| OCR Text |
Show ™ DAILY UTAH CHRONICLE O PINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com Thursday, September 29, 2005 LDS Church bans oral sex Editor: I am writing in response to Tara Thompson's letter to the editor, "Ignorant people should not put down 'prudes,'" Sept. 27. I might be a dirtbag, but uninformed? That really harshes my afterglow. That "certain religion" used to be my religion. More than 20 years of attendance, a temple marriage and a couple years at BYU taught me quite a bit. You claim there is no doctrine that specifically spells out what a married couple can or cannot do behind closed doors. However, a letter from the first presidency to all bishops, stake presidents, etc. regarding interviewing for temple worthiness specifically addresses this issue. In the section that addresses impure or unholy practices between married persons, the letter clearly states, "The First Presidency has interpreted oral sex as constituting an unnatural, impure, or unholy practice." It's dated Jan. 5,1982 and is signed by the first presidency. Heady stuff. I personally would have softened the message with a snappy slogan like, "Church Blows—So You Don't Have To." If the ban has been lifted, please let us know. I would hate to think there iare LDS couples out there unnecessarily avoiding good times. Gordon Swift Junior, Chemistry Celebrate differences between men and women Editor: Lisa Verzella, why do you hate women? Your letter to the editor1 describing your view on how women make themselves out to be objects ("Women need to deobjectify themselves," Sept. 27) sounded interesting at first. I agree that women share much of the blame for why they are treated like objects. However, I couldn't disagree more with your reasons. Let me tell you the real way that women make themselves out to be objects: women walking around campus wearing nothing but a miniskirt, bra and high heels. They might as well be wearing a sign that says, "Hey boys, I'm an object. Put me on your mantle and look at me." If you ladies don't want to be treated like objects, then put some clothes on. If you dress modestly and act like a human being, you will be treated like one. If you dress like a slut, I'm going to stare at your boobs. You seem to think that the best way to promote your gender is by acting like a man. Do you think that dressing like a man, belching and scratching yourself in public in anyway promotes your gender? If you were a true feminist, you would celebrate womanhood rather than trying to destroy it by turning women into men. I have a news flash for you: women and men are different. That does not, in any way, imply that one gender is superior to the other. If you want to be a true feminist, then be proud of the uniqueness of women and celebrate the differences between the sexes, rather than trying to destroy women by turning them all into men. And so I return to my original question: Why do you hate women? Kellen Wilson Junior, Finance and Spanish Porn is the real problem in objectifying women Editor: I began reading Lisa Verzella's letter to the editor ("Women need to de-objectify themselves," Sept. 27) with interest but was disappointed at what she lists as the ways women are objectified in our society. Changing your last name when marrying is more a tradition than declaration of "property." Staying at home to raise children is a very respected role, and beginning to use women as examples in math problems won't change a thing. Verzella failed to mention the main problem that causes the objectification and lack of respect for women: pornography. All over TV and movies, scantily clad women are used to sell products. This should be the major enemy of feminism. How can someone be respected when they are just being used as bait to peddle some product—usually beer? Men begin to look at women as objects to satisfy their desires rather than people—just watch any dating reality show. The guys are looking to get the girl in bed rather than getting to know and appreciate her as a person. Trevor Burnett r f THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW- Lowering prices, or patronizing impoverished students? U niversity Bookstore officials want us to think that they are working together with faculty and students to lower the prices of textbooks—but what are they actually prepared to do to help students afford their materials every semester? Bookstore officials recently held a meeting to discuss options to lower the cost of textbooks for students, a good first step in acknowledging the outrageous prices students are forced to pay at the beginning of every semester. Bookstore employees rehashed the usual options— getting more used books in stock, utilizing e-books, buying books with a UCard, etc. They also spent a lot of time defending themselves and their outrageous prices. Unlike, other campus programs that ignore student complaints, bookstore officials are at least acknowledging students' problems. For example, Commuter Services can afford to ignore student complaints about a lack of parking and the price of permits because students have no option but to park on campus. The bookstore is another matter, however. There are many alternatives for frustrated students needing to buy books. It's nice to see bookstore officials acknowledging the problem of high textbook prices, but unless some real results come of this meeting, it was likely just a' . front to place a public relations spin on student-unfriendly policies. What are bookstore officials really planning to do to help students? Frankly, meetings that discuss how much bookstore employees understand the plight of the poor college student don't do much to lower the prices of our books. , ; If U Bookstore officials really wanted to help si udents afford textbooks, they would offer a discount on textbooks just like the discount they offer on bestselling novels. The bookstore makes a great deal of its profits from the sale of non-textbook merchandise: hats, sweatshirts, mugs, bumper stickers, notebooks, pens, etc. The bookstore could therefore afford to take the hit, and it would likely win back students who have now turned to alternative sources for buying books, such as Beat the Bookstore, amazon.com or other online retailers. . , Bookstore officials like to point out that part of their profits go back to benefit the university community—they help pay for maintenance and upkeep. Yet it is a fair bet to say that most students would prefer to see that money come back to them directly in the checkout aisle. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editorial columns and letters to the editor are strictly the opinions of the author. The forum created on the Opinion Page is one based on vigorous debate, while at the same time demanding tolerance and respect. Material defamatory to an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, religion, creed, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. Alumnus The Brits didn't look so hot after 'Gandhi' came out America is quickly becoming the world's new imperial power R ecently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice proclaimed: "We will spread freedom and democracy throughout the globe. That is the mission that President Bush has set for America in the world." Surely this is a lofty goal. But, while the implied desire may be a democratic world, the actual desire is quite different. When listening to American officials promulgate this idea of democracy, it begs the memory of recent history—imperial history. In 1921, British democracy held sway over a population of about 470-570 million people. The British government owned and controlled roughly a quarter of the world's population, and its empire covered almost a quarter of the world's total land area. One wonders how the people of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, Iraq and countless others felt about British democracy. In conquering and occupying autonomous countries, British democracy killed millions of indigenous people. What were the reasons Britain gave for conquering these countries? British rule in India was justified, in part, by claims that the Indians required a civilized life and that British rule would introduce a reliable system of justice and the rule of law. This justification was the same in every country that Britain colonized—including the United States. The British—or British Americans—were quick to take already Jay Richards occupied territory and disrespect American Indian culture. Britain did the same thing in India—it outlawed certain Indian social and religious practices that the British found to be abhorrent. Those who refused compliance met the sword, not democratic participation. The British invaded and took control of foreign countries much as the Romans did—supposedly to "civilize barbarians" and give them advanced forms of political (democracy), economic (capitalist), and social (Christian) institutions. After seeing how many people died in the path of British imperial destruction, the comparison between the deeds of the British Empire and the aspirations of the Bush administration are intriguing. The stated mission of British democracy was to export civilization to the world, and the current U.S. administration shares its mission. Certainly, the Bush administration does not seek to take over nationstates and control their governments directly as Britain did. The Bush administration seeks to export democracy—no matter what native people may want for their homelands. Democracy is a worthwhile goal, but only as long as it is understood as self-rule. As the richest country in the world, the United States can play a huge role in fostering democratic rule in foreign countries, but not through violence and domination. We must aid democratic factions in others countries—not occupy and dictate to these countries. If America wishes to have a different reputation than that of the British Raj, we must change our ideas and policies to reflect peace and solidarity. Until then, we will be known as what some already call us, "The American Empire." letters@chronicle.utah.edu Playing 'Bible Races' in gym class Teaching the Good Book in public schools violates the separation of church and state T he Bible may be taught at public schools as soon as next year thanks to the Bible Literacy Project and the First Amendment Center. This center has created a new curriculum, which, they claim, gives a "fair and academic presentation of the Bible without prejudice to a particular view of canon and doctrine." My response to this is, "Yeah, right." Teaching the Bible in public schools will lead to public endorsement of Christianity. Perhaps if teachers were only teaching the Old Testament, they might be supporting a Jewish point of view, but the fact remains that the Bible is clearly a Judeo-Christian document. There are many religions in the world that do not use the Bible, so to argue that one could teach the Bible in schools without giving a particular view special preference is ridiculous. I simply don't understand the need or the desire of Christian groups to have the Bible taught in public schools. The non-profit Bible Literacy Project has spent five years and $2 million developing this new curriculum, "The Bible and its Influence." In 1963, the United States Supreme Court barred schoolroom Bible recitation. The justices tempered their ruling, however, stating, "The Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities," if "presented objectively as part of a LJ. Lither secular program of education." I understand that some people have strong views about the Bible. But how can you honestly separate the historic and religious aspects of the book? These people are basically saying that is possible to teach the historical influence of Jesus the carpenter without men- tioning his religious significance. On top of the fact that such a class would clearly violate the boundaries between church and state, there is the fact that our school systems are already overburdened in the course of trying to teach reading, writing and arithmetic. Only a few lucky schools even get the opportunity to teach the arts anymore. If this Bible studies class were added to public school curricula, we would be paying a brand new teacher, using yet another classroom to hold the new class in and asking schools to shell out $50 per "fair and academic" version of the Bible. In a state like Utah, where school funds are so tightly stretched and every dollar counts, it is important to watch how we spend what we have. Ultimately, it would be impossible to present a truly objective view of the Bible. Most Americans are Christian. All of our presidents have been Protestant except for one—John F. Kennedy, and he was Catholic. The idea that our public schools could teach the Bible without imposing a majority view on the minority is ridiculous. I have studied religion in college because I chose to, and the teacher went over Asian religions, American Indian ones and many others—including those of the Christian faith. But let's not be fooled. Teaching the Bible in public schools will turn into endorsement of Christianity. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |
