UA students should contribute to relief effort
We here at the University of Arizona are lucky to be bestowed with a wonderful academic and social life. But in India, more than 13,000 miles from Tucson, a devastating earthquake shattered hundreds of thousands of lives. The figures - 30,000 dead and 200,000 rendered homeless - speak very little of the human misery. Communities and town were disintegrated for good. It will take decades to restore the wiped-out economy.
Aid is trickling in from around the world, but it is more symbolic and meager. That is why NGOs, charity organizations and Indian communities across the globe took it upon themselves to provide succor. The India Club, here at the UA, is also playing an important role towards that end. Every concerned individual should make a small contribution at the UA Mall and make a difference in the lives of the victims.
Prasad Boddupalli
computer science graduate student
Bush plan not a religious conspiracy
In response to Cory Spiller's article regarding President Bush's initiative to fund religious charities and social programs, I must ask whether Mr. Spiller objects to helping those in need or whether he is allowing his renowned personal bias to interfere with his judgment yet again. Does it really matter who is helping those in need as long as they are being helped? Does it matter if those people are eating Christian soup or Atheist soup as long as they are eating at all? Does he really think that this is all some grand conspiracy to earn more Republican votes? What exactly are we voting for here? Do you think they are still counting votes to determine the presidential election?
It seems to me that Bush is simply trying to follow through on his promised resolutions rather than scheming his way around Capitol Hill. Mr. Spiller seems to be quite concerned about where his tax dollars are to be spent, but his concentration on religious social programs is very misplaced if he is championing the left. Perhaps he should be more concerned about the fact that government coffers routinely fund upgrades to our aging nuclear arsenal. What about increased senatorial wages? And the 'war' on drugs. Do you really want to discuss wasted tax money? In my opinion, funding charitable organizations that will ease the needs of the unfortunates of our society in no way violates a perceived barrier between church and state. Many federally funded drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers base their entire program on the need to acknowledge a "higher being" and to draw on his existence for their support.
And by the way, the "separation of church and state" wasn't enacted to keep religion out of government, but the other way around. It was seen as a way of keeping the government from controlling and limiting the religious rights of its citizens, but instead it has been raised as the purging banner of those who hate all 'Christian' religions and wish to wipe them from the face of the earth, Mr. Spiller included.
Jacob Lauser
Tucsonan
Federal funding of church charities does not violate the Constitution
The fallacies in Cory Spiller's article "Government and religion do not mix," in the Jan. 31 edition of the Wildcat, are endless. First of all the founders of the Constitution instituted the separation of church and state in order to keep the government from endorsing a particular religion and imposing it on its citizens. The federal government is doing neither of these things by giving non-profit and religious groups federal funds. The federal government has never instituted an effective program, period. Bush has been involved in both the public and private sector and understands that anything the federal government can do, the private sector can do better. There is nothing wrong with federal funds being handed over to religious and non-profit groups if they can outperform federal programs by getting more out of the dollar (which they inevitably will, as nothing is as inefficient as the federal bureaucracy) and offering services that are more effective.
Mr. Spiller doesn't seem to understand a few things. First, not all federal programs are being cut, and the Bush administration isn't forcing Christianity onto the country, as inferred from his comment that when Bush sees the Washington Monument "all he can see is an unfinished cross." Just "as an American (you) have the right not to pray in school," you also have the right not to utilize the help that the federally funded non-profit and religious groups will be offering. People can still choose to utilize federal programs, and if after a few years it seems that the federal programs are outperforming the non-profit groups, I'm sure the Bush administration will reconsider how the funds are allocated. Mr. Spiller is opposed to Bush's proposal "to provide tax incentives to encourage more charitable giving." Spiller seems to think that the U.S. government is a charity organization that is here to rescue its citizens. I am here to tell you that it is not. The government was not created to rehabilitate drug addicts and baby-sit children - two examples provided by Mr. Spiller. That is why non-profit charity organizations exist and need to be supported not only through private donors but through government funds as well.
MacKenzie Hyde
psychology freshman
