Tuesday, April 17. 2001
The University Daily Kansan
Section A·Page 5
Letters to the Editor Bush outmaneuvered China
Friday's editorial about the standoff with China ("U.S. apology should have come sooner") displayed such shaky reasoning and a lack of knowledge of diplomacy that it demands a response. First, a quick solution to the incident was impossible — diplomacy and international negotiations are not speedy processes, just ask the Israelis, Palestinians or Bosnians. To solve this problem in two days, President Bush would have had to warn the Chinese that if our crew was not released in five days, the bombs would start dropping in 10. Did we really want that? I think not.
Why is diplomacy a slow process?
One word: semantics. Words mean things in diplomacy, and it takes time to carefully craft statements that please both sides. Therefore, apologizing when not at fault just to get our crew and plane back would have been a major mistake — in the world of international affairs, sacrifices have to be made for the greater good (in this case, keeping a tough stance with a less-than-friendly nation). Our military personnel realize that when they voluntarily enlist they are joining a cause that transcends their individual lives and safety in times of crisis.
It is horrible reasoning to blindly assume that if we had apologized, we would be getting our plane back. Our crew's accounts of the incident have proven that the Chinese lied when blaming our plane for the collision. Why should we trust them otherwise? Moreover, I cannot believe the gall of the editorial board to accuse Bush of letting the Chinese have our technology. Where were the complaints during the Clinton administration when he let our missile technology be sold to China? As a result, China is now a nuclear threat to us. Sleep tight, Bill.
In short, China did not outmaneuver us. We got our crew back without submitting to their demand for a full apology — who outmaneuvered whom there? If they really want an apology, though, here's an idea:
Dear ChiComs.
We are sorry that your renegade pilot swerved into our slow, propeller-driven plane. We're sorry that in order to save the lives of the crew, the pilot had to land on your island (the glady would've landed somewhere else if possible).
Incidentally, we're also sorry that you have killed millions of your own people under Maoist Communist rule. We're sorry that you mowed down thousands of freedom-loving protesters in Tiananmen Square. We're sorry that you continue to allow infanticide and to persecute the peaceful Falun Gong movement. Finally, we're sorry that our previous administration permitted you to obtain missile technology that allows you to threaten our country and her Pacific allies.
China editorial missed the mark
Andy Miner Beloit sophomore
Mr. Woodbury's editorial "U.S. apology should have come sooner" was an ill-informed opinion that U.S. interests, specifically technology, were damaged by the long negotiations. He bases his whole argument on the idea that by "hedging an apology means China, which has not returned the plane, can take apart and examine our most sophisticated spy equipment." Apparently, Mr. Woodbury was unaware that the equipment on the "spy" plane has been declasified. If the Chinese desperately wanted to know what types of equipment were on board the "spy" plane, they could have simply looked it up, instead of causing a mid air collision. What has not been declasified is the very sensitive programs used to run the computers. Without these programs, the technology aboard the "spy" plane is basically useless. Thankfully, those programs were destroyed prior to the emergency landing on Hainan. If you want to talk about sensitive U.S. technology that has fallen into Chinese hands, then might I direct you to the Wen Ho Lee scandal that occurred under the Clinton administration.
The interests hurt most in this whole ordeal, Mr. Woodbury, are Chinese. They are the ones who have massive exports to the United States. They are the ones who do not want the new Aegis destroyers sold to Taiwan. They are the ones bidding for the next Olympic games. Thanks to Bush, our people are safe, minimal technology has been compromised, and more than ever, Americans are made aware of the growing danger across the Pacific. Good job, George.
Tyson Pyle Halstead freshman
Jesus' love endures today
This letter is in response to the letter in the Tuesday *Kansan* regarding the relevance of Christianity. I feel I must respond to the author's clear misunderstanding of the words of the Bible.
It is stated that Jesus gave instructions on how to beat slaves in Luke 12:47-48. But even a cursory reading of this passage reveals that Jesus is not doing that. He is simply stating that a servant who disobeys his master will be punished. He does not mention the morality of the behavior; he is using it as an example that our deeds will be either punished or rewarded.
The author states that Jesus encouraged castration (Matthew 19:12). Here Jesus observes that some men are eunuchs (have been castrated) naturally, some have been made that way by others, and some are by choice.
fire is a metaphorical statement that was twisted by the Inquisition to serve its purposes. The meaning is that those who do not follow Jesus will be given what they have freely chosen, that is separation from God, or Hell.
Again, in Matthew 10:35-36 where Jesus talks about a man being at odds with his family, he is pointing out that some who choose to follow him will do so in opposition to their family's wishes. This is not Jesus' desire, for he wishes all people to follow him.
Similarly, Jesus' cursing of the fig tree (Matthew 21:19) was a vidl lesson to his disciples of the power available to them from God through faith.
Jesus' statement (in John 15:6) that the "vines" that are not connected to the "branch" will be thrown into the
Regarding the drowning of the herd of pigs (Mathew 8:32), Jesus showed his high regard for human life in removing the demon that was possessing people of the region. Also, he did not drown the pigs; the demon did.
Jesus drove the merchants out of the temple (John 2:15) because these men were cheating people and defiling the Jewish people's most holy place. His anger was against their sinful behavior and disregard for the sanctity of the place. If Jesus were around today, I have no doubt he would do the same to many televangelists and others who cheat people in the name of God.
Similarly, God's actions in Numbers (15:32-36, 25:16-17) were in direct response to blatant disregard for his commandments; the Sabbath breaker and the Midianites were both killed by God for breaking his laws.
Although we may think it is extreme for God to kill people for disobeying him, the fact is that He is sovereign and holy, and his laws are to be obeyed. Fortunately, God is also loving, and sent Jesus to cover the disobedience of all those who accept his free gift. That is relevant today and forever.
Brian Thomas Lawrence graduate student
Letter misinterpreted Bible
I was a little disappointed at the string of mischiefizations Cody Marris listed in his letter to the editor Tuesday ("Christianity still relevant today"). In trying to use Bible verses to argue against Christianity, he could at least read the verses instead of pulling bad paraphrases off the Internet.
I admit that the Old Testament has brutal stuff, such as "an eye for an eye." Much of it is trumped by Christ's teachings in the New Testament, such as "turn the other cheek."
However, Marrs claims Jesus gave instructions on how to beat slaves. Actually the verse he cited was a parable about justice for a servant who abuses power given to him by exploiting and beating other servants. Marrs claims Jesus drowned innocent animals, but the verse he cites is actually about Jesus casting demons out of a man into the pigs, who then run into the sea like lemmings. Marrs claims Jesus encourages castration, but the verse he cites is actually talking about eunuchs, who historians say weren't necessarily castrated.
The supposed "anti-family values" verse quoted is actually about putting Jesus first in your life. Mars correctly states that Jesus cursed a fig tree but fails to mention that the fig tree immediately withered and the Jesus used this
Citing how the Spanish Inquisition manipulated scripture to justify its cruelty doesn't support Marrs' argument. Lots ofacked-up people have twisted scripture to justify wacky ideas or actions. It doesn't 'mean it was God's will or even scriptural.
to teach the disciples about the power of God. Using His name, Jesus said, the disciples could do this and more, even move mountains.
For one who claims to like science and philosophy, Marrs needs to brush up on his research and argument skills. If you want to argue for your faith or atheism, or even against Christianity, go ahead. It's a free country. But if you don't believe in something the Bible says, you don't have to resort to blatantly misrepresenting its contents to debate its veracity.
Beloit second-year law student
Christianity is hypocritical
I wish to address Matt Cox's statement, "It's no surprise that Christianity is the most scrutinized faith" ("Moral absolutes point to presence of superior being," April 12). Well, Mr. Cox, that's funny coming from a faith that has for 1,500 years tried to suppress every religion and culture it has come in contact with — going from the Crusades in the Middle East (present-day Iran, Iraq, etc.) 1,500 years ago, to 1100 A.D. with the dark ages and the suppression of the village healers and midwives (usually women) to the present day with missionaries in South America trying to convert the last of the indigenous cultures. When the first whites encountered the Mayan culture, they called them savages because they had blood sacrifices to their gods. I find it ironic that the beginning of Christianity is founded on a blood sacrifice. You say what makes people funny is their obvious contradictory beliefs; what I find ironic is the obvious contradictory practices of the Christian faith.
When Sheri Martin stated a personal opinion about the relativity of the Christian faith in today's modern world and its treatment of women, she was chastised for it. Did you know, Mr. Cox, if she said that about 350 years ago, she would have been arrested and tried for heresy, then thrown in prison and tortured till she confessed — if they didn't kill her? That is how the Church suppressed forward-minded thinking like Galileo's.
Mr. Cox, you have it easy being a White Christian male. Try being a non-Christian, and see what happens. There are cases in court where non-Christians are having to fight to keep their children, not because they were abused or neglected, but for the simple fact that they were found unfit to raise their children because they weren't Christian. There is a court case where a high school girl is fighting for her right to wear a simple piece of jewelry to school; they deemed it cult jewelry and banned it. When was the last time a Christian was banned for wearing a
cross? Fact: Non-Christians are in fear of losing their jobs if they express any faith other then Christianity. I have myself been harassed by Christians and former Christian employers and coworkers for being pagan — telling me I'm going to hell, calling me a Satan worshiper and trying to convert me. I find that ironic.
I'll send this letter with a question for you, Mr. Cox. When was the last time you experienced suppression or harassment for being Christian? I live with that reality every day from Christians and the Church.
Robin Halbert
Robin Halbert Jayhawker Towers custodial worker
America needs religion now
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution. So get over it. It appears in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a church being unfairly treated by the government. At the end of the letter, Jefferson states, "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem." Shouldn't we see this as a sign that Jefferson thought religion was a necessary part of society?
