesh D'Souza has a negative view on Islam. I read that in a debate, he stated that the Koran has a lot a violent text. And that it is the cause for a lot of "hideous deeds". I think Dinesh D'Souza has a good point. Most of the terrorist acts that are performed today are fueled by their religion. Islam. I also noticed that D'Souza's arguments are very well thought out and worded whenever he tries to state his opinion. Although I never looked as Islam as a threat, Dinesh D'Souza convinced me with only a few, "sense making" points. In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BqTrhrF86o) he even brings up the question, "Is liberty actually good for us?". He can take what people think as a largly popular view, and make you question it. Dinesh De'Souza's arguments about his opinions are substantial and can really change one's mind.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was a very well educated man that openly protested and fought against colonization. Frantz Fanon had the interesting tactic that violence against the oppressor was the ideal way to unify the colonized people. He used this unification to fight for independence against the colonizers. In this article we are able to see one of the speeches he gave and we clearly see that he is addressing the people to listen to him, to take action against and stop letting themselves be controlled. He is able to use very sophisticated rhetoric to convince his audience. I found it very interesting to see how he phrases things to make himself more credible. No just how he said it, but what he said as well was planned out very scholarly. All of his supporting evidence was true and clear stated. The language style he spoke in was very sophisticated and made the audience view him as the leader they needed.
Even though I do not believe that violence is the necessary method that needed to be used to unify the people to defend themselves against colonizers, I think Frantz did an extremely good job using rhetoric to convince the people that it was.

An Unknown Shakespeare---D'Souza

In part 7 of this riveting debate between Hitchens and D'Souza at the Freedom Fest in 2008, D'Souza ends with a flurry of remarks that boil down to say: unless there was some illiterate that created a character more riveting than Hamlet then there must have been a Jesus, because there has only been one Shakespeare and I could actually have to agree with him on this one considering that there is conjecture that one man(Shakespeare) could have created so many masterpieces. I think that D'Souza is brilliant and is one of the best debaters tat I have ever, the way that he takes all of Hitchens' points and succinctly attacks them all is egregious. I truly believe that even though I am not Catholic, that he brought up questions and doubts in my mind about what Hitchens said. I was in awe at how brilliant he was, and I liked the use of the Ottomans and the Mugals...

"The Unmitigated Gall of Dinesh D'Souza"

I read an article by San Diego Reader journalist, Thomas Larson, and was quite surprised about the topic.  Mr. Larson wrote a 12,000 word article profiling Dinesh D'Souza; it discussed his views, his two major books Illiberal Education and The End of Racism, and how he made his money/his family life.  A week after it had been published, Larson's article appeared on Dinesh's personal website, only not in its complete form.  Dinesh cut it down, removing paragraphs in which his personal life was discussed and criticisms of his arguments namely criticism of his argument that "Democrats, because they supported gay rights, are now the party of "bestiality" and sexual deviance."  Mr. Larson wasn't notified of these changes, and this sparked off a big controvery.  I find it interesting that Mr. D'Souza has the audacity to do such a rude and illegal act.  It's even more interesting that Mr. D'Souza, who is a hardcore Republican committed to the principles of private property,  would do such a thing, and then carelessly shrug it off like he did nothing wrong.  The article can be found here.  

Buffers Between Peace and Violence

After reading a few posts, I looked more into an article on the Franz Fanon's view on violence against injustice. I believe that these controversial ideas were brought about by the harsh extremeness of the times, and the lack of systems for the people.  Before colonialism, most major revolutions, that brought about good change, were actually achieved through radical uprisings and violence.  Ironically, this violence was able to bring about a more just world, as it did during the French Revolution.  With this prior knowledge, his belief in necessary violence is not surprising.  Although I too do not believe that violence should be the path to freedom, we have to take into account the differences between our society today and the times he lived in.  Currently, we have many established organizations and systems, such as the United Nations and our government, that help maintain the peace.  What I mean to say is that we have the means to bring about change in a civil way; we just have to work the system.  In order to more fully understand his position, we must realize that his society was completely different from ours.  He lived in a time where there were no systems to work, no means to help the people's voice be heard, and consequently no buffers between peace and violence; just two distinct groups - the oppressors and the oppressed.

