University of South Carolina Libraries
Prejudice High-tech military still using Stone Age policy towards gays While we are on the long-term topic of human sexuality, let's address a long-standing prejudice practiced by the United States government. While women can at least be in the armed forces (albeit in limited occupations), homosexuals cannot even be members of the military. In 1991, 10 percent of the population of the United States is barred from entering the services. All the more amazing is that the Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Armed Forces' policy. Besides the inherent unfairness of this policy (what happened to being an equal opportunity employer?), the military policy of denying entry to homosexuals is illogical. For one, it is a safe bet that there are lots of homosexuals in the armed forces who keep a low profile to avoid having their careers ruined. So, the United States just won an impressive victory with homosexuals actively serving. What difference does it make? While there is some reason to argue that women should not be allowed into combat situations because of their physical inferiority, there is no logical reason to not allow homosexual men. Are we supposed to think gay men would hold their guns with a limp wrist, and be less combat effective? The only reason openly gay men would be less effective in the military is because of harrassment from prejudiced heterosexual men. The only reason black men had problems when they were first integrated into the armed forces was harrassment by whites. Of course when homosexuals are finally accepted openly in the armed forces, they will be insulted, abused, etc. That isn't a reflection on them, but on the morons that are homophobic in the military. Anyway, gays aren't banned from the military for their own defense. Homosexuals should have the same opportunity to defend their country as anyone else. Being gay doesn't mean cowardice or lack of patriotism. If one thinks about it, it takes a lot of guts to admit one is gay in the military anyway. BHAMECOCK] 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. QEM0 LETS ' A \ M t Jesus Christ is no longer on the man form. But there has been a ft misunderstanding about what he w; Jesus was a normal person like He had to sleep when he got tired, he was hungry and drank when hi He experienced joy when he was li pain when he was hurt But Jesus was also the human i of God. He knew of a love that than any other love we could expei earth. He not only spoke of this love monstrated it. He loved us all so LETTERS Student writes about suicide To the editor: Appomattox's Burgeon In memorial to a Moore resident: Bell resonating within my Kails Dog wanders aimlessly Ferret slithers among our blades The Sound burns clean my mind Door slams shut Clinching fortitude with tooth) resolution Sound returns to my hall Ambivalent elevator: Dismembered day Open to Close Transport more without me T* A L1~ ii uuuuic ciaya Humpback and its spray Leave its maws unscathed Remain at the nadir of my Halls Gaze out from my stall | I am truly alone 1 Chaffed by the drowning of spirits Leave my life running The sun loiters in my room But our halls are vacant Today's twilight we ate another Shadow of a grey cross Impales itself upon my walls Clap of thunder Snap of the bubble Echoing night shadows in daylight Translucent film of rain Evanescent circumventer o destitution Blossoming chalk petals shruggec in morbidity Adorned by tears of shadow Mars the Face an otherwise plumb planet. .. The basket is full Wasfp. nn mnrp livp.s Zachary David Moon Moore residen 'Dog-labs' are educational To the editor: As a member of the silent majority, I think it is time to speak on the issue of animal rights: society as a whole is unwilling to relinquish the standard of living it has achieved vis-a-vis animal research. The crux of the argument for animal rights is mainly an emotional one. The use of animals, I argue, is clearly allowed by logic. yJT ThiS THIK6, wet. 'ml k 50^<S^m -S <r\W^> l_r rist stood f ' earth in hu- > ? air amount of P^^nl as all about ? ??* ? STE you and me. He ate when e was thirsty. ^ lappy and felt , epresentation gave up his life in ord is far greater who would follow hirr rience on this happiness. All that he believe it. , he also de- His desire for us is I much that he and to receive all of th ! TO THE EDIT In the case of dogs used by USC medical students in physiology laboratories, the animals have been previously slated for termination by the City of Columbia at the dog pound. The real tragedy is the number of animals at the pound that will be killed only to reduce their numbers and will not have the opportunity to be used for educational or research purposes. My personal opinion is that the 1 . 1 f 1-1 - uug-iaus are quite vaiuaoie to the student, for whom they were designed. I consider the concepts I . learned irreplaceable by a computer simulation or textbook explanation. I did not see any animal in pain. The animals were unconscious during the experiments, anaesthesized much the same way a human patient might be during an operation. If an animal exhibits a strong reflex, he is immediately given additional sedatives. Looking down the road of my medical education, I would feel more comfortable performing a procedure on a human being that I had previously performed to my satisfaction on a laboratory animal. Likewise, I trust that my government has ensured the products I buy have been thoroughly tested on experimental animals. I would not feel safe using a questionable product The logical conclusion of the argument not to use animals for research because it is cruel is that animals should not be used for any purpose that might be considered cruel, including being made into food and clothing. This would f mean we could no longer enjoy the many things that we take for granted, such as leather shoes and 1 belts, steak and lobster dinners, etc. Instead, we would wear only synthetic clothing and eat