To the Daily:
I would like to respond to Luke Klipp's March 11 letter "Heterosexism is still widely tolerated and 'uncountered.'" During my time at the University, I have seen many articles, letters and demonstrations by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender campus groups and members. I have noticed within this group one key misunderstanding of biblical views on homosexuality and humanity.
In Klipp's letter, he uses a philosophical device of asking one question, answering "no" to a complete different question, and then applying that answer to the original question. Klipp writes, "To those who say that being gay is a crime against God or that the Bible openly declares homosexuality a sin, I say, read your Bible." The question is, what does the Bible say about homosexuality? But Klipp then writes, "There is no claim that God hates anyone." How does this answer the question about homosexuality? It does not. Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." Other verses from the Bible that say the same, or similar things are Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:27 and Corinthians 6:9. I implore Klipp to read his Bible.
Klipp does have a point, however, that could be missed. God does not hate anyone, and that is found within the Bible. But God does hate sin. Homosexuality is one sin, according to the Bible. As we get closer and closer to Easter, it may help all of us to remember what happened about 2,000 years ago. Whether students believe in him or not, a man named Jesus claimed to die for everyone's sins. All of us have sinned. God is merciful (according to the Bible). If we believe in him, then we can obtain his forgiveness. But if we chose to ignore him or ignore what He has said in the Bible (whether or not you take that to be true) we are in grave danger.
Edward Blum
LSA junior
To the Daily:
In the great scheme of things, the upcoming Michigan Student Assembly elections might just be the most important ones ever. On March 18 and 19, University students will have the unique opportunity to move one giant step closer to having a student on the University Board of Regents.
Undoubtedly, putting a student on the board would be one of the most purposeful and meaningful initiatives the student body has ever undertaken. A student regent would mean nothing but good things for University students. From halting tuition hikes to increasing funds for student groups, student representation on the board would be both practical and powerful.
Students have never been this close to getting a student regent before; it's up to the students to take it home. During this election, students should do their part in the fight to get a student regent - vote "yes" on the student regent initiative. If we want a student regent, it's now or never - we need everyone's help.
Andy Coulouris
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
It appears that the feminist character of the University is being enhanced, not tempered, because of Regents Olivia Maynard (D-Goodrich) and Rebecca McGowan (D-Ann Arbor), who see their role on the University Board of Regents as one of promoting the interests of their own gender rather than keeping the doors of the University open on the same basis to all.
I receive reports from friends still at the University or in the Ann Arbor area who tell me that there is no way issues of deep concern to heterosexual white males are allowed on campus. Why on earth would an institution that respects truth recoil from the very idea of teaching men's studies to the same extent that it allows a women's studies program? Why would the University that taught me so much about the wonderment of all humankind now discriminate against me, my sons and my grandsons because of our sex? Why would the University seek to affirm some students on the basis of their race or gender rather than stick to what it used to do best: provide a stimulating environment for excellence and stick to its primary role of educating the best students that it can enroll? These are the kinds of questions on my mind as I hear that the gender apartheid at my alma mater is going from bad to worse. Catherine MacKinnon is gone, I understand, but her hateful anti-male notions continue to drag the University down.
Little wonder that each time I receive one of those solicitations from the University to pledge for the year or make the University a beneficiary of my estate, I think immediately that it's time again to make my contributions to those other institutions that successfully resist the modern temptation to brazenly practice gender discrimination.
William Fetzner
University alumnus
To the Daily:
I thought it couldn't be done, but once again, the Daily has sunk to a new journalistic low. I am referring to the disrespect shown towards one of the University's most beloved faculty, Prof. A.F.K. Organski. I think it was a contemptible choice to not report the news of his death by giving him the headline or even a mention on the front page. Instead the Daily chose to bury a blurb (as opposed to a biography) about him somewhere in the middle of the paper, where many people will never read it because they already know what I am just finding out - that the Daily isn't worth the price of the ink used to print it or the effort it takes to read it. The Daily should consider reviewing the process of how to determine a story's newsworthiness. Out of the six stories that appeared on the front page of March 10, the Daily could have at least made one of them worth reading.
Neil Pioch
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
In the March 10 "Ground Zero" cartoon, Yuki Kuniyuki has, in my opinion, gone too far in indulging in thoughtless and tasteless historical comparisons that, sadly enough, have proven quite popular in the crisis in Iraq.
Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy of 1938, which allowed a dictator to dismember a democratic country, Czechoslovakia, in 1938, and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's deal that allowed the U.N. weapons inspection teams to return to Iraq do not have anything in common except when viewed from a perspective calling for primacy by any means necessary in U.S. foreign policy. Is it really necessary to show so much disappointment that the U.N. secretary-general's diplomatic achievement has made it impossible to show the world with yet another thoughtless and useless violent action that there still remains a superpower in the world?
"Lessons from History," as the cartoon is titled, are useful to draw in making circumstances, but oversimplification (for example, Saddam Hussein equals Adolf Hitler or Kofi Annan equals Neville Chamberlain) does not only miss the point but also the rules of fair play and thus degenerates into cheap propaganda.
Jan Sternberg
LSA exchange student
03-13-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |