University of South Carolina Libraries
Hate University engulfed in new wave of intolerance, harsh criticism Over the past few weeks, The Gamecock has run many, many letters on animal research and homosexual rights. Some of these letters are well written and constructive; some are not. It is no secret that the readership is getting annoyed. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion; that is what the Let ters to the Editor are all about. Unfortunately, some people's letters do not illuminate, but only insult. It is easy to use words like "stupid" and "ignorant" to describe another's opinion. Calling someone a "bigot" or a "racist" is just as simple, but doesn't accomplish anything. The United States, and especially an institute of higher learning like USC, should encourage intelligent, reasonable debate on all issues facing the country. It is pretty hard, however, to categorically argue that something as subjective as one's lifestyle is wrong. No one has a monopoly on truth, as much as we would like to think otherwise. It is too bad that we don't have more balanced commentary, but as stated in a previous column, the Viewpoint Editor has little choice in what letters run. Some readers are sick of the seemingly endless debate on the merits of homosexuality; they are not alone. However, don't blame the messenger for the message. We just work here. The only wav the content of the Letters section will chanee for the better is if the students decide to change it. Not to sound preachy, but that is the way it works. If this editorial makes people mad, that is all for the better. Write us and tell us how bad we are. We value reader comments, believe it or not. "TERRIBLE ABOUT ALL THAT FUEL BEIN6 BURNEp JN KUWAIT * ^ IGAMECOCKJ News: 777-7726 Advertising: 777-4249 Kathy Blackwell robyn Thompson Editor in Chief Managing Editor Chris Silvestri David Bowden Copy Desk Chief Viewpoint Editor Lucy Soto Kathy Heberger News Editor Carolina Life Editor Steve Johnson Renee Meyer Sports Editor Photography Editor Aaron Sheinin Tige Watts Assistant News Editor Assistant News Editor Octavia Wright Patrick Villegas Assistant Carolina Life Editor Assistant Sports Editor jennifer jablonski julie bouchillon Assistant Copy Desk Chief Assistant Photography Editor Eric Glenn Wayne Williams Darkroom Lab Technician Comics Editor Ed Bonza Erik Collins Director of Student Media Faculty Adviser Laura S. Day Ray Burgos Production Manager Assistant Production Manager renee Gibson Kyle Berry Advertising Manager Assistant Advertising Manager Carolyn Griffin Business Manager Letters Policy: The Gamecock will try to print all letters received. Letters should be, at maximum, 250 to 300 words long. The writer must include full name, professional title if a USC employee or South Carolina resident, or year and major if a student. An address and phone number are required with all letters sent. The Gamecock reserves the right to edit letters for style, possible libel or in case of space limitations. The newspaper will not withhold names under any circumstance. I Christians si A couple of days ago, when I was swai by a whale, I started thinking about the Bi I started thinking about all of the mi redundancies and vague quotes. And started to think about how people man; the "good book" to back up their argumen Unless you've been living on Pluto or ] tKn Dor! C an frvr tKa rvoot HirA moolrc Ol/i UIV/ i\SAl JUl 1UI U1V pool IWU W\A/IWO, W has seen the great homophobic wave use. Since Gay Awareness Week, letters cc ing the gay society have flooded The 1 cock. I was not really sure what the big c was over so I asked my favorite rel buddy, Hip O. Crite, a few of questions. "Let's get to the point, Hip. Why don gious people accept gay people for wh are?" I asked. "Because God doesn't want people to way. He preaches against homosexuality Bible," Crite said. "Well, what about the Bible. Wasn't il so scholars that rewrote the Bible foi James?" I asked. "Yes, he (King James) wanted to c with the good book, Cnte replied. "Didn't James issue the production Bible because he was required to have a < he was to be the head of the Church," I ai "Yes." "Well then, wouldn't James also have < of who put what in the book and wh JL/tt# 1 I H/IVo I * Man must put humans first S Th? To the editor: ^ur I have a question for every animal-rights activist out there. It's or strictly hypothetical. If your house ma was about to explode, and you * were