Letters to the editor for October 20

Islamo-fascism week was prejudicial, inflammatory

TO THE EDITOR:

In light of Islamo-fascism"" week" I would like to highlight the profiles of the individuals responsible for this prejudicial event.

David Horowitz received his master's in English literature" and is best known for his list of the ""most dangerous academics in America" which is overflowing massively with erroneous fabrications. Horowitz has absolutely no education in the study of Islam.

Robert Spencer holds a master's in early Christianity from UNC. He has been criticized openly by UNC's scholar on Islamic studies Dr. Carl Ernst.

Ernst states that the publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations" who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice."" Spencer has absolutely no education in the study of Islam.

College Republicans and the Committee for a Better Carolina: As UNC student organizations"" I guess I expected a standard of academic intellectualism that was not borderline idiotic and inflammatory.

My question is: do you view radical Christianity as a ""legitimate threat"" as well? Better luck next time in bringing scholars who are academically accredited and credible in the study of Islam. Expect the upcoming ""Peace not Prejudice week"" to foster a Carolina community based in support of humanism and against societal injustice.

Remember friends" empty vessels make much noise; polemicists Horowitz and Spencer are the most hollow of instruments.



Abbas Rattani

Senior

Religious Studies



Dr. Lawson in fact" won last week's UNC debate

TO THE EDITOR:

I'm not sure what debate Mr. Barzilai was watching (""Price wins UNC debate"" Oct. 15), but Dr. Lawson was the clear victor in the one I was present for (Tuesday) night. The errors Mr. Barzilai cited as evidence that Lawson is not knowledgeable were merely Rep. (David) Price's attempts to obfuscate his record.

For instance, Price deliberately implied that he voted no"" on the initial bailout without explicitly saying so. The Paulson plan he claims to have opposed was a draft that was being debated before the first vote. As someone who personally wrote to David Price to tell him not to vote for the bailout and as someone who watched C-SPAN as the votes were tallied" I can assure you that when the bill was actually put before the house Price voted yes. Lawson made no mistake — Price deliberately trapped him.

Conspicuously absent from your editorial was the incident in which Price claimed to have voted against Real ID — which I'm sure he did as a stand-alone bill — but it was Lawson who informed the audience that Price voted for a bill in which the Real ID was an amendment.

Also why does Mr. Barzilai automatically assume that a sociological center designed to research radicalism in American communities going to make us safe?

Last time I checked American citizens are not terrorists.

Idealism is not to be scoffed at. The problem with Washington today is that the men there are not principled. They don't fight for their constituents nor do they fight for the Constitution — they merely follow polls lobbyists and bargain with each other for votes.

Now of all times is the time for a new congressman. Price has been representing us for 20 years — through wars scandals budget deficits and a potentially cataclysmic economic crisis. Why does anyone want to keep this old and impotent representative in Washington?



William Harris

Sophomore

Undecided



Lawson's radical views would hurt 4th district

TO THE EDITOR:

The debate between Dr. B.J. Lawson and Congressman David Price showed how important congressional representatives are to a community. Rep. Price has used his 20 years of experience to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health Environmental Protection Agency and National Science Foundation which works with the Research Triangle Park UNC and Duke.

Price understands that federal funding for these programs benefits our community and builds a stronger future by helping create the transfer companies that are so important to our local economy. Price also emphasized that the United States should not race to the bottom of labor and environmental standards with other countries as China and India are making investments to pass us in research and development.

At the debate Lawson would not refute that he believes federal funding for research and the aforementioned programs are unconstitutional.

Further Lawson made conspiratorial accusations that the Research Triangle Institute was working with Homeland Security on a data mining and domestic spying project. He made no effort to provide evidence that his accusations were true.

Lawson would hurt the United States and the 4th District by attempting to reduce federal funding for research and development allowing China and India to overtake our technological advantages. I believe Lawson's radical views will not benefit our community and shows that Rep. David Price is the only candidate that will fight for the 4th district and its future.



Marshall Dworkin

Junior

International Studies