 | Letters
More on the Student Senate Resolution
(Re: “Student Senate oversteps its bounds,” Feb. 28)
I just caught op-ed by Calvin’s student, Steven Roberts, regarding the resolution passed and then rescinded.ـPlease pass on to him my heartiest congratulations for a well thought out rebuttal to such irresponsible action on the part of the Senate. Good job Steven!
Sabina Dean, from Ohio
Letter to Student Senate
The time has now come for Student Senate to show their true colors. They believed that it was Calvin’s duty to become involved in the affairs of our country and I agree. They also believed, however, that it was their duty to speak for all of Calvin. They acted on what they claimed to be moral grounds yet there was no denying the political implications. Students spoke out against the Senate’s resolution, debates were held, and a vote was taken. The results show that fifty-nine percent of the voting population of Calvin College does not support an anti-war resolution. Now Student Senate has an obligation to that majority whom they claim to represent. I believe Student Senate should draft a letter of support for President Bush. At the least, such action would spur further debate, which the Senate claims as their primary objective, and another vote would be taken.
To leave this issue on the table as it stands would be an injustice to all of those who opposed the resolution. From the beginning, those opposed to the resolution were working from a step behind senate because of the senate’s misguided insight into the Calvin mentality. The anti-resolution group now has the upper hand on the matter and it would be unjust and cowardly of the student senate to now lay the matter to rest. If the Student Senate is to truly do their job, they must now take the action that they initially planned in representing the college by writing a letter of support to President Bush and, in doing so, they will have accomplished both their goals of representing Calvin and encouraging debate.
Brad Davis ‘03
Who is the real enemy?
(Re: “Enemy at the gates: the real face of the Left,” Mar. 14)
Wow. Mark Armstrong’s article in the most recent Chimes was troubling, but if he speaks for students here, then I suppose my job just got a lot easier. No need to present American history with much complexity or depth--just good guys vs. bad guys. But why pay all that money for a college education when that story is pretty much available on CNN and Fox News for free? The last few months have been difficult times in our national history, and we’ve felt a lot of the pain here on campus. The war in Iraq has generated passions that aren’t going to go away anytime soon. The editors of Chimes have an obligation to contribute more to our campus debate than diatribes like Armstrong’s, designed not to enlighten but to demonize a certain nonspecific opposition. We’re all grownups here, and I think we deserve better than this.
Peggy Bendroth, Professor of History
I suppose that, as one of the nefarious faculty conspirators who supposedly cram leftist ideology and hatred of the United States down my students’ throats each week, I ought to feel embarrassed that my secrets have been revealed in the astonishing diatribe by Mark Armstrong that appeared in the March 14 Chimes (“Enemy at the Gates: the Real Face of the Left,” p. 17). Instead I can’t stop myself from giggling. The Calvin students whom I have taught are quite capable of thinking for themselves, and if there really were any Calvin classes in which students are “inundated with anti-Americanism,” the students I know would swim right to the surface and demand that other voices be heard as well.
“In our textbooks and in our classrooms, politics overrides accuracy and political correctness trumps factual correctness,” writes Mr. Armstrong, without offering a shred of evidence. His description is uncannily accurate, however, of page 17 of last week’s Chimes.
David Hoekema, Professor of Philosophy
Well, Mark Armstrong, you found us out! The real terrorists are indeed the ordinary people you see around you every day. We Leftists and pacifists have been operating a secret base, right here in America, to take this country out from the inside—we’ve been supporting Saddam and other tyrants for years. And we wish we could have been around during WWII so we could have supported Hitler, too!
For years we have all been pretending we are the logical opposition to the political Right, the voice of reason in a country gone mad with fear. We have masqueraded as a patriotic force who, out of concern for our country’s welfare and honor, are not afraid to blow the whistle on its bad decisions and shady politics.
But Mark saw through it all. He saw that blind faith in one’s country is the only true patriotism. And who would call this blind faith into question? The United States has no history of inappropriate violence. All those Native Americans deserved to die. The Mexicans? Well, they messed with Texas. The Vietnam War was a warranted military venture. Oh, and when we installed Pinochet and Hussein as rulers—well, can’t argue with that. We love our despots.
My commendations to Mark on his success as Community Watchdog. Thank you for vilifying American citizens, sanctifying violence and hegemony, and stirring up dissention among Calvin students. We liberals love that stuff.
P.S. Glad to know that only a “he” can be a thinking American.
Rebecca Kallemeyn ‘06
Mark Armstrong’s treatment of pacifism, the morality of violence, and United States foreign policy is appalling and disastrous in its ethical implications.
The most central problem with Mark’s analysis of these issues is the complete lack of Christian morality within his reasoning; he is simply accepting and using secular justifications for the use of violence.
Mark asserts that “violence gave America independence. Violence saved the Union and feed the slaves. Violence overthrew Hitler...” as if violence, even in some circumstances, is an objective good. This is simply unconscionable--violence is a sin and directly contrary to the will of God. The Lord does indeed work wonders through (or in spite of) sin and sinful people, but that does not make the evil of sin a good. If a woman (or man) comes to the Lord as a result of a rape, it is not the abhorrent sin of rape which is good! But this is what Mark has said of violence.
Mark’s comments regarding pacifism simply show how little he knows of a Christian tradition held by the early church mothers and fathers, articulated fervently and eloquently throughout the centuries. Saying that pacifism is “invite[ing] more aggression” and “aquies[ing] to terror” is to fundamentally misunderstand the pacifist commitment towards actively resisting injustice by confronting the wrongdoer with reconciliation. Far from “support[ing] the furtherance of evil,” pacifism is supporting what Jesus commands us to do and exemplifies in His life: to practice reconciliation and resist all evil; loving even one’s enemies.