Dinesh D'Souza- religious scholar

In a recent debate with the self-pronounced atheist Christopher Hitchens, Dinesh D'Souza flung himself into a worldly argument in an attempt to justify virtually every aspect of Christianity. His defense was formidable, as Hitchens' attack was relentless. From the beginning, one could sense D'Souza's immediate disadvantage as a theocratic scholar. He began by calling out and condemning a society that had conformed to contemporary social values rather than the Christian based morals that had guided people's lives for thousands of years. He clung to his faith in the heat of Hitchens' accusations that pertained to science, politics, and historical indications of religious immorality and ruthless behavior. It is almost impossible to deny the arguments of Mr. Hitchens, as their validity could simply be justified by "any person who could think." However, I couldn't help but respect the way D'Souza valiantly and credibly defended his position. With every Hitchens offensive, he found a way to counter the accusations by pointing out, ultimately, that his opponent's strongest arguments were purely circumstantial. Even in the scientific arena, Mr. D'Souza indicated the presence of scientific embodiments in aforementioned religious ideals. How could the electron know to be attracted to a proton? How are scientific laws justified? Were humans only coincidentally developed/placed upon this earth with a natural compatibility and knowledge of our surroundings? He provoked questions that certainly challenge atheist arguments on non-sensical aspects of theism. Science could be evidence of a greater and universal scientific mind. However, despite the hope that D'Souza laid out for us wishful thinkers, every part of his argument was grounded by a foundation defined by faith. If faith was absent, his arguments were simply irrelevant. In his mind, atheists were shutting out the evidence and effects of God and confining themselves to what appeared to be a rational and more appropriate belief system (especially in our modern world). But he seemed to be unaware that even though the idea and possibility of God is undeniable, that does necessarily correspond to absolute religious belief. He had the advantage of genuinely  believing in Christianity and God. Some of us, unfortunately,  do not.

Frantz Fanon

Frantz Fanon was an African psychiatrist and writer who lived from 1925 to 1961. He openly protested colonialization and all of the negative effects that the people under imperialistic rule had to experience. He was one of the main inpirations for the leaders of the Black Power movement in the United States. During the time in which Fanon lived, all the countries of Europe were posessed by racist ideas regarding their colonies. Black people were expected to give up all of their traditions and culture and adopt the white way of living. Fanon was a main supporting force in many of the colonial independence movements, mostly supplying them with supplies.

I found this article extremely interesting as it talks about Fanon's extremely controversial beliefs on combatting colonialism. He believed, not only that it was necessary for colonised people to use violence to combat their oppressors, but also believed that violence was a way to unite all people fighting for independence and "binding people to the liberation movement." I do not share Fanon's belief that violence is necessary to break colonialisms hold. There are surely other ways to fight for independence that do not involve direct combat with the oppressors.

Dinesh

I used this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw7J15TeDG4

The video is a debate with Daniel Dennett. Daniel Dennett raises the question, is god a human invention? *the question was proposed by Dinesh

Another big question raised is why is the youth turning away from religion? I think that this is an obvious question. People are getting smarter. People aren't believing things because "they should" because its "just right," but because they ration through it. People can think for themselves, and with all of these scientific discoveries, it really is quite irrational to believe in a religion or god. Back when Christianity was formed, things were far from scientific. If people in the town were sick, it must be because of that black cloud in our head. Atheism goes with liberalism and religon, while Religion goes with conservatism. The bottom line is that liberals embrace everyones rights, while conservatives only care about their own. That is what it comes down to. If you really took the time to rationally think about things (life) you would realize how accurate that statement is. Can there be an atheist conservative? NO. Can there be a religious liberal? YES. That says a lot if you think about it. 

