In the article "Third-party candidate speaks of social issues,injustices," (10/16/96) LSA first-year student David Taub claims Monica Moorehead's views, i.e. blaming capitalism for all "their problems" is a "joke." He goes on to say that "Socialism failed in Eastern Europe ... no convincing proof ... socialism works."
The problem with both Monica Moorehead's and David Taub's view is that both claim the former and current "communist" regimes of the U.S.S.R., China, Cuba and Eastern Europe had something to do with socialism.
These dictatorships were, and are, at least as anti-working class, sexist, racist and homophobic as any Western democracy and allowed for no freedom of expression or political organization outside the official Communist parties. These Stalinist bureaucracies gutted the language of socialism and used its shell to justify their rule. They were not "worker's paradises" - they were more like work camps. This gutting is done in the United States with the rhetoric of "democracy." The United States is called a 300 year experiment in democracy when women couldn't vote until 1921 and African Americans couldn't vote until the 1960s. Taub is correct when he says the bloody regimes of the former "communist" Eastern Block and U.S.S.R. failed, but as awful as those regimes were, it is interesting that many have maintained or re-elected former Communist Party officials, who are not advocating re-establishment of the old regimes but wish to soften the blow of "free-market," "democratic" capitalism, which is frightening the mass of pensioners, and the working class in those countries.
Taub must look critically at the claim that capitalism, which he implies, is working. Millions of people in the capitalist West are without work and live in horrible conditions of poverty. 7 million unemployed in the United States - 3 million more welfare recipients will be added to the workforce over the next two years. Child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse, murder, gang violence, high infant mortality and health care are all massive problems in this country. We spend three times the amount of money on health care as any other industrialized country and 40 million are uninsured.
Finally, we are only allowed to vote, in any meaningful way for one of two parties for political office. The Republican and Democratic parties differ little politically. They are essentially two wings of one party that represents the interests of business. Workers have no major political party of their own. The AFL-CIO supports the Democratic Party because it has nowhere else to go and is too afraid to throw its weight behind the current Labor Party effort.
Taub should look more critically at the world around him. Merely repeating the "socialism failed" argument is an excuse for not thinking.
Bill Almy
School of Social Work
We are writing in regard to the letter submitted to the Daily by Rebecca Ewing titled, "Paying for others' mistakes" (10/23/96).
Repeatedly throughout her letter, Ewing referred to children as "mistakes." Quote: "Why should I have to pay for someone else's mistake?" Last we checked, most parents, including our own, did not feel that their children were "mistakes," whether planned or unplanned. Perhaps if we lived in a utopia where everyone was completely self-sufficient, there would never be a need to offer others a helping hand. In reality, we all face obstacles and the challenge lies in helping each other overcome them.
However, if you are not the type of person who is willing to help those who courageously choose to raise a child while attending school, consider the alternative. We could either assist these parents with $2 out of our pocket now, to help them obtain a higher level education or possibly support these families through the welfare system later in life. Which would you rather have? It is a known fact that higher education equates with a greater income in the workforce.
Who wants to deny someone this privilege for a measly two bucks? The idea of "fending for ourselves" is not inherent in today's society. We are all students at this University because someone has helped us in some way. Can't we offer back something, like $2, in return?
Sara Harrison
Lesley Maier
RC First-year students
As I pass through the Diag on my way to class or lunch, I sometimes interact with the Bible-thumpers proselytizing there, if there are a few. They seem to have a limited knowledge, if any, of what it means to be an atheist.
Being one myself, I would like to offer these people a working definition of atheism, so they know my angle at the next encounter.
First, I shall break up the word "atheism" into its two Greek roots. The prefix "a" means to be without or lacking, not against.
Then, there is "theos", which, of course, means "god." From these roots, we can derive that "atheism" means that one lacks belief in a god, and not against god and religion.
It is true that atheists believe the claims of religion do not stand up to the tests of reason, and that it chokes progress. It is laughable to hear people tell me that I am going to Hell, because I and other atheists believe Satan to be every bit as mythical.
Second, atheism is not a belief system. It is contradiction to call a lack of belief, a belief in itself.
A lack of faith requires no faith. Atheism is based on a commitment to rationality, but this does not qualify it as a religion.
Third, there is not a great mystery in morality. Atheists would merely employ the same yardsticks of kindness and reason.
I personally take the humanist stance and base morality on human necessities. That embraces a respect for my environment and feminism. Dilemmas require reason to weigh outcomes.
I would argue that religion promotes a dangerous morality based on obedience, ultimatums and reward-punishment enforcement. I try my best to base actions on my fellow humans.
Fourth, and most controversial, the complexity of life requires a logical explanation, not a designer. Darwin's theory of evolution, which employs cumulative non-random natural selection working over billions of years is the most reasonable explanation.
A "Divine Designer" is not a sufficient answer to give, because the complex nature of that being would not be immune from the same scrutiny.
I hope this provides believers with a small working knowledge of how an atheist thinks.
These reasons are actually more reminiscent of those given by free thinkers, but atheists are free thinkers. Free thought is reasonable, and allows you to do your own thinking.
"A plurality of individuals thinking, free from the restraints of orthodoxy, allows ideas to be tested, discarded, or adopted." Memorize this quote and discuss it, if you wish.
Free thought is free.
Lorne E. Cook III
LSA first-year student