2008 Woodie Awards
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR (3)
Issue date: 4/20/06 Section: Opinion/Editorial
People should learn that life's not fair
Upon reading the article, "Conservative Christians could bring anti-gay agenda to Webster," I felt the need to respond. First, when the question, "Christians, who condemn gays to hell and protest gay student groups might be compared to racists, but what's so unfair about that?" was posed, an immediate answer came to mind. It is entirely unfair.
As a gay male living in the suburban Midwest, I have had my fair share of bigotry. I have been ridiculed for holding my boyfriend's hand while walking down the street by strangers. Is that fair? No, it isn't. So, I might be getting called a faggot every now and then, but in my mind calling someone a racist or a bigot is the same thing. Is it fair? No, it isn't, but that's just the way life goes.
Also, I'd like to point out that the Baptist Student Union hosted "The Homosexuality Box" last spring, where a speaker came to talk about how he overcame his homosexual urges through "The power of Jesus Christ."
While the vast majority of attendees disagreed with the speaker's message, he was met with nothing but courteous responses (save one minor incident). Also, it was one of the most highly attended events that semester. So, should conservative Christian groups bring anti-gay speakers to Webster? Sure, bring them on. We're ready.
Wil Brajnikoff
Junior
Music Composition
Christians have right to free expression
There is no fight between gays and religious fundamentalists, only a fight to retain some sense of moral integrity in our country. The battle has been over-sensationalized by the agenda of the liberal leftist gay rights movement.
As a Christian person, why should my rights of free expression be stifled because I value traditional morality? I'm against men having sex with men, but I'm also against men having extra-marital sexual affairs, men having sex with animals and any number of immoral sexual activities. But there isn't any organization out there saying that adultery is OK so we should have special rights or an animal rights activist group saying that men who want to have sex with an animal should have special rights.
So, why is it that gay people (who represent less than two percent of the population) want to shove their lifestyle down my throat? I don't want my kindergarten children learning what homosexuality is. Geez, I don want kindergartners learning anything about sexuality yet.
And since when is tolerance the law of the land. I wouldn't tolerate my wife sleeping around with the neighbor's husband and I wouldn't tolerate my children's disobedience, so why would I tolerate this immoral agenda that seems to be invading our society in the name of sex? I don't get it.
Anyone who wants to speak out should be welcomed at Webster. How about that for acceptance and tolerance? No political agenda here, I just care about family values.
Tony Martin
Alumnus '05
One-sided view on abortion proves little
Ryan Martin's commentary about abortion showed a narrowness of focus typical of pro-anything groups. Since I hold no direct (read: reproductive) stakes in the abortion rights battle, I would like to offer Martin an unbiased wake-up call. All cognitive beings, conservatives and liberals alike, hone in on the way data supports their bias and often fail to absorb the entire picture it paints. Critical thinkers call this fallacy "confirmation bias."
Martin claims the U.S. Constitution contains provisions for regulating personal liberties. However, many others see the constitution as a document of personal protections that define and limit the government's functions or powers. They view it as such because they understand the historical perspective surrounding the constitution's creation as a clean slate from the Articles of Confederation.
Central to the framers debate were topics of how much power to grant the central government and how to fairly represent the people in that government. Because Martin would like to see personal liberties regulated by the government does not make it so.
Fast-forward to 1866 and the amendment Martin contests is a pro-life amendment: Section One of the 14th Amendment. Martin makes the point that Section One doesn't talk about the right to choose an abortion - it doesn't include language about abortion at all. He is right. The Congress wasn't concerned with the abortion issue in the drafting of this amendment.
In this section, they were concerned with clarifying the limits on the government's power to punish people without due process of law with an underlying focus on "the slave race." So, while the amendment may not talk about a person's right to an abortion, it certainly doesn't support Martin's next four points that:
1.) A fetus should be included in the definition of a person (the amendment does not define the word person).
2.) Abortions must be regulated by states because abortions let people escape the responsibility of sex (no language in the amendment about abortion, as Martin himself points out).
3.) If you (a person) make a mistake, you just pay for it (this
section of this amendment only addresses states' inability to abridge a citizen's privileges and immunities and all peoples' access to due process).
4.) It's pitiful and sad that people would chose an abortion (again, there is no language about abortion).
Martin's selective thinking isn't uncommon. After all, it is
much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. I challenge Martin to examine his positions more thoroughly before he decides to opine. He might discover a more rational means of resolving his own cognitive dissonance or at the very least let his evidence dictate his bias and not the other way around.