Dinesh is simply crazy! He is a master of rhetoric. A master of saying so much, but meaning so very little. He tries to rebut Dan's FACT that the only reason Islam is growing is because of families having children and not because of converting, but is wrong in his attempts. Dinesh also thinks that religion is growing in America. Not really Dinesh, did you listen to Dan at all? Dinesh, life must be so easy only seeing the things you want to see. Anything that proves you wrong, doesn't it make life just so much easier for you to ignore it? Doesn't that make your lame points about religion seem even more valid to yourself? Dan pointed to the New York Times (a valid source last time I checked) which said that when the children today become adults, only 4% of them will believe in the bible. Yes Dinesh, religion is really growing (remember he ignores FACTS that do not support his theory). Go back a couple hundred years ago and everyone believes in the bible. Look at this study, 4%? I wonder why people are turning to atheism? Does that tell you anything? He then points to countries and say "hey look they are growing from a decade or so ago!" Dinesh, the population is growing to. The majority of the growth isn't from conversions! Some atheist must have rubbed him the wrong way when he was a child, because he really has an axe to grind. His agenda is huge. Of course Dinesh is going to side with religion. Duh! He is religious himself! He makes Sam Parker arguments (very broad over generalizations).

I cannot stand Dinesh!

*I did not mean to attack anyone's religious beliefs in anyway. I respect everyone's beliefs. As I said, liberals support everyone's rights religious and non religious. 

Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Bad About Atheism?

This is a response to Ryan's post (and the interview with Dinesh D'Souza he discovered), found here.

I have a pretty different opinion of this interview. My parents are Christian, and though they brought me to church when I was younger, I never really identified with this—or any other—religion. It's not my intention to start a dispute over religion (these kinds of wars are often pointless and counterproductive), but I do think a non-religious viewpoint is needed.

D'Souza does not only say that "atheism is becoming more of an option for young people", he goes further, arguing that "atheism is more attractive to young people". He also claims that "new atheism accuses Christianity for being behind most of the war, suffering, and terrorism in the world". While I do agree that the atheist population has grown—especially among younger generations—I find it frankly a bit offensive and hypocritical of D'Souza to accuse atheists of blaming religion for suffering and tragedy in the world while so vehemently defending Christianity. I think that what D'Souza has done is misunderstand many people. I do not think that religion is to blame for the suffering of the world, but rather religious controversy. These are two seemingly similar opinions that are often lumped together, and inaccurately so. I doubt that all atheists are so hidden under their "garbs of morality" that they can reconcile with blaming the belief system of millions for wars that humans would have found reasons to fight anyway.

D'Souza calls many atheist writers "witty and stylish", but he forgets to count himself among them. He seems to do the invoke the same tactics, sinking to the level of the atheist authors that use "witty" language to denounce religion. D'Souza says quite plainly in his interview that his book, What's So Great About Christianity?, is meant to "challenge atheism and beat it". This goal seems very immature to me, because at the simplest level his book is merely retaliation against other published works, seeking to prove why he is right and they are wrong. I'm disappointed that D'Souza has described the aim of his work in such a way, because in my opinion this is how wars are started. I would have more respect for him if his book had stood alone as a modern and compelling work on religion, calmly proving why other beliefs aren't valid without him falling into the easy trap of "right vs. wrong" that was the tone of this interview.

Just A Piece of Literature?

While I'm not quite sure if someone already used this website (no one had used the site link in their blog) it is basically an excerpt from Fran(t)z Fanon's book The Wretched of the Earth.   Going into it with basically no knowledge about Fran(t)z Fanon except that he was an African American that was an advocator of decolonization, from his rhetoric you can definitely tell that he is a speaker/advocator calling upon his comrades and brothers to hear his words and take action.

One thing that I find particularly interesting is that he says that Europe is falling down into an abyss.  This piece was published in 1961 which was right smack in the middle of the Cold War.  It is almost imposing a doomsday thought into those that are reading his piece.

