Category: Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

Last Friday the Chapel speaker was Dr. Wesley Hill, a gay, celibate, Christian. He advocated that Christians who are gay, should live a life of celibacy. He summed up his stance by saying, “I gave up marriage as a commitment to Christ.” He, along with with many members of the Houghton community, believe that God requires celibacy for all who are not hetroxexual. And this is what I have a problem with.

My problem is with belief in a God who supports this view of giving up marriage for Christ.What kind of God creates someone with a sexual attraction that they can NEVER act on? What kind of God expects his children to give up the possibility for the intimate relationship that only a marriage can provide, to abandon and alienate ourselves from a fundamental part of who we are? An evil one! A God not worthy of believing in, let alone following. This is not the God of the Christian narrative. Thankfully, there is another way of relating to that God.

Dr. Hill and others want LGBT people to give up marriage as a commitment to Christ. And I agree that we do need to give up something as a commitment to Christ. But it’s not marriage that needs to go. No, we need to give up God as a commitment to Christ. In order to commit to the loving, graceful, accepting, expansive, humanity-embracing way of Christ, we need to give up that former view of God. The God that creates people with an attraction they can never act on, that expects us to give up the benefits of marriage, that wants us to forsake a fundamental aspect of what makes us human, he has got to go! Thankfully there are other ways of interpreting Scripture, other ways of viewing God. The God who is oppressive, demanding, and asks us to forsake our humanity is not worth our time. So join me in giving him up. Give up God as a commitment to Christ.

Matt Young – Radical Theology Advocate,  Philosophy Major, Class of 2018

Dear Editor,

I was disappointed with the news article “Riots in Ferguson Cause Unrest” in the last [Dec. 5, 2014] issue. It was unfortunately biased. The title starts out the piece with a questionable cause and effect relationship. Doesn’t unrest cause riots? I think it’s safe to assume that the unrest was there long before the riots. Or better yet, we need not try to mention any solid cause and effect relationship. A much better title could have been chosen.

Regardless, as the article continues it severely undermines the voice of the protesters. Calling the shooting of Mike Brown a “not so ordinary incident” expresses bias because a major aspect of the controversy surrounding this case is that it is believed that this is not a rare occurrence. Then, it is implied that all the protests were violent and the article fails to truly explain why the protests even occur upon first mentioning them. Then the account of the event, although it is mentioned as being debatable, is given from the final court decision, ignoring the voice of the protesters and their slogan “Hands up don’t shoot.” While you can say the evidence seems to support the side given —  it is important to explain why the protesters are protesting by representing their point of view especially as they responded before the court case and release of evidence.

Towards the end of the article the questions surrounding racism are finally brought to attention, but with some false conclusions. After the paragraph of quotes from President Obama about the “legacy of racial discrimination” it is said “these statements reflect the facts that Ferguson County consists of predominantly black communities”. The quotes used do not reflect that at all. Other assumptions are made that had just as little obvious correlation.

Overall the article was a disservice to the Houghton community. Many of the students here have not been following the Ferguson case or any others, and it is difficult for them to understand the complexity of Ferguson through this article. Some fine tuning could make this article much more informative.

Thank You,

Emma Brittain

Class of 2016

Dear Editor,

Regarding last [Dec. 5, 2014] week’s letters, it seems that Ms. Wool, class of ’16, and Mr. Oliver, class of ’15, can’t see the whole point of the new napkin policy.  Neither did I at first.  But, it is fully explained for all to see on the new, snazzy, dispensers:  “Better for you” they proclaim in bold print.  Smaller, yet still quite legible for those who can read: “One napkin at a time means better health.”

Get it?  Please remember it when I wipe my hands on the back of your shirt.

Carlton Fisher

No class at all.

Dear Editor,

This napkin fiasco is absolutely disappointing and disconcerting. It is frustrating that Sodexo would make such a fundamental change without even attempting to see how the Houghton community would react. While it is understandable, and even admirable, that our “food” provider is attempting to use less and conserve resources, getting rid of table-by-table napkin dispensers is not the best way to go about it. While I can appreciate the effort of trying to use less, I have seen innumerable students partaking in the usual meals, with stacks of unused napkins resting on their tables, or being sent into the dish room because everyone at the table brings a small stack of napkins, not knowing what disastrous spillage may occur. Especially considering Sodexo deemed it acceptable to completely throw away all of the table dispensers. Now, each one of the dispensers has a retail value of about $10, and let’s say there are 50 tables in the cafeteria (a modestly low estimate), that’s a solid $500 quite literally in the trash.  Could we not have donated them to a community organization, at the very least? Ironically, this has all come to light in the midst of the Eco Rep’s waste awareness week, a week dedicated to making the campus aware of exactly how much we’re wasting on a week to week basis.  I’m so glad we have Sodexo as such a wonderful example of what waste looks like.

Liana Wool

Class of ’16

Dear Editor,

I have observed two areas which are rapidly undermining our culture. First, people do not believe the authority of the Bible. Second, God’s intention for marriage has been lost.