Andrew Schneider
Senior
Stage Management
Upon reading the article, "Conservative Christians could bring anti-gay agenda to Webster," I felt the need to respond. First, when the question, "Christians, who condemn gays to hell and protest gay student groups might be compared to racists, but what's so unfair about that?" was posed, an immediate answer came to mind. It is entirely unfair.
As a gay male living in the suburban Midwest, I have had my fair share of bigotry. I have been ridiculed for holding my boyfriend's hand while walking down the street by strangers. Is that fair? No, it isn't. So, I might be getting called a faggot every now and then, but in my mind calling someone a racist or a bigot is the same thing. Is it fair? No, it isn't, but that's just the way life goes.
Also, I'd like to point out that the Baptist Student Union hosted "The Homosexuality Box" last spring, where a speaker came to talk about how he overcame his homosexual urges through "The power of Jesus Christ."
While the vast majority of attendees disagreed with the speaker's message, he was met with nothing but courteous responses (save one minor incident). Also, it was one of the most highly attended events that semester. So, should conservative Christian groups bring anti-gay speakers to Webster? Sure, bring them on. We're ready.
Wil Brajnikoff
Junior
Music Composition
Christians have right to free expression
There is no fight between gays and religious fundamentalists, only a fight to retain some sense of moral integrity in our country. The battle has been over-sensationalized by the agenda of the liberal leftist gay rights movement.
As a Christian person, why should my rights of free expression be stifled because I value traditional morality? I'm against men having sex with men, but I'm also against men having extra-marital sexual affairs, men having sex with animals and any number of immoral sexual activities. But there isn't any organization out there saying that adultery is OK so we should have special rights or an animal rights activist group saying that men who want to have sex with an animal should have special rights.
So, why is it that gay people (who represent less than two percent of the population) want to shove their lifestyle down my throat? I don't want my kindergarten children learning what homosexuality is. Geez, I don want kindergartners learning anything about sexuality yet.
And since when is tolerance the law of the land. I wouldn't tolerate my wife sleeping around with the neighbor's husband and I wouldn't tolerate my children's disobedience, so why would I tolerate this immoral agenda that seems to be invading our society in the name of sex? I don't get it.
Anyone who wants to speak out should be welcomed at Webster. How about that for acceptance and tolerance? No political agenda here, I just care about family values.
Tony Martin
Alumnus '05
One-sided view on abortion proves little
Ryan Martin's commentary about abortion showed a narrowness of focus typical of pro-anything groups. Since I hold no direct (read: reproductive) stakes in the abortion rights battle, I would like to offer Martin an unbiased wake-up call. All cognitive beings, conservatives and liberals alike, hone in on the way data supports their bias and often fail to absorb the entire picture it paints. Critical thinkers call this fallacy "confirmation bias."
Martin claims the U.S. Constitution contains provisions for regulating personal liberties. However, many others see the constitution as a document of personal protections that define and limit the government's functions or powers. They view it as such because they understand the historical perspective surrounding the constitution's creation as a clean slate from the Articles of Confederation.
Central to the framers debate were topics of how much power to grant the central government and how to fairly represent the people in that government. Because Martin would like to see personal liberties regulated by the government does not make it so.
Fast-forward to 1866 and the amendment Martin contests is a pro-life amendment: Section One of the 14th Amendment. Martin makes the point that Section One doesn't talk about the right to choose an abortion - it doesn't include language about abortion at all. He is right. The Congress wasn't concerned with the abortion issue in the drafting of this amendment.
In this section, they were concerned with clarifying the limits on the government's power to punish people without due process of law with an underlying focus on "the slave race." So, while the amendment may not talk about a person's right to an abortion, it certainly doesn't support Martin's next four points that:
1.) A fetus should be included in the definition of a person (the amendment does not define the word person).
2.) Abortions must be regulated by states because abortions let people escape the responsibility of sex (no language in the amendment about abortion, as Martin himself points out).
3.) If you (a person) make a mistake, you just pay for it (this
section of this amendment only addresses states' inability to abridge a citizen's privileges and immunities and all peoples' access to due process).
4.) It's pitiful and sad that people would chose an abortion (again, there is no language about abortion).
Martin's selective thinking isn't uncommon. After all, it is
much easier to see how a piece of data supports a position than it is to see how it might count against the position. I challenge Martin to examine his positions more thoroughly before he decides to opine. He might discover a more rational means of resolving his own cognitive dissonance or at the very least let his evidence dictate his bias and not the other way around.
Andrew Schneider
Senior
Stage Management
Be the first to comment on this story