running out of time to escape . the explosion, so that you had to w make a choice between saving your dog or saving your baby, 1101 which would you choose? no* I certainly hope this would not be a hard choice. I guess I'm just 1101 trying to find out where your SPC priorities are. It seems to me that str many of you seem to insist human lives are no more valuable than a 0U1 dog's. For that matter, it seems to ^ me that you believe all animal life carries the equal value of human on< lives. wh I would also like to bring up another point. You people might y01 not realize this, but if it were physically possible and it was important to their survival, any one of wj these animals you are defending \' would eat you. That's just nature's way. All the various life forms on V| this planet live off one another. Even photosynthetic and che- To mosynthetic organisms in some / way rely on heterotrophic organ- sm( isms. Maybe I'm just trying to tell daii you animals use each other, and Aai we are only animals. (3-( Why don't you people stand up abo for plant rights? Are these not liv- i ing things as well? Have you ever disj eaten a carrot? It was a growing, the living thing, digging its roots into woi the soil an<T spreading its leaves wri toward the sky. Then someone leai came along, yanked it out of the of t earth, chopped off its leaves and 1 subjected it to any means of dis- mai memberment and disfigurement, dig including its being chopped into hig! pieces and boiled, possibly even woi while its cells yet lived. Who will you stop this senseless plant slaughter? fou As far as animal rights go, I sin] think people shouldn't kick their stir 1/\11 1UUIUII I 1 I llowed ible. racles, TIGE then I ipulate its. carting eryone put," I asked, engulf "I guess so." "So, therefore, could ndern- preaching against homos Game- "No, not at all." lispute "Why?" igious "Just because that's tl Crite said. 't reli- That's the way God o they that reason, please. Does God really wan be that responsibility of judging in the sexual preference? What ture that says only God t 47 or cast their fate? ' King What's happened is t people on this campus :onsult people casting opinions jamming their beliefs of the throat even though thei copy if preaches against casting sked. We have a pack of hy here. control Just like the sign tha at they you," I'm saying I don' 3 THE EDITC s around. In other words, if 1're going to own an animal, 1 should treat it well. Research mals, however, are not pets, ey are a means for furthering nan knowledge. Many of them uld not even exist if it were not mankind (or womankind or hunkind or whatever you prefer), rike the carrot, they were med for human use. When a d animal is used for research, must be sure the wild populan, and the overall ecology, is threatened by its removal from environment We certainly do have the right to wipe another :cies off the planet and in deoying the environment we mid of course be destroying selves. t suppose I've tiraded enough, ?ugh I could go on. I just hope z person out there understood iat I was trying to say. If you thered with reading this, I thank 11. s Sam Johnson Biology sophomore Writer abuses is freedoms the editor: is a senior citizen and part-time lent on campus, I read with dis_ .1 f "?I:. m i n uie piuiane cununai oy on Sheinin in The Gamecock 5-91) referring to his feelings ut James Holderman. Tie childish antics proposed, the justing choice of words, shows immaturity of the writer. I iild suggest that as an editorial ter by now he would have Tied what the words "Freedom he Press" mean. Tiis so-called "freedom" deads responsibility, lawfulness, nity, the right to inspire to her aims ? not throwing nasty rds, crude adjectives (where is it vocabulary as a writer?) and 1 feelings. One does not have to Ic in the mud-holes in order to up and bring truth out. ely on dubi belief. lI/.TTO if you li WATTS business. B people live The Bib list of hyp sense peop to writft mf Let me j In't it be King James claims Go exuality," I asked. cleanses us days and 41 If he's s le way God wanted it," hell did he cept for N< wanted it. Remember power. I guess b t people to assume the Gee, thai ; people based on their People, ; happened to the scrip- God did no can judge people and under the f ish version. hat we have a pack of went in it. playing God. We have Therefor about people and then Bible, then down everyone else's defined by r sole source of belief Believe judgments. longer part pocrites going to school swallowed If people it says, "We don't like King James t like your hypocritical don't have i )R How much more mature he would have appeared if he had been able to express the despair of the situation in a rational way rather than becoming so sordid in his choice of words. My taxes help pay for this paper indirectly, and I, for one, am offended that the newspaper staff and faculty cannot appreciate and use wisely this newspaper to uplift. What was gained by all the tirade of objectionable statements? Has journalism changed that much thru (sic) the years? I want to read good newspaper articles and editorials which inspire one to correct mistakes ? not just destroy. Francese Larsen USC student Biblical quotes are subjective To the editor: Like many passages of the Bible, Jon Noetzel's letter contradicts itself. I believe the Bible contradicts itself to show there are many ways to view a single issue, and each of them can be right It is then up to our judgment to choose how we will decide among our op tions after we have seen all we are able to see of the issue. For instance, the story in which Jesus prevents the stoning of an adulterous woman by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," clearly contradicts the Lord's commandment "Thou shall not commit adultery." Just as Jon Noetzel claims to be in judgment of the act, not the individual, so did those men claim to be in judgment of adultery, not the adulterer. But Christ would not permit them this trespass upon the right of judgment, which God alone possesses. It simply did not matter what aspect of the situation the men felt that they could justifiably condemn or condone ? thev could ilmlr* ous book I ve your life by the Bible, that's your lut when you start insisting that other by your beliefs, that's hypocrisy, le has become nothing more than a ?ocrisy and contradiction. Uh, oh, I ie rustling around getting their pens j hate mail. ustify the last statement Christianity a as a Kina ana genue Deing who ; of our sins. Now, remember the 40 3 nights of rain? K) kind and gentle, then why in the; flood the earth and kill everyone ex-' ?ah because they did not respect his iecause that's the way God wanted it. ;'s so kind of him. the Bible is not authoritative rule. ; it write the Bible. Forty-seven people ire of an angry king wrote the EnglHe had complete control over what e, if you insist people live by the you're insisting people live the path a 17th century king, it or not, times change. People no ; the Red Sea nor live after being by a whale. > want to be gay, let them. But for :' sake, don't crucify them when you the authority to do so. . " ' 1 ;? not, for they were each guilty of \ some type of sin. In the eyes of ^ God, a sin is a sin, and the idea of > a "degree" of sin is not valid. Therefore, the liar is as much a : sinner as the murderer. So, unless Jon Noetzel is completely free of sin, he is violating Christ's example when he judges the ho- ^ mosexual individual or even the 0 act of homosexuality (or any other Kn tvircAnol Ixr c?1\ V"-, uvi iiv |A/ijv/iicixij fuimuud dimuiy. It is worth mentioning that the term "homosexual" came into existence long after the Bible was transcribed. Therefore, since my Bible does not contain that word, I see only two explanations for how Jon Noetzel managed to find quotes ! with this word in them: a) his Bible differs from mine ? proving ! the Bible may be interpreted differently and voiding his sarcastic plea with Shane Miller to spare V him Shane's commonly held opinion on that, or b) he knowingly > misquoted the Bible ? i.e., he said ' the Bible stated something which it j* J - ? ? - aiu noi, wnicn constitutes an outright lie, making him a sinner and ^ unjustified in judging anyone or their "sin." v % Which is not to say that if Jon ; considers homosexuality sinful, he > should flee from it For, 'if he feels it sinful, it is his right for him to turn away from engaging in that ? behavior. But, if he must turn > away from it, he should do so peacefully, passing no judgment (and it is judgment to call the ac- .* ceptance of homosexuality a ? "looseness of morality"). I will leave you with a quote 'j from Noetzel, "Let's be reasonable > about this. Most homosexuals are happy where they are and wouldn't * change." Maybe it sounds harsh to you, Mr. Noetzel, but being a true Christian is certainly no easy calling. Jess Stahl Premed/psychology major