 | Letters
Senate did their job correctly
Re: “Letters,” Mar. 28
In the last edition of Chimes, Sabina Dean from Ohio wrote that Stephen Roberts’ article “Student Senate oversteps its bounds” was a “well thought out rebuttal to such irresponsible action on the part of the Senate.” This is reflective of a disturbing trend of people criticizing Student Senate who are not familiar with what actually went on. It is no secret that I was a supporter of the resolution, and as such, I attended the Student Senate meetings (as anyone is welcome to do) in which the resolution was presented and the meeting in which it was debated, amended, and voted upon. Student Senate’s mission statement says that they are required to respond to student concerns that are brought before them. The coalition of students and student organizations that brought the anti-war resolution before Student Senate was one of the largest groups of students to ever bring a concern before Senate. But even if we had been just one student, Senate is required to respond. In addition, once a resolution has been presented to Senate, they are only allowed to table it for one week. So, in that week our senators and executive team organized a town hall meeting to gauge student opinion on the topic (something they were not required to do). Far from being irresponsible, our Student Senate has bent over backwards to make sure people were aware of what was going on. From now on, let’s agree to debate the issues and stop chastising Student Senate for doing their job.
Wes Morgan ‘03
‘Flushing out leftist sanctimony’
No shame on President Bush for ignoring the advice of the French, German and the Calvin Stupid Saidit [editor’s note: a pun of ‘Student Senate,’ from the infamous ‘Bananer’ spoof]. Kudos also to Mr. Armstrong for flushing out leftist sanctimony (from a few lighter-than-air professors no less?). It is a giggle to read anti-Americans imagining themselves making all the politically correct decisions for the past 200 years. Here is an invitation to the present: Stand for freedom, peace and justice at the destruction (God-willing) of Saddam’s despotism.
Paul DeVries ‘83
Is ‘violence’ condoned by God?
I am having a hard time understanding the decidedly close-minded statements that a) violence is a sin and b) this statement can justify condemning our actions in Iraq.
To begin with, the statement “violence is a sin” has two possible problems with it. The first is that the word “violence” is not defined. If by “violence” the writer simply means an act of aggression with evil of unjustified intent then I agree that this meaning of “violence” is, in fact, a sin. If, however, it means, and this is how I believe many people naively use it, any type of aggression at all, then serious problems arise.
The Old Testament is riddled with aggression condoned by God. He uses an assassin in Judges, condemns a nation for not challenging an evil dictator in Obadiah (sound familiar?), and even destroys two entire cities himself. Given the second definition of “violence,” this either makes God sinful of self-contradictory. For a Christian to claim that violence as mere aggression is a sin is both naïF;ve and incorrect.
This brings me back to the first, and more correct, definition: an act of aggression with an evil or unjustified intent. In order to condemn an aggressive action as a sin with this definition requires one to judge motivation and intent and this opens up a whole ethical Pandora’s box. In the case of our war with Iraq, our action cannot be condemned. Rather, if anything is to be condemned, it should be our motivation for our action, but this is a completely separate debate.
Violence is a complicated word that needs to be defined; many Christians are quick to write off violence in general as evil, and I believe this is a naïF;ve statement.
Brad Davis ‘03
Tennis team lacks proper coverage
Last week’s issue was yet another example of Chimes’ lop-sided sports coverage. I realize that there are other publications (such as Spark) that cover sports as well. I also realize, as a member of the women’s tennis team, that some sports are more popular and will receive more coverage than others. However, a Sports section which neglects to acknowledge the achievements (or even existence) of many teams fails both its readers and Calvin’s athletes. Does the baseball team, who went 3-6 over spring break, deserve an entire page while the men’s tennis team, who went an impressive 6-0 over break, gets no mention whatsoever? Did the national swim meet not deserve more than perfunctory coverage? Or maybe this trivial information was edged out by yet another headshot of local wunderkind Jeremy Veenstra. The caption under his picture is quite right: he “needs no introduction.” But perhaps Chimes could inform its readers about the hundreds of other talented athletes who do.
Rachel Pater ‘05
| |
