The Davi Barker Deception?
Mike RenzulliBarker and his group's attempts at taqiyya are actually an insult since he thinks no one will question his claims about Islam nor read sources that refute his claims while downplaying or even white washing elements of his religion.
God helps us......Islam is coming to get us ......run for our lives. :)
Holy shit, I turned my head for two seconds and freedoms phoenix went full-bore tea-ocon. What the fuck is this bullshit?
Muslims pitching Islam as if it were truly some secular faith on par with liberal Christianity or Judaism…
What the hell is a "secular faith?"
And even assuming such a thing isn't the pure contradiction in terms it appears to be, since when would Christianity or Judaism even hope to qualify?
"Oracle of Reason"? More like Orwell of Propaganda. By ignoring history and current moderate countries while choosing to talk about current repressive regimes, Renzulli's selective ignorance is comparable to demonizing Christianity by talking only about the Inquisition. And adding a reference to a case where the FBI recruited and set up a patsy for the purpose of causing alarm in the populace to allow current tyrannies to continue does not help his case with those who are actually informed.
Davi has done a good job of promoting the peaceful way for a while now, but if you want more info there's also the Minaret of Freedom at minaret.org. I first heard many of the arguments Davi talks about from them over 15 years ago.
But this site does post garbage like this far too often. Natural News? Arclein? Mercola? InfoWars? Sure, those sites might pull a broken clock every now and then but IMHO it is irresponsible to post links to their sites - they shouldn't be encouraged by hits and ad revenue. Please post links to credible sources and original articles while avoiding the FUD sites.
Ahhhhh,... so I guess Mr. Renzulli won't be attending the FreedomSummit this year?
Nice to meet you Mr. Renzulli. Let me put your mind at ease by addressing what you've said in the order that you said it. I've never met Terry Lee Loewen and I've never been to the Wichita International Airport. You're quote from him is just that, a quote from him, not from me. Regarding the Freedom Summit, I have not been asked to talk about Islam at the event. I'll be speaking about Authoritarian Sociopathy, and perhaps a little bit about crowd-funding projects with Bitcoin. If Islam comes up it will probably because someone of your ilk attempts to lambaste me with questions that are not on topic. I'm prepared for such an occurrence, but I'm sure no one but the questioner wants to hear it, so I'd rather such a person meet with me during an intermission, on record if they link, and discusses their concern with me calmly, so as not to take the audience's valuable time, who paid to attend this event to hear about the topic on the program. I'm not sure what a "secular faith" is, as you and Ayn Rand point out, facts are facts independent of what you wish, and the fact is that I, as well as other members of Muslims4Liberty.org see a confluence of values between Islam and libertarianism, and have made advocating those values our mission, though you may dislike it. But again, I am not speaking at Freedom Summit as a representative of Muslims4Liberty.org, I am speaking as a representative of BitcoinNotBombs.com. I wear many hats. It has never been my claim that there is no compulsion in so-called Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia. Those countries have States, and States, secular, Islamic, Communist, Capitalist or otherwise, are by definition monopolies on compulsion. It has been my claim that there should be no compulsion on those countries, or this one, or any others, and so my first book Voluntary Islam, is largely devoted to articulating why such a State is not fit to exist, as well as Islamic theology, law, and history to adequately defend that position. Regardless of what you and Robert Spenser imagine Islam to be, I do not recognize that Islam, and your article is about me personally by name. I do recognize and support freedom of worship, conscience, speech, homosexuality, heresy and nail polish. I have never denied or downplayed such incidents of cruelty in Muslim majority countries. I condemn them in the strongest terms. However, I do not take personal responsibility for them. As for Pamela Geller, she and I have a history that predates the article you've linked to. She publicly accused me personally of conspiracy to murder a 17 year old girl in Ohio that I never met. She has never recanted this accusation, or removed the article where she makes it, so forgive me if she and I do have a relationship of cordial treatment, and I don't devote much RAM to her criticisms. I've written dozens of articles on the subject, and devoted numerous essays in my book to it. Just not the one particular article you've linked to, which was about billboards. I cannot personally address the debate between Will Coley and Robert Spenser because I was not involved, and therefor take no personal responsibility, but what you have said is that the debate was canceled. Will Coley says Robert Spenser canceled, and Robert Spenser says Will Coley canceled. Both are merely claims made by the participants. Why they do regard one as evidence and the other as falsehood? Do you have some other corroborating evidence you're not sharing? Because I do. I was waiting live to listen to that debate, chatting with Will on facebook just moments before, when the host told Will that Robert had canceled. But again, that's just a claim. Maybe you have something else. For