Through the efforts of many people during the last 200 plus years, America has forgotten the root of its greatness: true freedom of religion. The separatists left England because they couldn't worship as they desired and found it necessary to ensure the government of America would not restrict religion or legally require it. Unfortunately, they failed.
Prohibiting the posting of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and prayers at graduation, and teaching evolution in public schools are examples of government restricting the free exercise of religion, or, with evolution, preaching a religion in itself.
Contrary to popular belief, just as much (if not more) evidence exists for a divine creation as for evolution. However, in an attempt to get as far away from religion as possible, only one side is taught, thus preaching against God, which is religion in itself.
Courts and classrooms are being systematically cleansed of all traces of any mention of God. But America needs religion. We need something to align our moral compasses, and that can only be found in religion.
Granted, I don't want government telling me where, how or what to worship, but I do want it to allow me to worship God in every aspect of my life, without worrying about getting sued by some atheist who doesn't feel good when he hears me praying or who takes offense to the copy of the Ten Commandments I have on my desk.
Some say, "We don't need religion to do right." Um, yeah, we do. If we didn't, communism would succeed. People would love each other, hate would disappear and everyone's lives would be perfect. But humans have a sinful
nature. You don't have to teach children to be greedy or how to lie. It's natural. To make people "good" requires a change of heart. And society can't provide that without religion. By restricting the free exercise of this necessary aspect of life, we are only condemning our future to more crime, more hatred and more discord. Wake up, America.
Andrew Pull Colfax.N.D.. freshman
What's in a queer name? A lot
Listen up, all you queers!
"Whoa, partner, what's with the language?" you ask. Isn't the word "queer" a little harsh, ridiculing, even oppressive? Why are you calling gay people queers? Isn't that offensive? Well, first it depends on who says it and also whom you ask. Now, my feelings about the word are grounded in my own personal experiences, which are among other things, historically different from other people.
Therefore, I cannot speak for the whole lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community, but I can offer my own perspective on usage of the word queer. "Queer" means "peculiar, strange," which are not necessarily bad things. But society has come to use the term pejoratively, as an insult. So what does it mean when groups and individuals adopt a word historically used to insult them? It means that the word no longer belongs to the oppressor; it belongs to the group or individual. And when it belongs to you, when you appropriate it and change its meaning from something negative to something positive, it is empowering.
What is positive about the word queer? Because of its history, it is politically powerful, but more importantly it has been used to broaden the definition of otherwise limiting words such as gay or lesbian. Queer is a word that encompasses the whole continuum of sexual object choice. Take your pick: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and anything in between. Know dykes, fags, queers, lesbians who sleep with men, bisexual transgender people, gay men that sleep with women, men who only date women but identify as queer, women who only date women but identify as bisexual. The point is, the individual person decides how they want to be identified. Whether you choose to identify as queer is a personal decision, but that is what taking the word back is all about: the power to identify yourself. If you don't like the word queer, use gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, but realize that not everybody identifies themselves that way. If you know somebody who is queer, ask them how they identify and why. Try to accept how people choose to identify themselves. The word queer will not fall back into the hands of people who use it to oppress as long as we use it with the empowering and encompassing connotations we have given it.
Tara Wolfe
Queers and Allies treasurer
Lawrence senior
37
KANSAS EXPOCENTRE
IN TOPEKA, KS
THIS SATURDAY!
Saturday, Apr. 21st • 7:30pm!
ALL SEATS RESERVED!
Expocentre box office, all Ticketmaster outlets,
Charge By Phone 785-224-4545 or www.ticketmaster.com
PRESENTED BY JAM PRODUCTIONS
Now Hiring Part - Time Package Handlers
$10 to $11/hr. Paid Weekly .50/hr. Tuition Reimbursement $0.50/hr. Raise after 90 days N Weekends
Transportation is available from KU for the Day and Twilight shifts!
AA/EOE
Available Shift Times:
Day: 2:00 pm - 7:00 N
Twilight: 7:00 pm - Midnight N
Night: Midnight - 5:00 am T
Sunrise: 2:30 am - 7:30 am T
Preload: 1:30 am - 7:00 am T
Apply at: 3211 Clinton Parkway Ct.
Lawrence, KS 66044
Please call our office in Lawrence: (785) 843-3200 or contact us online: www.fedexground.com
Ground
Your Internet doorway sponsored by
jayhawks.com
Time to Break Up?
Knowing When It's Over
kansan.com
& When It's Worth
Working It Out
Douthart Scholarship Hall Tuesday, April 17 7:00 p.m.
"One Bedroom Sale"
1 month FREE or,
as low as $525
Call for Our Specials
(785) 841-7726
3100 W. 22nd Suite A
www.ukans.edu/~etwrc
Sponsored by the Emily Taylor Women's Resource Center; 22 Strong Hall; 785-864-3552; www.emilytaylor.edu/show