Decision not to proceed with childcare facility disappointing

It is disappointing to see that UA has made a decision not to proceed with establishing a childcare center for children of students, staff and faculty (Sept. 6, "Long awaited childcare facility will not launch"). UA is the only Pacific 10 Conference school without childcare on campus or an education program devoted to early childhood education.

Parents who work and/or study full time need to know that their children are in safe and enriching environments during the day, and they are close by in case of need.

I have been at UA for 11 years, and childcare has been in the planning stages all of that time. Just as the childcare facility was about to come to fruition, the plug was pulled due to budgetary limitations. I urge the administration to reconsider its decision to withdraw funding from this extremely important project, and to place it back on the front burner, so planning can continue to go forward as the funding situation is addressed.

Margaret Wilder
assistant research social scientist, Latin American area center

Democrats are appointing more nominees than did Republicans

Jason Baran's commentary titled "Democrats Hold Courts in Crisis" had one important omission. He did not mention the pertinent fact that the Republican-controlled Senate under Clinton stalled appallingly on approving Clinton's judicial nominees.

In fact, a Washington Times report from June notes that Democrats confirmed 57 nominees in 10 months, which is more than the Republicans did in any of the last four years of Clinton's presidency.

During the six years the Republicans controlled the Senate under President Clinton, they stalled over 45 percent of Clinton's nominations to the courts of appeals.

Why are there currently so many judicial vacancies currently to be filled? Because the Republican-controlled Senate refused to approve so many nominees.

It is not so much that I feel it is inappropriate for Mr. Baran's piece to be so biased ÷ after all, that is standard for an opinion piece ÷ but I do think it is simply shoddy writing to refuse to include all of the relevant facts.

Robin Murphy
management information systems
graduate student

Islam is comparable to Judaism when viewed in a negative light

I was very shocked at Silas Montgomery's letter on Monday, "Islam is not a peaceful religion, but one of religious imperialism." His argument is very shallow compared to his normal good reasoning. What he failed to realize is that the same argument he used against Islam could easily be turned around to attack Judaism.

As I understand it, the book of Joshua from the Tanach (a part of the Jewish Bible) is almost entirely about Israel's conquest in the Middle East. Joshua 8:1-2 and 8:18 are two quick examples. But, more importantly, a strong theme is that of God's command to violently overtake any people that inhabit "the promised land." For a very poetic description of this sentiment, read Joshua 6:26-27.

The only difference that I can determine between these two arguments is that in the Quran, the verses that Silas used were presented as general (timeless) commands toward a people, whereas in the Bible, the commands were given to leaders of nations. But an undercurrent of violence still exists.

This is not a defense of either standpoint. As a Christian, I deplore violence of all kinds, as I feel God does. Violence from any source, with any justification is equally terrible. I am writing this merely to point out there is another side to Silas's argument.

Matt Montgomery
mathematics sophomore

Christianity defined by its rich history of violence, persecution

Christianity is not a peaceful religion, but one of religious persecution. In the name of Jesus Christ the Crusades were launched, "witches" were burned at the stake, doctors who performed abortions have been murdered and homosexuals have been denied equal rights. What on Earth could anyone find peaceful about that?

Now I'm sure you're thinking about how those who murder and persecute are a small group of religious right radicals. The Christian Bible has no references to war or fighting or anything violent at all. Like Deuteronomy 1:41, which says, "We will indeed go up and fight, just as the Lord our God commanded us. And every man of you girded on his weapons of war, and regarded it as easy to go up into the hill country. "

Oh wait ÷ that was a reference to war, commanded by God! How about we look at John 2:14-16 instead: "And He found in the temple those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the moneychangers seated. And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers, and overturned their tables; and to those who were selling the doves He said, ĪTake these things away; stop making My Father's house a house of merchandise.'"

Yeah, Jesus was never violent. Certainly God and His Son would never support war or terrorism. Like it says in Revelation 19:11-15, "I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns.

"He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. He will rule them with an iron scepter. He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty."

Yet Silas Montgomery has the unmitigated gall to denounce Islam as violent? I disagree with Professor Fregosi.

Mr. Montgomery has not done anywhere near a good enough research job, and his communication skills are destroyed by his inability to see there can be multiple interpretations to religious verses, especially if they are taken out of context.

Diane Hain
animal sciences junior