the record, I am not friends with Adam Kokesh. I've never met the man. I find his antics entertaining, but his judgement lacking. As far as I know Will is not personal friends with Adam either, but then you're not writing about Will are you. I'm fairly certain that I've heard Adam say that he's atheist, but then I couldn't testify to it. But you keep barking up that tree. It will be good entertainment when Adam runs for president in 2016. But I still won't vote for him. I am not a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, nor a member of Answer. Forgive me if this sounds tongue-in-cheek, but I am not, and have never been a member of the Communist Party. I am not a member of Muslim American Society, or the Muslim Brotherhood. I have never met Mustafaa Carroll, or Omar Ahmad. So how you can claim that something is obvious about me based on these groups and quotes from these individuals is just confusing to me. To clarify, and perhaps this will clear up all the confusion. Libertarians don't say that people are not guilty "of" association, as if association itself is the crime. We say that people are not guilty "by" association. Meaning, you can not draw big circles, connect them with lines, and then say that I believe what they believe, or I am guilty of what they are guilty of, because of our association. If such a thing were reasonable, it would also be reasonable that people are innocent by association, and my associations with Ernest Hancock and Darryl Perry, both Christian, or Ben Stone and Ian Freeman, both Quaker, or Brett Veinotte and Stephanie Murphy, both Atheist, would mean that I was also guilty of whatever crimes you concoct for them. But by all means, look to all those names to reveal my outlook. I am quite proud of those associations. You assume that I am unchecked, as if somehow this is the first hit piece that's ever been written about me. Or that I assume no one will ever question my claims. I've written extensively about these things, in public, in view of as many critics as the Internet has to offer. I am not engaged in stealth jihad. I've written extensively about my thoughts on jihad. Google "My Jihad Is Language" or "My Hajj Reflections: The Greatest Jihad." I've been pretty transparent about my struggles. Pretty loud, and all together not stealthy at all. I have never claimed that it is racist to criticize a religion. I'm not Arab. And only 17% of Muslims are Arab. I'm right on board with you that bringing race into it is a red herring. But it can be bigoted. It's not always bigoted, but it certainly can be. For example, why "especially" Islam. I can certainly understand "including" Islam. Islam should receive equal treatment and scrutiny as other worldviews. But why say "especially." Is there something special about Islam that makes it categorically different from other worldviews? Some reason adherents of this faith should be given special treatment? That is where it begins to sound like bigotry to me. Hold me to the same standard as everyone else, and even if I disagree with your conclusions, I will never call you a bigot. But hold Muslims to a special standard, as in assuming that Will is lying, but Robert is telling the truth, when the same evidence exists for both claims, and it starts to look like maybe you're a little prejudiced.
Davi Barker is no friend of mine. He wrote about me in September,“I’m no fan of Schulman. I’ve never read any of his work. I just don’t like him as a person.”
Nonetheless, I favorably reviewed his book Voluntary Islam both on my blog at http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com and on its Amazon.com catalog page.
Anything can be discredited by looking not that the thing itself but at its fans. That Islam is the religion cited as an excuse by terrorist statists should not be used to discredit Islam but statism.
I could discredit atheism by the crimes committed by state-sponsored atheists in Moscow or Beijing, discredit Judaism by crimes committed by the State of Israel, discredit Christianity by crimes committed from the Holy Roman Empire through the Spanish Inquisition to the Ku Klux Klan.
The American tradition that is the only thing exceptional about it is individualism. Lose this and you're just another collectivist shithead. And fuck that noise.
J. Neil Schulman
Davi Barker is no friend of mine. He recently wrote about me, “I’m no fan of Schulman. I’ve never read any of his work. I just don’t like him as a person.”
Nonetheless I favorably reviewed his book Voluntary Islam on my blog at http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com and on Amazon.com.
Mike Renzulli ignores the basic principle that any American philosophy is based on: individualism. He uses collectivist "guilt by association" as his primary tactic, and assumes bad actors who act in the name of something smear the thing itself. By that method we'd have to assume that all of Judaism is the bombing of the King David Hotel by the Irgun, all of Christianity is the Spanish Inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan, all atheists are Joseph Stalin and Mao Ze Dong, and all blacks are Idi Amin.
Davi Barker, for all his juvenile mistakes, advocates not for statism, violence, and terrorism, but for libertarianism.
So does Adam Kokesh.
My response is one used frequently by Murray Rothbard: "Shut up," he explained.
J. Neil Schulman
hahaha. Davi already posted a reply to this and owned this guy. Hilarious.
Freedoms Phoenix Supports free speech! Even if it's Davi Barker hate speech. Davi sure spends a lot of time advocating against violence for these statements to be of any worth.