Fanon says that the only colony to catch up with Europe is now the monster superpower the United States, and that therefore his goal is to have his own country catch up in the same way to "create a third Europe."  This seems fairly different than the decolonial advocate that I thought we were supposed to be researching.  Unless of course he is arguing that colonialism hinders the places that are colonized so that when they are free they catch up into more superpowers that can get involved in more affairs/wars.

If Only Dinesh D'Souza Came to Menlo...

Play it through your head. Dinesh D'Souza is introduced to the school by...the young conservative's club...my mistake that does not exist at Menlo School (and probably never will.) Nevertheless he is introduced somehow, perhaps by an outspoken teenager who feels their views on politics in the world are being crippled by those around them, or maybe by a teacher... Let's face it, a speaker like D'Souza would never be accepted at Menlo School. To be brutally honest, the points he makes about American Society are so anti-liberal that they would be bashed by the majority of politically correct thinkers of our school.

Nevertheless if* Dinesh D'Souza came to Menlo School he would see that we pride ourselves upon political correctness more than most everything else. He would see that there is not an American Flag in our quad, but instead a Gay Pride flag. What's So Great About America would have insight into the reasons for why our school placed a Gay Pride flag up in the quad before the American Flag, and it would also have a take on why most at Menlo would not even put an American Flag up at all. 

I will admit, I was/am a bit of an America hater, and have even imagined living in a foreign country for my adulthood. I have grown to be a critic of America, and lately all I see are flaws. However, D'Souza makes several valid points on why America is "Great." He says -- It is the country that has the most "rags to riches" stories. It is the only country where the poorest of people still own a cell phone and a television. It is the country that all other nations look upon as great; however, many within speculate whether or not our country is as great as others think it is.

Sometimes I think Menlo sees America as far from "Great." Perhaps Dinesh D'Souza would be an influence upon our school. He would be able to give us that conservative outlook that most are deprived of these days.

Fran(t)z Fanon

Franz Fanon was a great philosopher, physician, and a leading campaigner for decolonization in the forties and fifties, publicly speaking against the French controlling remote territories, especially Algeria.  His findings about the influence of brutal French control for generations were frequently referenced after his death by other anti-colonialism leaders.

I found it interesting that this website, named after one of Fanon's pieces about the fight for freedom in Algeria, is full of literature by Aime Cesaire, who was of course his teacher and fellow advocate of anti-imperialism.  One of the first listings is a piece about Toussaint L'ouverture, which is cool because we know about him.  Like Franz Fanon, he was a minority living on French-owned land who rose up against the French establishment, became a figurehead for anti-colonialism, and became wanted by the French government.  Unlike L'ouverture, Fanon didn't actually bargain or debate with the French, and he never held any official power after resigning from his government post.

Dinesh D'Souza: Exposed

"A national disgrace," "a childish thinker," who "hates America" and "insists on joining forces with the Satanists." Ever since he hit college in the early 1980's, Dinish D'Souza has faced criticism towards his disputable, yet not extremist views. "I came here because the United States gives me freedom to make the life that I could not have made in India." D'Souza sometimes comes off as a supporter of Bin Laden and his followers, but he argues that no man would chose to leave his family and community behind to migrate to a country that he hated. In this article, written in the Washington Post, D'Souza must once again clarify himself and his views published in his books and those that have caused controversy among many scholars. But this man is a high scholar himself, who poses great questions and only further explores the relationship between the Muslim community and the Americans, more so the "left" or liberals. 

This article goes in depth about the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center. D'Souza says that the build-up of actions from many presidents, such as Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, not just Bush, have angered the Muslims. After that day, people wanted to know why they hate us, but "no one wanted to comprehend the enemy -- only to annihilate him." I know I was only in third grade at the time, but I know that even now I can't comprehend how a person could do such things. Reading this article on D'Souza has really changed my views on this war we're in right now, but I still don't understand how a group of people could kill thousands of people, now matter their race or background. 

