the power of the common, the fascist. that's where we get the word fascism. today's neo-fascism is likewise an unbreakable bundle of power, it's a group of people bound together so tightly in unbroken compliance, no differences, no diversity, it's the rule of the gang. it is unquestioned and

unchallenged power, the call to arms of these modern-day jacob and, you must omit. so the questions we face today is whether we want to be ruled by the ideological fascism of prevailing across our land or do we want to enjoy intellectual freedom? let me ask questions just to point out headlines of the past couple years. should government have the power to force religious syncretism on its students or do we have freedom to believe and behave by the dictates of our conscience unimpeded by government hubris? should the government have the power to force a jewish owner of the meat processing business to process pigs? should the government have the power to force the muslim owner of a newspaper to publish charlie have no cartoon. they have the power to order a convenience store to sell bread and wine to the church or its block? should the government be able to force the anglican owner of a billboard company to sell his services to someone

who wants to flaunt christmas or easter? if your answer is no, how in the world can you possibly think the government should now be able to force theowner of a flower shop in washington to participate in religious service , a religious service, that directly violates a key sacrament . a sacrament of her faith. when did the government get the power to define sacraments? of the church? talk about a breach of the law, of separation . should the government be able to force a catholic order called little sisters of the poor to buy contraception they don't want and won't use. sidebar, they are catholic and they are nuns. they don't have sex because they are nuns, they are celibate. why in the world would anybody you, you, me, a

government official presupposed to tell these women what kind of pill they need to buy in their healthcare. this is absurd. it's insulting. it's anything but pro-woman. it's misogynistic and somebody said should say so. by the way, if the little sisters of the poor shouldn't be forced to buy contraception they don't want, don't use to their convictions, their beliefs and what they want to do, how in the world can the government presuppose to tell oklahoma wesleyann faculty who are pro-life by definition that they too must submit? i'm going to go off on a little rant here. what could possibly this pro-woman argument, be more misogynistic than to ignore than imperialistic way

obvious path of the female? what is more insulting to a woman than to tell her she's not a fact, you are no longer a biological reality. you are nothing but a fabrication of social construct. you're nothing but a fantasy, the fabrications of the feeling of a male who wants to raise his hand on a given day and say i am one. by the way, i'm pro-woman in insulting you in such a way, suggesting anytime anyone else raises his hand and say i'm a female even though biology does not show it, genetics does not show it, chromosomes do not show it, it's feelings and emotion and fabrication. it makes the woman, it makes the female less than a fact. you're nothing but a leprechaun or unicorn. you're a fabrication, you are a fantasy, you are make-believe. i would suggest that anything but being pro-woman. but i digress.

forced agreement is totalitarianism. it is not tolerant. requiring women to submit to the whims and wishes of a male driven government hegemony is not feminism, it's misogyny. this is ideological fascism, it is not intellectual freedom and is a clear example of the government establishing what religion is acceptable and then prohibiting the free expression of any religion that is in disagreement with us. unconstitutional to you? so, let's wrap this one up. words mean something. as students, as leaders, as community members, adding on to your words. define them spend them . on our freedom and fight

fascism. stand for truth and fight tyranny stand for love and fight hate . stand for the rights of women and fight against subjugation. stand for liberty and deliberation, flight licentiousness. remember the words of bob hopper, they mean something, not to speak , not to act is to act violence in the face of evil. not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act. violence in the face of evil is evil in itself. god will not all hold us guiltless. there's a reason jesus is described in the gospel as what? a word. a word. he means something. he cannot be changed. he is the logo, the way, the truth, the light. defining himself as the author and omega, and alphabet. he is the incarnate son of god. he defined himself as an out

of that, as a word. why? why? remember his words, you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. remember that he is the word made flesh. remember he has said the behold i am coming soon. made the word, word be your confidence and your courage as you fight the good fight, to win the prize. which price, the word has called you have them. amen. you have some questions? q and a. fire away. >> thanks so much for coming in speaking doctor piper. i was curious to hear maybe a little bit more practically

just because, after mcintyre and bertie is when we lose this objective standard of morality that is replaced by what he calls a motivation, making people respond the way you feel about things and the only way to compete is through power which teams to accurately describe the movement of the left to make people respect the way they feel but in response i feel like conservatives have embraced a lot of bombastic and aggressive, even protected tour, people like milo you topless who yelled back louder which makes the left accusedconservatives of being the fascists . one might, do you think that's a wise embrace of the people who tried to yell back just as loudly as the liberals are yelling and how practically are we trying to encourage the openings of ideas and opposing ideas of the left without stooping to their level of aggression, does that make sense? >> i think so.