Heb. 4:12 refers to the Bible as living and active. God’s Word never changes. Scripture teaches that God has authority over the physical and spiritual. Scripture is given by God to show us how to live for Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19-21). Unfortunately, our culture views the Bible as irrelevant.

Recent editorials in the Star supported homosexuality without any mention Scripture. Some church leaders were quoted who support homosexuality, but the Bible gives examples of spiritual leaders who knowingly denied the truth of Scripture, contrary to God’s Word.

The author said there are “misunderstood Bible passages on homosexuality” but gave no references to support this view. She reasons that, “two men or two women simply falling in love does not compute as sin for me.” Any sex outside of marriage is sin as is homosexuality (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Thes. 4:1-8).

God’s intention for marriage is being destroyed. Marriage is an institution created by God (Gen. 2:24) which Jesus confirms in Matt. 19:4-6. God’s idea of marriage is for a male and a female to be united in one flesh, never to be separated. This relationship is to be sexually and spiritually pure.

Pluralism forces us to accept anyone’s beliefs. This leads to chaos. As Judges 21:25 states, “every man did that which was right in his own eyes.”

May God help us follow Him through His Word.

Sincerely in Christ,

Dr. James Szymanski

Dear Editor of the Star,

Holly Chaisson’s editorial in in the October 24 issue of the Star, “Homosexuals and the Church” provides a problematic and inaccurate characterization of the Catholic Church’s recent deliberations regarding homosexuality.

Ms. Chaisson introduces her piece with a number of remarks–taken mostly from the BBC and bearing little resemblance to the documents of the synod or the words of Pope Francis–on the recently concluded Synod of Bishops on the Family. In speaking of the Relatio, the “midway report” of the synod, which mentioned the “gifts” homosexuals had to offer the Church, she writes, “The fact that this was the early language approved by Pope Francis speaks volumes.” This is misleading. The document’s purpose was to give a report on the synod’s discussions: we have no way of knowing whether the Pope approved of those discussions. Furthermore, the section on homosexuality was written by Archbishop Bruno Forte, known for his progressive theology. Some cardinals suggested that the Relatio did not accurately reflect the discussions that had taken place, and several expressed surprise that it had been published at all.

Ms. Chaisson later states, “Disappointed by the decision of the synod, Pope Francis insisted upon full transparency of all document drafts and voting tally. In the same BBC press statement, Francis is quoted as cautioning against ‘hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God.'” A request for transparency need not imply disappointment. If Pope Francis was disappointed, it may well have been because of attempts to change the Church’s position. He did indeed caution against “hostile inflexibility,” but he actually offered more condemnations of progressives than conservatives. For example, he warned against the “temptation to a destructive tendency to goodness, that. . . binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them. . . .  It is the temptation . . . of the so-called ‘progressives and liberals.'” To conclude from the Pope’s statements that he was “disappointed” is unreasonable.

-Jonathan Meilaender

To the editor—

I did enjoy last week’s article titled “How Not to Be a Sexist Pig”. I think it addresses important issues, and these sorts of problems are certainly found here on our conservative Christian campus. Here is my problem, though. The title is demeaning. There is a fine line between being sassy and rude, and the title is rude. I understand the anger towards this issue as I myself have this anger. But if we are to be effective in addressing the issue, the solution is not to attack the way we feel attacked. We cannot fight rudeness with rudeness. I think that our real solution to the problem lies in Proverbs 25 verses 21-22, which states that we should treat our enemies with kindness and in doing this, “you will heap coals of fire on their heads.” We also need to keep in mind that not all men, certainly not most men, act in such demeaning ways towards the women on campus. If I compare the ratio of times I’ve been cat-called on campus to the amount of times that gentlemen have treated me and my body with respect, kindness trumps overwhelmingly. Along with focusing on the “sexist pig” issues, we also need to acknowledge and even praise the kindness we have received. How discouraging it must be for the men who seek to treat women with respect and then get ignored for favor of addressing the issues of disrespect.

By Anna Toegel

Dear Editor,

I agree with the main premise of the piece “How Not To Be A Sexist Pig” — namely that attitudes ignoring or justifying behaviors like catcalls are wrong. However, for a piece that criticizes the unfair judgments some men feel entitled to make about women, it seems disturbingly full of generalizations of its own that relegate all men to the “sexist pig” category.

The piece, for example uses “us” to refer to women and “you” to refer both to men with demeaning attitudes toward women and men who (like many of the students and professors I know here) respect women as individuals. Every male, this language implies, either actively demeans women or cannot treat women as fellow human beings without a lecture on why disrespect toward women affects him personally. In saying, “The only difference between men and women is that [women] have to fight for our rights. Don’t make the battle harder for us,” the piece also presents men and women as enemies, or at best dismisses men as anything more than obstacles to women’s success.

Of course there are men who need to hear exactly how their ignorance and disrespect affects the women with whom they interact, or how their actions have relegated the women around them to a place of powerlessness. This piece addresses well some attitudes that reduce women to physical bodies without individuality or dignity. Unfortunately, it seems to ignore that men are also individuals, many of whom do respect women and are anything but “sexist pigs.”

Sincerely,

Abby Erlanson