Many people argue that the Muslims hate us because unlike in many of their societies, Americans have a great amount of freedom. D'Souza uses the example of Planned Parenthood International, who went into Eastern countries giving contraceptives to young girls, and human rights groups, that "used their interpretation of international law" to make countries change their laws on abortion/homosexuality, to support his statement. When I think about it, being on the other side of this situation would really upset me. If I had people from the East coming into my home (or community) and pressuring my peers and me to change our views, I'd be annoyed. If a group of Muslims convinced all my friends to wear traditional clothes like the hijab, and they all looked down on me for not following, I'd blame the people who brought this into my life. This is a bad example, but since America is a relatively free country, I can't think of many things outsiders do that we take offense to. 

I respect Dinesh D'Souza greatly. "I have no sympathy for Bin Laden or the Islamic radicals. But I do respect the concerns of traditional Muslims." This Stanford graduate has found a way to balance his views and interpret both points of view. Reading this article has given me more insight on the Muslim culture and their reasons behind their feelings toward America. 

According to Mr. D'Souza, the real threat to America is at home.

On the night of January 16, 2007, well-known, somewhat inflammatory conservative Dinesh D'Souza appeared on the Colbert Report expecting to advertise (in a serious manner) his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. This being the Colbert Report, Colbert was trying more for comedic effect through exaggerating D'Souza's claims. D'Souza however, kept on rolling with the punches and retained a semblance of seriousness with Colbert.

D'Souza's main point in his more or less 7 minutes of airtime was that depraved liberal culture (homosexuality, promiscuity, maggot-eating, etcetera) is responsible for the rest of the world's relatively negative view of America. He goes on to explain that this insane, excessive, glam America (The America of movies and Hollywood) is something we know is not "really" America, but that for the rest of the world it is all they are presented with, and all they know. In this I would have to agree; American media (with a few exceptions) is largely biased towards the liberal viewpoint, and this becomes reflected in what people from other countries hear about America from their own media. According to D'Souza, the rest of the world only knows the depraved liberal America.

Naturally, an America of homosexuals, out-of-control sex, non-traditional-ness (not a real word), rapists, pillagers, plunderers, capitalists, and atheists (oh, those evil atheists...) is not well received among people of more traditional cultures and values. In this, I agree with D'Souza.

However, that is where my agreement with him ends. In his book, D'Souza conveniently misconstrues or picks and chooses certain facts to further his arguments (and conveniently ignores others in the process). One person who reviewed the book on Amazon (Scoff not- there are a surprising number of very intellectual reviewers there) made one of my points as clear as it could be: "He attempts to explain away American torture and rendition claiming that PFC Lindie England was acting out her "blue state moral depravity" when she was abusing and humiliating prisoners at Abu Ghraib with unusual cruelty. This has all the logic of a psychoanalytic diagnosis made under the influence of a jug of white lightning rather than an insightful probe of the collective unconscious. He fails to mention the FACT that there is a higher rate of divorce, murder, illegitimacy, and teenage births in red states than in the morally depraved blue ones, that "traditional Muslims" in Brooklyn and neighboring New Jersey enclaves were warbling in celebration at the destruction on 9/11, or that American flags were adorning most homes and modes of transportation here in decadent New York City. " (Edwin C. Pauzer of New York City: Post linked here )

As such, I do not think that The Enemy At Home is a book that contains purely truths, but is merely a stepping stone on a journey to truth (as corny as that sounds). We analyze history not by seeing one source and taking it as the truth, but by taking in as many sources as possible to see the big picture.

Dinesh D' Souza

Dinesh D’ Souza was born on April 25th, 1961 in Mumbai, India and moved to the United States 17 years later. This allowed him to have two perspectives on the United States: how the people of the United States view themselves and how others view the United States. All of his life, he tried to see both sides of the story. As discussed in this article, Dinesh first thought that Bin Laden was a “a dark-eyed fanatic, a gun-toting extremist, a monster who laughs at the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians.”, but after finding out what the Muslim community thought of him he changed his perspective to Bin Laden being “a quiet, well-mannered, thoughtful, eloquent and deeply religious person.” We usually do not see both sides of the story due to the media having a biest opinion of the story. Dinesh talks about other things that we might view as radical such as: September 11th being our fault, the government having “domestic insurgents” such as Hilary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, and other things. He has been known, however, to mess up facts. I believe that what Dinesh D’Souza does is right. The first thing he does is get two different perspectives on a story and only then judge the event or people. This is how our history class tries to gather information. We find the beist of the source and only then take what the source says as a fact.

