Arizona Daily Wildcat
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Pope should stand up for Catholics
It was unworthy of Rui Wang to criticize the new Pope and his stand on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and birth control. He is supporting values that have been maintained in the Catholic Church for centuries. I'm not Catholic either, but I can respect the Pope for standing up for his religion. I would expect the same firmness from any college student.
In regards to changing religion, Pope Benedict XVI was quoting scripture that explains the purpose of Christ's Church: "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine ..." (Ephesians 4:14). The Bible also says, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). I was under the impression that the Catholic Church got its authority from the Bible. So how could a church that says that God doesn't change have totally opposite stands on issues from day to day and be considered a true authority, especially when they deny the source? A church should "suit the desires of men?" Are we saying, "Let's go to Bob's church 'cause we can do anything we want? That doesn't sound like the Constitution to me. It sounds like anarchy.
People just don't want to hear that they shouldn't have sex. Abstinence stops HIV from spreading. It makes abortions obsolete. Homosexuals won't die without sex. Chastity has been a virtue in Eastern and Western societies for thousands of years. These societies have also said that murder is wrong. Remember the Holocaust? The current genocide in Africa? Terrorists? Groups of people with legitimate beliefs, right? But we are special enough to throw out chastity. Are we more enlightened? Smarter? Or is that we don't know how to be faithful to just one person?
I've heard that religion is a man-made institution, but there are a lot of religious people like myself who disagree. I know there is a God, and I use my religion to worship Him. If you really want a church that changes with the times, you better start your own, because God won't oblige you.
Relativism not the same as tolerance
I am writing in response to Rui Wang's editorial yesterday. As a Catholic, my advice to people who are concerned about the new pope is to pray that Pope Benedict XVI will be filled with the Holy Sprit and open his mind to the great ways the church can grow.
I am very troubled that a third-year law student does not know how to interoperate the definition of relativism. Relativism is not the same as tolerance. The definition of relativism that appeared in her editorial also appears in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary. Relativism is "a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them." Relativism deals with the interpretation of ethical truths and how a system of ethics is built. An example of an ethical truth is: life is necessary and precious, therefore it must be preserved.
From the same dictionary, tolerance is "sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own." Tolerance deals with how I fit another person's beliefs into my understanding of the world.
To give a more detailed example of the difference between relativism and tolerance, I need to introduce the idea of a universal ethical code that states that the ethical truths are universal in nature, and thus apply to every one. I am reminded of our Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
I believe that a universal ethical code exists and I also hold the ethical truth that life must be preserved. Therefore I believe that it is wrong for one person to kill another including an unborn child and a person sentenced to death. If my life is threatened and the only way for me to live is to kill my attacker, I have just justified self-defense. While I believe that abortion is wrong, I have tolerance for people who believe otherwise because I understand the argument supporting abortion. I also tolerate your ideas about the Catholic church, no matter how jaded they may be.
Eller college should practice what they preach
I am a student in the business college, and if there is one thing I have learned it is that we live in a service-oriented business world. When a service is purchased, especially an expensive service, the customer expects that it is done adequately and honestly and if it is not the customer usually complains and is compensated. Well I have purchased four years of education from the UA and have even paid a price increase to be a part of the Eller College. Unfortunately I have encountered a teacher who simply cannot teach. This is service failure, and even worse it is service failure with no upper management to rectify the situation. As a paying customer, I think it is a disgrace to the Eller reputation that there is no management that will investigate a claim or even sit in on a class. This teacher who cannot teach has compromised his integrity as well which is against everything that founder Karl Eller preaches yet there is nobody to turn to. So I write this letter to the students who are left here to remind them that you are a paying customer so don't settle for poor teachers; it is especially unacceptable in the Eller College where you pay more. The entire Eller College faculty should consider listening to their customers more, because teachers remember: Without students you are not a teacher.
Frats anything but out of control
Tom Deakin's article "Frats out of Control" is just simply bias and misleading.
First, the majority of his article complains about ZBT. ZBT isn't even recognized by the university, so the university has no control in regulating them anyways. As for other fraternities, we do abide by strict rules (definitely more strict than any apartment complexes surrounding campus have to). We are constantly under the gun and watched by the university with every event we have. Second, you state that your tuition helps fund the fraternities.
This statement is also incorrect. We as fraternities actually pay to be an organization on campus. In other words "we pay the school, not vice versa."
Third, illegal activity, like under age drinking or drugs, happens in apartment complexes just as much as it does in fraternities. It is going to be present in our society whether the school regulates fraternities or not. I don't know if you have noticed, but the greek system sustains this university. The social scene is dominated by greek life making the UA a more exciting place to be. It also seems people never seem to mention any of the philanthropy events when they write into the Wildcat. Fraternities alone raise tens of thousands of dollars for local charities. People need to be more realistic and put aside their sheltered views.