bland vegetarian meals. My own experience with animal research can be summed up succinctly: it was a valuable educational experience and I would not trade it for another. Some might ? suggest this is a sadistic statement I I respond that I personally own a pet animal and I care for him dearly. I do not hate animals. Animals serve important needs of society, not only for love and companionship, but also to save human lives and further our standard of living. William R. Shipley ? USC Medical School Bible proven and accurate 1 To the editor: ; This letter is in response to the erroneous articles in Wednesday's - ? j SI / V * or hope, nc from God. k He came EVE JOHNSON ^a,'t' He knows time but he i Though h from being the penalty er to give every person his unselfisl i neverending hope and chance to li\ asked of us is that we You see, about how jo live life to the fullest one man, v e blessings which come good today Oftlll If If " Gamecock concerning the Bible. Tige Watt's article claims Christianity shouldn't rely on the Bible on the premise that the English version was written by King James in the 17th Century. Then Jess Stahl's letter to the editor claims the Bible is full of contradictions and can be interpreted in numerous ways. For one to put any confidence in the Bible, he or she must first be assured that we have the same documents as our ancestors had over 2000 years ago when it was written. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, the earliest copy we used to have of it was 900 A.D., leaving over 1000 years for error in translation. But the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 proved to both Christians and non-Christians that we have accurate translations of the Old Testament manuscripts. Among the 500 books reconstructed out of scrolls was the entire Old Testament except for one book. They dated back as far as 125 B.C., and in comparing them with the documents of 900 to 1991, there was no error in translation that in any way altered the meanings of any of the verses (i.e., out of 166 words in Isaiah 53, only 17 letters were in question when compared to scripts of 200 years later). With the New Testament, Mr. Watts, we are even more sure of accurate transmission. There are more than 24,000 manuscript co-r A! *.r a. -t_ _ pics ui me rsew lcsuuiieni, me earliest dating as far back as 125 A.D., leaving a 25-50 year gap. No other document of antiquity begins to approach such numbers and attestation. The closest is Homer's Iliad with a 500 year gap between the time it was written and our earliest copy, and only 643 manuscript copies. There are over 15,000 versions of the New Testament since the first century, including the King James version. Most of the translations are basically the same with differences only in style and language, not content Try comparing the King James Version, Tige, with the Syriac or Latin versions of 150 A.D., then write an article. Now, Ms. Stahl, it is easy to accuse the Bible of inaccuracies, but it is quite another matter to prove them. Your example of the adulterous woman ? "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and "thou shalt not commit adultery" ? contradicting each other is a feeble attempt to discredit the Bible. Just what constitutes a contradiction? A thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time, in the HALL WE ) mr i %lHfc f $LE FlfopS I >t heresy to guide us into a great, new life, want us to die without the promise we all make mistakes from time to efuses to hold them against us. ie had the power to save himself crucified, he willingly died to pay for the sins of the world. Through ti act, Jesus gives every person a re on and better relate to God. it's not about being good. It's not much "stuff' you have. It's about /hose offer of a fulfilling life is as as the day he first made it same place, in the same manner. It is important to remember that two statements can be different, but not contradict one another. In the case with your example, one statement says iiul 10 sin, uie omer says not to take it upon yourself to punish others when they sin. Also, a point made by both Jess and Tige was about judging. They both seem to think that merely stating biblical facts is judging. Jon Noetzel was not judging homosexuals in his letter. He just said that according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, and homosexuals should repent, just as any other type of sinner should. Being a Christian does not mean claiming not to sin, or sin much. Being a Christian means admitting you are a sinner and accepting Christ as your savior. Many people assume the Bible js full of discrepancies and has been changed from generation to generation, but few people can even attempt to back up this claim with logical evidence. If you do not believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, I have no problem with that I just hope you find more to base that assumption on than does Mr. Watts or Ms. Stahl (ref. Josh McDowell, "Reasons"). Darby Smith Finance sophomore Christians can A * lien nntinicm UC5V vi luvum To the editor: I am writing in response to the editorial by Tige Watts entitled, "Christians shouldn't rely on dubious book." It is good that a forum for discussion exists, and I admire Mr. Watts for courageously bringing such an issue before the public. While he is misled on certain issues, I can appreciate his insight concerning the nature of God. The contemporary church has often misrepresented our king by suggesting he is only a "kind and gentle being who cleanses us of our sin." This he is, but he is also a just god. Though gentle, he is firm, and he will not negotiate his integrity. A i 1.. I I _ . nA kin /\iua?iugiy, 11c nas siuieu mo treasure in jars of clay. It is difficult for us as believers to adequately represent Christ. Often, we as a church need correction and reproof, and I believe Mr. Watts has offered that. The body of Christ appreciates your challenging insight Claude Taylor English senior