The Power of Language

Until I researched Frantz Fanton, I had never thought about what made me perceive different countries in the way that I did. I had always assumed that I judged different countries rightfully based on their ethnicities and cultures. I had never considered the power of language. If I had arrived on an unknown island and had seen people of a different color living quite modestly, I probably would assume that they were underdeveloped and uncivilized. If it turned out that they came up to me and started speaking in English, I am sure that I would begin to think higher of them and identify more with them. The fact that they spoke English didn't change the color of their skin or their modest way of life, but it would make me more interested in communicating with them and learning about the differences between our cultures. Perhaps it would be because I knew that maybe we had more in common than I thought because they probably had some connection to one of the large English speaking countries that I am familiar with.

My point is that language can really influence the identity of a country or society. In Fanton's book Black Skins, White Masks, he discusses his disgust in the way that his country accepts the French language and how this helps the French to maintain ownership of them as a colony. "A man who has a language," Fanon suggests, "consequently possesses the world expressed and implied by that language."  He continues to argue that not only does the fact that the French colonies adapt to the "mother" country by speaking French make them more part of France, but it also makes it easier for the French to rule them. I thought that this was a very different way of looking at colonization and I think that Fanton was right that French colonies accepting the French language helped the French to maintain dominance over their colonies.

Dinesh D'Souza

In his debate with Daniel Dennett, Dinesh D'Souza argues the reason why god is not just a man-made invention. He also argues that this universe was not only created by god, but created by god for us. His main point is about how even modern science points towards a creator since so much of it is based on exact numbers. If these numbers were shifted even slightly, we, humans, would not exist. He then uses this point to say that god created this world essentially for us and our survival. While such exact results may argue the existence of a creator, they do not necessarily support D'Souza's argument that the universe was created for us. To me, it seems that it instead supports the idea that we developed to survive in this quantized world especially since the rest of the scientific evidence shows that humans are a fairly recent development in the universe. His argument seems strong, since he uses science to support it, but it seems that he outright ignores (with the exception of darwinism) any scientific evidence that doesn't support his beliefs. Is he saying that only certain parts of science are valid?

Besides that, while he provides a valid argument against the idea that god is a man-made invention, he provides no such argument against the idea that religion is a man-made invention. Much of what he says seems to agree with the belief that religion is something made up by humans to insure various things like power and a functioning society. He discusses how Christian morality is necessary by using examples of atheist regimes like the Nazis and Mao to show how many have died that the hands of atheism. He talks about the blood-thirst and sacrifice that plagued the world before Christianity, which to me shows that Christianity rose simply to stop this and better human society. Morality is simply a man-made idea, and religions based off of it came about as a means of propagating it. There is no reason that atheists can't be moral as well; he just chose very extreme examples of atheists that had little value for human life. For him to say that atheism is immoral is the same as an atheist saying Christianity is irrational. Both statements are stereotypical, prejudiced, and bigoted.

There may or may not be a god, this is up for debate, but I found Dinesh's reasoning as to why there must be a god compelling. But his argument for religion is lacking and shows that Dinesh is not as understanding as he appears at first. He may use science to back his arguments, but all of his arguments are laced with prejudices. These prejudices that both religious and nonreligious people have against the other are causing a lot of disagreement today. People like Dinesh who take things to the extreme just help deepen this disagreement that cannot be solved without compromise or a new outlook on the world.