Big sunglasses shouldn't be tolerated, comics boring
I am here to dispel controversy about the whole... well, you know... "girls with excessive ocular sunwear" issue. Being from Connecticut (a northern state on the East Coast, which is kind of like the West Coast but on the other side of the country), it is hard for me to comment on the issue of big sunglasses, which is primarily a West Coast deal. However, since moving to Tucson in August, I feel like I have learned a thing or two about the whole sordid affair. You see, back home, the only time you really need sunglasses is when you don't want the light from the sun to refract off of the snow and cause blinding associated with a reason other than excessive masturbation (dunno about you, but my Sunday school teacher told me that doing that would, in fact, blind me). But in California, sunglasses are a way of life. They are a commentary on individuality and make a statement without using words. Sunglasses are a sort of profound, wordless, synthetic representation of an inner being. We all know the adage, "Eyes are the window into the soul." Well, in this day and age, sunglasses exhibit a vanguard of that window. Instead of seeing the true convictions of a person, we are now shielded from that intimacy with a piece of tempered glass (or plastic). However, these sunglasses put forth an important message, whether it be "I'm rich," or "I shop at Target," or "I worship Oakley, Arnette, Spy," whatever ... or maybe "just 'cuz I'm a wicked big Jack Nicholson fan." Now, as I understand it, sorority girls have been specifically targeted for their use of excessively flagrant eyewear. Being a fraternity gentleman myself, I feel that this is yet another condemnation of the greek system as a whole. Plenty of young women on this campus who are not affiliated with the Panhellenic council engage in wearing "Fashionably Overprotective Eyewear" (FOE for short), but the greek women are savagely targeted nonetheless. Shame on all of you for using these outgoing and beautiful ladies as scapegoats. You are singling out a group, and that is discrimination and as an American citizen, I will not tolerate it. Let's fix this problem together and not be prejudicial. And let's get some better comics for this paper, for the love of God. "Claypool and Freeman?"... Jesus. Charles Schultz is rolling in his grave, Steve-O.
creative writing sophomore
Fraternities already face tough hurdles
Tom Deakin's letter claiming that fraternities needed stricter rules is either based on his ignorance of the many hurdles fraternities already face or is based on his prejudiced view of greek life. Greek life already has many rules that prevent houses from having parties and create high standards for the few parties houses are allowed to host every year. Beyond that there is strict control of guest lists and inspections to make sure what beverages are served to whom. The bad image of greek life doesn't stem from the fact that greeks are disproportionately involved in crime or mischief but rather that when an illegal act takes place at a greek residence it is always shown to reflect the entire community. However, if one compares that greek community to the average student one will find that their is a much lower percentage of incidents involving the police, allegations of rape or drug use. Obviously, the greek community can always do better, but as a former president of Phi Kappa Psi I can fairly say the greek community tries very hard already and is continually under the spotlight. Before judging, non-greeks should sit through the endless GAMMA and IFC meetings and other mandatory anti-rape and anti-alcohol abuse seminars greeks participate in, and then judge whether greek life is doing enough.
Seth J. Frantzman
University needs to begin resisting sex-crazed culture
I thought the mission of the UA was to provide those students who invest their time and money with a quality education. Apparently, this is hardly the case. It is one thing for men and women to walk around half-dressed, and it is another thing for it to be promoted. Stripping to raise money for charity as was the case according to last Friday's Wildcat's article titled "Students Get Visibly Excited About Charity" is not charitable and is downright disgusting. Why is it becoming impossible for anything "good" or even neutral to avoid being focused on showing more skin?
In just the past few weeks, UA students have been exposed to everything from women posing for Playboy magazine to give their school some recognition to women posing half-dressed with iPods for some sort of charity and now to men getting completely naked to raise money for a heart-related charity. It almost wouldn't surprise me if they allowed professors and students to undress in class to raise money for more stupid programs around campus. There are enough of these that someone can do a dissertation on it.
I know I am not the only UA student who shares this view. Many of us are quite embarrassed to be a part of a so-called educational institution that is plagued with drinking and drugs, male strippers, women in butt-shorts and corporate corruption of state property. This may be the trend of the entire nation but that doesn't mean we have to flush intellectualism down the toilet in favor of puppy-brained consumerism.
engineering physics sophomore
'You suck, I rule' no way to debate
This letter is in response to a letter titled "Abortion Akin to Murder." I'm not sure what prompted the rant, but I am shocked that someone can write something so entirely based upon preconceived notions and partisan generalizations. I won't comment either way on my personal opinions on the issue of abortion, but rather I would like to point out that Mr. Pierce's letter seems more intent on yelling out insults to liberal-minded people than actually making a well thought-out argument against abortion. Liberal or conservative in political beliefs, we should all be able to agree that fabricating derisive quotes and following them up by meaningless labels "irresponsible leftist brigade;" "despicable liberal enem") is no way to construct a meaningful idea or spur proper debate. That type of "You suck, I rule" jargon should be left out of political discourse and saved for a more fitting arena such as a WWE wrestling match.
political science junior