Conservative diatribe off base
I am sure that Kevin Durkin and Charles A. Peterson wholeheartedly believe what they had to say last week about "liberal" attacks on the wealthy, and for good reason. My parents told me the same thing, and lectured me about the necessity of the Vietnam War, the "communist conspiracy" in the United States (aka the civil rights movement) as well as the innate superiority of the white race.
Fortunately, I was able to attend college on the G.I. Bill (a "liberal" proposal), and learned that much of what I learned from my parents was not the whole truth. In fact, the majority of the students at the UA would not be able to attend college without such "liberal" concepts as Pell Grants.
One of the things I learned in college was that rich people DO get rich the old fashioned way: They inherit their wealth. Like Dubya, I too would have loved to have managed a major league baseball team in my 20s, but my dad didn't have the money to buy me a team.
The fact is that the graduated income tax benefits the middle class by allowing them to accumulate wealth. If we go back to a flat tax and eliminate the estate tax, as Bush proposes, the tax burden will shift back to the middle and lower classes, allowing the truly rich to accumulate wealth without end. This will ensure your kids will work for Bill Gates' kids, and an American oligarchy, similar to the one we had in the late 1800s, will evolve. Is that really the type of society we want to devolve to?
I am sorry that Kevin is getting sick of this "nonsense," and I hope Charles will not scream himself hoarse when he hears more of this "liberal talk," but I get quite disappointed when I see 20-year-old kids spouting Rush Limbaugh's conservative diatribe without even questioning whether the "facts" they are working with are correct. By the way guys, when you get that $500,000 salary, be sure to get at least half of it in stock options so it will be taxed at the lower capital-gains rate.
associate chemistry professor
Two-party system not always best
This is in response to the constant insults to any non-two-party system by Tom McDermott. In his commentary regarding the proposal for the Abraham Lincoln Battalion plaque, he is attacking a political ideology rather than a megalomaniac. He claims the plaque should not be displayed because the battalion was under command of Joseph Stalin. So does the fact that Stalin was a fascist dictator make it correct for Franco to be one as well? Not to mention during this time Stalin was an ally to the United States.
Soviet political motives cannot be argued alongside communist ideologies. McDermott attacks the horrors of an ideological Utopia - the only true Democracy - rather than the corrupt leaders claiming their titles. Of course Stalin was fighting for the self-interest of the Soviet Union at the time, just as the United States does on a daily basis even today as we bomb Iraq.
Freedom in Spain was a secondary concern for the Russians, but does that degrade the motives of the American fighters? Or does it make their fighting less valiant because Stalin called them names? To call leftist academia "useful idiots" is just the arrogant response I would expect from a fascist. They are the radicals who respond to anyone who attempts to expose the horrible truths about communism with the typical, jaded, knee jerk, one-word response of "McCarthyite!"
The "useful idiots" are those who do not fight, who attempt to maintain the status quo of capitalism and imperialism, and who label leftists and socialist -communists "radicals!" "Useful idiots" are those who propel age-old, outdated stereotypes and slander. The purpose of academia is to solve the problems that generations before us have created-problems such as bigotry, intolerance, and a two-party political system. You keep dissenting the dissenters, McDermott, and we will stand up to "live free or die."
political science junior
Attack on Christian group unfair
Just out of curiosity, I would like to know exactly where I can pick up my commission. As a regular attendee of "Campus Cult for Christ," and a volunteer Young Life leader, I have yet to see my payoff. I was wondering if Simoneaux would be so kind as to drop us all a line informing us just where the money is. Surely he must know, after having making such bold statements in Friday's Wildcat. If you have some sort of information that I don't, I would greatly appreciate it, as I only have $10 in my bank account right now.
Oh, and just one more thing - if I did receive a commission for every conversion - just as, say, Paul, or Peter - you know, the apostles from that kooky book some call the Bible, had, then this little profit-gathering "religion" would have failed quite some time ago. For as it says in the book of Acts, chapter five verses 38 and 39: "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." Well so far it hasn't failed, and it's now 2,000 years old, what does that tell you?
Another thing, if religion, especially Christianity, is one of the most profitable institutions in the world, who for? Maybe for these people that the apostle James refers to. "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." That can be found in the book of James, Chapter 1 verse 27. So yes, Christianity is a profitable religion, for widows and orphans and the countless millions whose lives have been helped in some small or great way because of the love that we followers of Jesus of Nazareth have for one another, which comes from the love that he has for us.
Campus Crusade for Christ not a cult
I am responding to Jake Simoneaux's letter in the March 2 Wildcat. To clear up the confusion of Campus Crusade for Christ, we are not a cult! It is true that Christians themselves are not just making a living, but making a difference at the University of Arizona. The full-time staff of Campus Crusade for Christ was chosen by God to help the college students reach lost students - those that do not believe- and to equip us to share God's word. We are not about recruiting, we are about reaching people in a way that Christians are supposed to act and what Jesus Christ calls us to do.
It is true that some professed Christians have a priority of making money and not following the biblical teachings, and that is very sad. They are not doing what Christ called them to do. But there are some Christians that are here to help others and pray with others. We are called to make a difference for Christ, not to make money.
May I make a suggestion to Simoneaux? He should come to one of our weekly meetings in Steward Observatory N210 to see that we are about making a difference for Christ, not for the world. I apologize that he sees Christians this way. I hope that next time we will keep a close eye on our priorities as Christians on this campus.
creative writing senior
Christian recruiters do good work
A few of the Wildcat's readers seem to be in a tiff that Christian recruiters allegedly get a commission check for the number of people they recruit. I personally don't believe that they are cut checks for making neophytes out of college students. Religions, should they be deemed so by the Supreme Court, are non-profit organizations. Any money a church "makes" isn't spread to stockholders (there are none); rather, it is recycled into various organizational lines to improve that organization.
Granted, this wasn't the case in medieval times and in England, but it is true with college campus organizations. I know many Christians that are involved with on-campus organizations, and they certainly are not spreading the gospel for money. In fact, they are some of the few people I know of who don't have an apathetic approach to their fellow students (try to look someone on campus in the eye- it can't be done). See, they care about people and that's a positive thing. I am sure that most psychology/psychiatry students care about people and they want to help them deal with their problems. People with religion have the same attitude.
The difference is that Christianity does it with a book, whereas psychology/psychiatry does it with evaluation, invalidation, mind-destroying drugs, electroshock, etc. Which would you rather have?
Also, I'd like to clear up the use of the word "cult," which, in my three years of reading the Wildcat, has been audaciously misused. A cult is nothing more than a group of people with some devoted attachment for a person, principle, etc. What has happened is the media used the word to conjure up thoughts of brainwashed people that will steal your money and eat your children given the chance. It is shameless sensationalism that people, like Codey Angell, have bought - lock, stock and barrel.
So, Christians, you can silently scoff knowing your attackers don't know what they think they know. Also, you believe in something and you should be proud of that.
mechanical engineering junior