Frantz Fanon

We all know about how Franz Fanon thought education was most important, and later using his education to help educate people about what he faced in life. But, only some know about how the arts such as music and contemporary art are used to remind use about Franz's life. For example, a new age metal band "Rage Against the Machine" references Franz Fanon to help enrich the imagery in their music. "Grip the canon like Fanon and pass the shell to my classmate", Rage Against the Machine uses the Reference of Fanon to make the connection of the violent insurrection in our world today. Also, another modern band (C.I.A) uses Franz Fanon to bring up what Franz advocated in his book "Black Man, White Masks". "I bring the sun at red dawn upon the thoughts of Frantz Fanon, So stand at attention devil dirge, You'll never survive choosing sides against the Wretched of the Earth." Not only do we see/hear Franz Fanon in music, his ideas were portrayed in art. For example, Jimmie Durham, an American Indian conceptual artist created a painting called "Often Durham Employs" which points to Fanon's references to colonialism. Jimmie Durham later commented on the painting saying that Fanon's quote saying "The zone where the natives live is not complementary to the zone inhabited by the settlers" was wrong and that his people faced the same conditions and hardships that Fanon did when the Native Americans were driven from their lands. Mainly, we see the ideas and philosophies of Franz Fanon in our world today.

Dinesh D'Souza - Racism

After I finished reading a biography on Dinesh D'Souza, I proceeded to read the other blogs posted about D'Souza, learning about many of the books he published. Already, by just some of the "loud" titles I was able to grasp more of a concept of who he was. I found a website with favorite D'Souza quotes, a few of the quotes which interested me more than others. I notice a pattern with a strong hatred against African Americans in his book The End of Racism, “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.” (from D’Souza’s book, The End of Racism)  Shows off D'Souza's negative attitude and selfishness. “If America as a nation owes blacks as a group reparations for slavery, what do blacks as a group owe America for the abolition of slavery?” (from The End of Racism), I find it ironic that his book is titled The End of Racism, while he is making very racist remarks all throughout his book, contributing to racism as well. Madalena has discussed this particular book in depth and I very much agree with the opinions she gave. As Madalena said, "I do not believe racism is an inborn trait" which I entirely believe with. I think racism (in the present) is acquired from popular forms of media or influences. 

Dinesh D'Souza: What's So Great about Christianity?

I read an interview conducted by Albert Mohler with Dinesh D'Souzawith about D'Souza's book: What's So Great About Christianity? In this interview Dinesh talks about his reasoning for writing this novel and what he considers militant atheists. I liked what Dinesh had to say because he seems special compared to other argumentative authors. Dinesh has been a secular writer for fifteen years. One quote of his that I find particularly interesting is, "I felt that something new is happening today. That is, we’re seeing for the first time atheism become a serious option for people and particularly for young people." I definitely think that this statement is true and that more and more kids my age and younger are becoming atheist. I have heard that during my parents generation children did not choose their religion and were often forced to fit into their parents mold. I, unlike the large majority of my friends, consider myself religious and am not afraid to share my beliefs. This is the main reason why I chose this interview because I am Catholic and I think Christianity is great so I wanted to hear Dinesh's point of view. In his interview Dinesh cites Christopher Hitchens an atheist writer who is considered by D'Souza as both "witty and stylish." Later D'Souza defines new atheism as "clothed in the garb of morality." Another good point that D'Souza makes is that atheism is now becoming more and more popular in pop culture, universities, and sometimes even government. Later he explains,"The atheists have very clearly said that their goal is to go after our children. In other words, they know that they have not won the battle for the current generation, but they are hoping that through the schools, and through the universities, as young Christians come into school, come into college—and remember, as in my case, when I went to college I was a Christian, but the Christianity I learned was very juvenile." I agree with him that atheism is not as popular with my parents and D'Souza's generation, however it is growing more and more popular in my generation. The final point that he makes that I find particularly interesting is he says, "But the Christianity I learned was ultimately a Christianity of habit. It was not a thoughtful Christianity." I think that this is a large problem in the Christian community and it will soon create even larger problems in the following years. The church is extremely low on priests and more and more kids are refusing to go to church. Not only are less kids attending, the ones attending are often forced to be there and don't geninuely believe what they are being taught. I believe that this may lead to a long slow demise of the Catholic Church.