ÎPassion' is director's interpretation, not truth

There is something strange about those who see Mel Gibson's "Passion" and declare, "This is what really happened." It seems that the most sadistic and impossibly prolonged flogging of all time may be assuming the status of "the" canonical version.

How do they know this? I checked their sources and found the Gospels contain about 350 verses describing the time from the arrest to the death of Jesus. Of these, seven verses mention mocking; five mention beating, slapping or striking; three mention a crown of thorns; three mention spitting; three mention flogging and two threaten an unspecified punishment. You'll note that flogging accounts for less than 1 percent of the original story, considerably less than in Gibson's version.

I think they must mean, "We have a theory about a God who requires blood sacrifices and incredible amounts of torture, pain and suffering before he is able to forgive us." Even if the theory is partly correct, why the concentration on gore and sadism? The Gospels specify mocking, spitting, slapping, striking and beating by the guards, but they don't say the flogging was more than a routine five or 10 lashes before a routine crucifixion, horrible as that could be. In fact, the Gospels claim that Jesus was given a break. My understanding is that the Romans would usually leave a body on the cross to be eaten by wild beasts, as a final humiliation and warning to would-be troublemakers.

The film tells us about the director's imagination ÷ not about what "really happened."

Michael Macrossan
visiting faculty from the University of Queensland, Australia

Columnist needs to get facts straight about guns

Please allow me to respond to yesterday's column by Tim Belshe. In his broadside against gun control, he regurgitates the lies of the NRA. The most ridiculous implication is that if guns were not available, knives, baseball bats, etc. would serve as similarly convenient murder weapons. The point of this unproven assertion is intended to place all of the blame on the mental status and subsequent behavior of the killer, and to deflect any argument that may implicate the weapon itself. I will gladly take my chances with knives, clubs, etc. For example, if a student approached me with a knife, there is a good chance that he or she would end up on the wrong end of that knife. However, a student approaching me with a gun would clearly be in control; and control over the people that they fear or hate is precisely why the gun is the favorite tool of the coward. Under such conditions, a classroom would be at the mercy of the potential killer, as we are now painfully aware. Another incorrect assertion is that if we were all armed, we would be safer. This argument is insane unless interpreted in the context of the NRA's fantasy world. Being armed does not prepare you for an encounter with an armed aggressor with intent to kill you. The autonomic nervous system will dictate the response to fear, and how a given individual will react when faced with a life-or-death situation cannot be predicted. Without boring you with the physiology behind it, it is well known that killers are "cold-blooded." Thus, the probable scenario is that well before you finished steadying your shaking, gun-wielding arms, in order to shoot a cold-blooded aggressor, he or she would have already blown your head off. Think about that, Tim.

Ralph Fregosi
physiology professor

Can't compare medical research to ethics

On Feb. 9, both Susan Bonicillo ("A Gadfly in Training: Guinea Pigs Needed for Human Health") and Phil Gray ("Animal Testing Needed for Modern Medicine") argue directly and indirectly (respectively) that the usefulness of medical research outweighs ethical concerns.

Here's the problem: If the usefulness of medical research can be weighed against ethics, then we have to weigh the usefulness of Nazi experiments on Jews (for example). Some of the research was, after all, useful. Among other ghastly experiments, for example, the Nazis froze their human subjects to below freezing temperatures and successfully resuscitated them. That was groundbreaking, useful research, though clearly and utterly unacceptable.

You can't apply the usefulness argument to nonhuman animals without also applying it to humans. You have to use it with some sort of argument about either: 1) how nonhuman animals can't suffer, or 2) how they don't suffer under the conditions in the experiment. I've never seen the first of these two arguments work without invoking religious beliefs or philosophical chicanery. Scientifically, you will undoubtedly find that all the physiological measures of human suffering also apply to nonhuman animals to greater or lesser degrees.

The second argument is possible. We do it consistently with human participants, yet almost never with nonhuman animals. We rule over these lab animals totally. That kind of power breeds abuse. We know this as a historical fact from analogous human situations. It is this abuse, in the animal-lab context, that animal rights activists are concerned about.

And they are no more hypocritical in taking medicine that was tested on nonhuman animals than people who avoid excessive exposure to radiation. Much of what we know about the effects of radiation was discovered via experiments on humans. It's not knowledge that's unethical; it's how we attain that knowledge that can be unethical.

Patrick Bolger
second language acquisition and teaching graduate student

Students should be thankful for TPD efforts

I've read letter after letter about UAPD and TPD printed in the mailbag section of this newspaper, and after reading them all, I can't help but laugh in spite of myself. It strikes me as amazing how many supposedly well-educated college students make themselves look downright silly, sending in their off-base opinions and unjustified complaints.

It seems to be a general consensus among partygoers and free spirits on this campus that the social scene defines the college experience. Students continually write into this newspaper to express their concern over TPD and its unethical and immoral approach to law enforcement.

No more can I sit here silently and take this as a joke. Wake up guys; we're here for an education, not a raging four-year hangover. If you want to have fun, then have it, but realize there are consequences for your actions. Realize, that is, you're a minor and you're drinking and breaking the law. Don't hide behind statistics about homicide and theft. I do realize these are crimes, but by the same standard, so is underage drinking. It seems to me many of the students here are just looking for a way to sidestep the real issue.You may think the police are being petty and overbearing. That's your opinion. But I say they're just doing their jobs. And I am proud to be a member of a university where the local law enforcement cares so much about the students. Now maybe it's time the students start to care about our law enforcement.

Matthew Foster
engineering mathematics freshman