Case Lettinga ‘05
I consider myself to be somewhere just to the right of middle in the political spectrum, but after reading an article like Mr. Armstrong’s I want to slide a little to the left. He attacked colleges by saying “For years, faculty and administrators have inundated students with an anti-Americanism that is reflexive and reactionary…” I was hurt when I first heard accounts of our nation’s history. The United States had little interest in freeing slaves in the Civil War and in freeing Jews in WW2. Mr. Armstrong actually tried to justify military action by citing some of the benefits. How did the world benefit from the Vietnam War? It is not anti-Americanism that are colleges are teaching us; it is the truth.
Mr. Armstrong also asked about the imperialism of the United States. We live in a world that is different from the world of Britain, Spain and their colonies. Rather than establishing colonies in foreign lands, we build factories in other countries, and we have sold our products and our culture around the world. The American Empire is not established by a mighty armada, but by the almighty dollar.
Americans are not God’s chosen people, with a divine right to rule all others. I took offense when he suggested that because I opposed military action after September 11, and now in Iraq, that I am ignorant. I don’t claim to be a genius, but I believe I have a better grasp on our nation’s history. It is because I love America that I care so much what it is doing.
Ben Wiers ‘03
I saw a certain amount of truth in Mark Armstrong’s editorial two weeks ago. ـI certainly agree that anti-Americanism and its accompanying cynicism can have a corrosive effect on critical thinking. ـAs I read the article, however, I was stunned by the naivetण displayed by Mr. Armstrong. ـHis statement that “America, throughout its history, has used its unmatched power to liberate oppressed peoples rather than subjugate them” is incredible. ـDoes he believe that Native Americans felt liberated by America? ـWho was the United States liberating when it crushed the Philippine independence movement of the 1900’s? ـWas it because the people of Vietnam, Iran, and Cuba felt too free that they violently overthrew their U.S.-backed governments? ـIs it because the U.S. is a beacon of freedom that it supports repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan? ـMr. Armstrong asserts that “the alternatives to American hegemony are downright disturbing.” I do not know whether he states this out of fear, arrogance, or a simple lack of creative thinking about the “alternatives”. ـI do know that this sentence exposes a theme which runs throughout his essay: an uncritical pro-Americanism that is just as blinding, just as distorted, and just as tight a straitjacket as its opposite, the anti-Americanism that Mr. Armstrong so despises. ـLike Communism and Nazism are opposite in ideology, but equivalent in destruction, so too anti- and pro-Americanism are opposite in belief, but equal in intellectual suffocation. ـAs a student I refuse to be constrained by either.
Eric Rudie ‘06
To refute claims of unconditional US benevolence I would like to quote the following passage from an established historian and expert on Latin American history. Richard L. Harris writes in “Death of a Revolutionary” that:
“Arguedas [Bolivian Minister of Internal Affairs 1964-1968] expressed the opinion that among nearly all the political groups in Bolivia there was a growing awareness of the insidious role being played by theـUnited States in the political and economic life of the country… The significance of what Arguedas said about the CIA’s involvement inـBolivia and Latin America has to be comprehended in terms of the USـgovernment’s professed foreign policy goals of advancing democracyـand democratic ideals throughout the world. If what Arguedas said wasـtrue-and most informed Bolivians believed much if not all of what heـsaid in 1968- then it seems clear that the US was not advancingـdemocracy in Latin America and that there was sufficient justificationـfor labeling the United States as an imperialist power. However, theـsordid picture that Arguedas gave of the CIA’s Mafia-likeـintimidation, blackmail, and subversion of supposedly friendlyـgovernments is not one the average US citizen wants to believe. To doـso would require facing up to the fact that the United States is notـthe great and noble force in the world that it claims to be.”
I would simply like to suggest that the author of “Enemy at the Gates” update his research of U.S. influence by reading a little bit about history.
Sarah Warpinski ‘05
I am appalled that Chimes published such a flawed piece, even in the Perspectives section. I have yet to see a more erroneous opinion essay, laden with such flagrant logical fallacies.
I would love to take each part of his article and carefully evince its unsoundness, but for now I will merely comment on one portion: his statements branding pacifism as “objectively pro-terrorist.” First, I must say that pacifism is inherently anti-terrorist, from its very foundational roots. Christian Pacifism in particular is based on the Biblical notions of cultivating peace, justice, and universal flourishing for all peoples, regardless of nationality, religion, or any other inconsequential factors. Pacifists hold common ground with the advocates for war in Iraq insofar as they want to relieve the Iraqi people from oppression. What they disagree about are the violent means which the United States want to use to pursue this goal.
Second, I want to draw attention to the glaring logical fallacy that Mr. Armstrong has adopted from Bush’s war rhetoric: the idea that “you are either on one side or the other.” This false dichotomy attempts to draw a line in the sand and force people to completely accept one of two extremes. Sadly, the error creates a blindness to see that there is another possible way - one that includes neither war nor acquiescence, neither violence nor capitulation - a way that should be the only choice for any honest thinking Christian: a selfless striving for peace, a whole-hearted cultivation of Shalom.
James Zwier ‘06
(Editor’s note: more than a few people complained about the publication of the article in question. One writer even went so far as to say they opposed “the publishing of vile, mud-slinging filth such as the article written by Mark Armstrong.” To this, we respond that Mr. Armstrong is a dedicated member of Chimes’ editorial staff, and thus is certainly entitled to the benefit of publishing his opinion in Chimes. Furthermore, we will not deny a person their right to express an opinion even though some may disagree with it. We continue to be dedicated to allowing both sides an equal chance to speak.)
| |