i will respond by pointing to christ. i'm a christian so if that's outside of your worldview, like, i guess that's okay. we're here to talk about ideas and when i bring ideas to the table and bring them in context of my convictions and my worldview is biblical. i believe it's the world you have contacted by time and gives the greatest measure of human freedom. >> so let's go back to the founder of this worldview, jesus. >> when he was confronted by an adversary whether it be political or academic, a pharisee, let's say, what did he almost always do when he was confronted with a contrary question. >> the almost never debated. >> he almost always asked a rhetorical question. >> whose face is on that point? why do you call me lord? you want to throw the first stone? and then christ himself, again, if you are a

christian, the son of god, the word made flesh and dwelling among us, the guy who was the smartest guy who ever wrote walked the planet, he probably could have won a debate. but he chose not to. he chose to ask the rhetorical question that would cause the worldview of his opponent to implode. and more often than not, they would drop their stones and walk away. i think the best thing we can do in a culture today is prone to anger and vitriol is caustic and condescending. is asked bold and clear, i don't think gelation and compromise is necessary. >> i don't think forced conversation about evil is necessarily the only way to go and when i say conversation, there's some things that are not debatable. i'm not going to sit around and discuss the merits of slavery. i'm not going to discuss the merits of the holocaust or the relative values of those

who engage in rate. it seems self-evident that when i engage in a conversation and ask my questions, i am not going to get any implicit ground to those bad ideas. >> but that doesn't mean i get angry. that doesn't mean i get caustic, that doesn't mean i get condescending, doesn't mean i employee different fallacies, non sequitur or ad hominem, it means that i can simply and clearly ask a question that would cause the person that's advocating the contrary worldview to recognize the brokenness of their idea. role-play, you think slavery is a pact. >> are you telling me black people are inferior to whites? >> so you think consensual sex with minors, okay.

are you telling me that a 10 year old can consent the desires and passions of a 25-year-old man? be quiet. don't say anything. forced the answer. let the worldview, it's obviously broken. implode upon itself i think that's the best strategy. have i answered your question? there's one down here. >> thank you doctor piper. this is a question that a few of you, my college students and if you could give us maybe a little bit of what you've experienced with students on oklahoma wesleyann university's campus, you gave examples but kind of what we could do practically whether we go to secular or christian schools

or any other religion, just how we can approach this problem with not only our peers but sometimes professors that might give us an opposite view of how we feel and what we know to be true and how we can approach these situations? >> i'm going to say a couple things. it's probably not true for you because by virtue of the definition of who you are, you are spending the whole summer reading and studying and putting several more arrows in your quiver though that you are prepared to engage but you know very well that generally speaking, very few other people in your. or in the general culture, younger or older prepare. read, they don't know. >> how to express their ideas, they may have an intuitive feel, they may understand and i would argue that it's a biblical fact that the truth is written on every human heart. we have a general understanding whether you are secular or rather religious that slavery is a bad thing.

we have a general understanding that the holocaust was probably a bad idea. but you don't have to be religious to have a general understanding. so people do any reason reading beyond that so when they get in a debate, they are intimidated and they don't know what to do. number one, cs lewis, do what he told you to do. before you read a new book, pick up a dozen or so old ones and read them. those ideas have been around a while and there's reason they been around a while. they stood the testof time so don't assume , and he accused his own burgeoning new generation of chronological snobbery. i'll be so blunt as to challenge you not to fall into the same trap. don't get involved in chronological snobbery where you think the only idea worth considering is something that came across your twitter feed. >> don't read the old books

that have stood the test of time and know what they say. odds are, because they won the debate thousand years ago, they will probably be of value in winning the debate today. that would be my first piece of advice, the second is get some courage and have some confidence. it's amazing to me, it's amazing to me how few people on the conservative side of the debate have the courage and confidence to engage at all. maybe it's because intuitively we differ to good manners. intuitively, we defer to being courteous and avoiding the conflict because we don't want to break relationships. that could be why conservatives are often reluctant and those are all noble things but i would also say that christ himself tells us that if you love me you will obey me and the lord disciplines those he loves

there is no false dichotomy of strength and conviction, i.e. discipline and love, it is a mutually beneficial truth. love and discipline, conflict and confrontation, if handled properly is necessary in a loving relationship for other than contrary to us. i was on the o'reilly factor during the time of let's say two years ago and it turned to the issue of cultural engagement, cultural debate and it was the time of the indiana debate and all the conflict was taking place in the church was turning tail and running the other direction. afraid because of the conflict. and i said to mister o'reilly because he brought up the idea of tolerance, i said mister o'reilly, on your anniversary or perhaps it was thanksgiving, did you send your wife and i tolerate you card? and i said i would suggest the answer is no because if you sent your life and i tolerate you card, it probably didn't end well. why, mister o'reilly? tolerance says i could care

less, do what you want. i don't love you, i don't like you that well but i will tolerate you, do what you want. love says i care deeply. love says, tolerance says i don't care, do what you want, love says i care deeply. so have confidence and courage, get the spine, do some reading, understand your ideas, practice in. i'm a student of chuck colson and he told us the only way you learn is to teach it. teaching. teaching to yourselves, teach it to your peers, talk about it constantly. be prepared for your speech.

your teaching it constantly, then you will be comfortable and confident, your spine will step in. you can do it without getting angry anger is always the last resort. emotion is the last thing when you've lost the ability to be logical and make sense. you see it so often in political debate. people will digress to the name-calling. to the ad hominem, the ad popular or the non sequitur. they will digress with a fallacy because that's grounded in feeling rather than to stay on point and if you have the ability, courage, the confidence to stay on point as you practice, you will bethe only one in the room that has it. >> i was wondering if you could , i'm trying to figure out what could be a sense of about first corinthians 13. i read it and did you ever find this guy or girl and asked them, i guess you said it was a male, what was wrong , what's wrong with corinthians 13? it's baffling. >> it is baffling.it causes your head to spin.i never went to the student specifically and there's a reason. because his face became a public issue, i didn't want

him to feel that he was being called out publicly and believe it or not, i'm told to this day that student did not know the article was about him, believe it or not. which tells you something. you might say how is that possible? the only reason it could be possible is if he believed there were several students that shared his view and it must've been about them, not him. the other part of the answer is what was so offensive, i have no idea other than it made him feel uncomfortable and discover , apparently , i have time and place in our culture and our campuses where discomfort is anathema. any idea that makes you feel bad. it is anathema to good education and to safety. that's nonsense. go back to what i said earlier because i think it's powerful. maybe you don't get the s lewis, the great lion aslan, when the kids are talking to mister and mrs. beaver in the

lion the witch and the wardrobe, they asked mister beaver is aslan safe? mister beaver says of course not, aslan isn't safe. but he's good. so you paraphrase that. the great line of a literal arts, the great line of the academy, the great lion of the university, the great lion of the ivory tower, is it supposed to be safe or is it supposed to be good? there's a huge difference. i think we are actually at a time where if the ideas don't make you feel comfortable and safe , unchallenged, that those ideas can be askew. those ideas can be labeled. as bad ideas and that is not the measure of a free society, that's the measure of ideological fascism. >> if you haven't read first corinthians 13, this gentleman said read it and

you tell me what the senses and thatother than it may make you feel uncomfortable for not measuring up . good. i'm glad it does. i'm glad it does. i'm not interested in coddling you or comforting you at my university. i'm interested in confronting you because when you graduate, i want you to be a man and awoman of character . i'm not going to hand you a diploma that says congratulations, you got an opinion. you've majored in opinions, good for you. you have a degree and opinions. how absurd is this, it's lunacy. next i actually hope you learn something. that's right and wrong and just and i want you to know what is just juxtaposed to injustice and i want you to know some truths relative to nursing and accounting and biology and philosophy and if you don't know anything that's true when you graduate

i would suggest you wasted your time and money. you don't get a diploma in opinions because opinions, mind and yours, don't matter on graduation day. i really don't. >> you shouldn't care that much about mine. >> opinions all only leader lead to bonnie in bondage and slavery. chavez and mussolini, all the despots had opinions, that didn't inherit well. jesus told you you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. >>. ayes, ma'am. >> i was at a conference recently at american university and one of the au government professors came and denounced trigger warnings and believed that trigger warnings should be mandated across the country and i was the only one against trigger warnings so i thought it was pretty easy to get down its flaws except on the fact that he said what if there's a person with ptsd, a

war veteran or somebody who's been raped and you're talking about a topic that could bring back ptsd. how would you best help combat that situation on trigger warnings? >> i would argue the judeo-christian ethics always defers to love . and in that situation if somebody has a technical disorder or dysfunction such as ptsd, then of course we are going to be compassionate with that individual, recognize that we shouldn't ignore them, be cruel to them , expose them to greater harm . but this is what often happens in the progressive left of the debate, they will take an isolated incident, the anomaly, the adoration, the brokenness of our world and they will break all the rest of the world to measure up to that anomaly as if that is the standard now. rather than recognizing by definition it's not the standard. by definition it is different. >> it is dysfunctional.

>> there should be correction from it so to the norm. rather than moving the norm downward, we should love the person enough to bring them upward. >> so of course we recognize the anomaly. we recognize the brokenness. but we don't break everything else because of it. >> tried to correct it. >> that would be my response to that particular portion. >>. >> i think. >> first corinthians 13 is the great trigger warning. >> believe this all, it's about treating people with kindnessand love . >> and it kind of an interesting way to think about it. the answer is the problem from the questioners perspective but it doesn't get into all this ideological claptrap, just be kind to each other. >> if somebody is offended,

employ and exercise the principles of first corinthians 13 but are ironically enough today, if first corinthians 13 which is the solution becomes offensive because everything is subjective, everything comes down to me, i am god, you are not, god is not. i am god, i would argue that we seem to be more interested from praying to the god we see in the mirror . that praying to the god we see in the bible. and i would argue that the end result of that is not positive. >> there has to be a measuring outside of those things, lady justice have to be blind area when she takes the blindfold off and start putting her on the scale, there's justices lost, truth is nonexistent. power always will trump. there is no correction. there's nothing evident. everything is self constructed. everything is self referential. and we can even come to the point where we could say that the solution which has been obvious for 2000 years, love

is patient, love is kind is the problem because i don't like it. i will do fine things in my own image like narcissus gazing at his image in the pool, we slip, we fall in and infatuated with ourselves, we drowned and all that's left is the echo. pining after the loss of such wasted beauty. that's where we are coming from as a culture today, we are on the precipice of the pool ready to slip and fall in. we might be wise to recognize that that thing we see in the mirror is not as grand and glorious as we think, that might be something actually better. bigger, more permanent than that that's worthy of conservation. and it is only that that will give us liberty and liberation and freedom. thank you. [applause]

>> every weekend, but td offers programming focused on nonfiction authors and books . keep watching for more you're on c-span2 and watch any of our past programs online at booktv.org. >> we recently visited capitol hill to ask members of congress what they are reading. what oklahoma congressman the russell had to say. >> i read all kinds of stuff. i'm a voracious mystery reader, not much on nonfiction although there are some. i just finished a action book , i should say i'm not much on fiction. but i just didn't did finish a fiction book by derek robinson called goshawk squadron, it was kind of the british antiwar protest on a world war i setting.

and it kind of reflects the times but i have a great interest in world war i. my great grandfather and his brothers were world war i veterans, one of my relatives is buried in france, killed in the first world war and since we are in the hundreds anniversary of our entry into that more and our present participation in the campaign i've been reading about that time. >> you are also an author as well, could you talk about your feelings as an author mark. >> i have a great respect for those that take the time to write. my wartime memoir and our experiences in iraq during the capture of saddam were published by simon and schuster threshold editions. it was my memoir called we got go back and hunt and capture, it took me three years to write, extensive notes and personal experiences and then getting into a major publisher where they wanted to publish it.

that is no small task and i wrote it myself, the big question i get is who helped you write it. as if an interim treatment put sentences together so it's something that i get often but it takes great discipline to do it and so i have a lot of respect for the authors out there and the book good reviews and it did quite well. so it's always nicewhen you get the public to appreciate what you wrote . >> when you invite any other writers to draw from their experiences of history, their connection to stories as well? >> i would say to all veterans whether you get something published or not you should take time to write the experiences for yourself. or me, it buried some old wounds. it was a therapeutic process, it was difficult to write and relive many of those experiences but at the same time, when i got done i felt like okay, i got out of my system and there it is. whether you do it for your

notes or for your family's that they might have some record of your service later, i would encourage all veterans that have participated in combat experiences to write about the warriors that could not tell their story and in honor of them, know what they accomplished. >> welcome to concorde new hampshire on book tv. located 70 miles north of boston, and has a population of 32,000. settled in 1725, this capital city is home to the oldest steakhouse in the country and has the oldest state legislature in the country with 400 members. it was on the franklin peers, the 14 president of the united states and christa mcauliffe, the teacher who died in the space shuttle challenger disaster. the help of our comcast cable, we will feature the areas literary community beginning with dante scala on new hampshire's role during the presidential election.