Jordan River Forum

Reparations a bad idea\nI am a 47-year-old white female who works hard to earn a living. If there is any one thing that would make me march on D.C. it will be this issue of black reparations. It will be over my dead body that I will pay into a fund for this use. The author of the piece that discusses the aforementioned theme is wrong. It's shameful to say that, of course the white man wanted his black slaves to survive; how else would they continue the business of the day? Yes, black slavery was horrible. But blacks have not been the only slaves, or the only ones to survive tortuous working conditions. Your author complains that blacks still make less than whites. If it's for the same job, sure it's unfair. However, white women still make less than white men for the same job, so quit your complaining! Blacks got the vote before women did! The blacks in America who are willing to do what it takes succeed just like anyone else. Walter E. Williams, a black professor at Georgetown University, says that if it hadn't been for blacks being taken from Africa and put into slavery in America, there would be no Oprahs, no Michael Jordans, etc. Blacks have opportunities here they can find in no other country in the world. Average wages here are 20-50 times greater than in Africa. If it isn't money - in general - that blacks want, you could have fooled me! No entity has ever handed me a dime, and people like myself will never hand some whining black person a dime either, unless they have earned it. I am sorry for what your forefathers went through, but that is over, and it's what history is made of. In my opinion, blacks need to quit demanding that society fix their ills and get about doing that for themselves. Our tax money is not going to be your lottery hit. \nLaurie Lord\nIone, Calif.\nStudents ripped off\nAs I am getting older, I am becoming increasingly aware of where my money is going. Circumstances no longer permit me to attend this University with the financial assistance of my parents and, as such, I have been forced to reevaluate exactly what I can fit in my extremely limited budget. This reevaluation has given rise to a high level of discontentment with this University and its policies.\nI will not rehash every argument made about the tuition hike, because frankly, I have heard enough about it. Nor will I go on a rant about the fact that the dorm meal-point system is beyond monopolistic. If you want to argue that one, ask the University what their profit-margin is when they charge like $2 for a Snickers or $5 for a travel-sized toothpaste.\nWhat I am going to say is that the article that I read on Bank One ATMs in Monday's (June 25) IDS made me sick. The gist of this article was that Bank One was forced to remove all of their campus ATMs last year because they did not give the University a cut of their profits. The problem is that Bank One was not making any profits off of the ATMs and instead viewed them as a mechanism for attracting new clients. What? How can we allow the students to receive a service without us making a buck off of it? We as the University have a obligation to uphold our tradition of squeezing the students for every penny that they are taking student loans for!\nMichael LoPinto\nSenior\nMayor Fernandez performs poorly\nThe Mayor of Bloomington was quoted recently saying "I think people need to pick their damn battles" regarding opposition to development of apartments on the site of the Bluebird tree-sit. But the Monroe County Council could have disapproved the tax-exempt bond necessary for the project, which was planned in violation of the state Environmental Policy Act. The developer would have had no legal recourse against the county.\nWhat Fernandez -- the one responsible for the city's waiver of the development's sewer hook-up fees -- really means is that he wishes certain people would quit picking battles with real estate developers, the source of his campaign contributions. How else can one explain Fernandez's support (if only when he is in Evansville) of a new terrain route for I-69? The Mayor's satisfaction with a quick, cheap and inadequate cleanup of Bloomington's PCB contamination can be understood in this light as well.\nI urge the Democratic party not to nominate Mr. Fernandez as its candidate for Secretary of State. If Fernandez is nominated, I encourage Hoosiers to vote against him. Environmentalists might as well vote for a Republican -- no one saw a need to run as a Republican in Bloomington's last Mayoral election, after all. And voters of all stripes who like accountability in their public officials should oppose Fernandez, who made a political career out of toothless City Council resolutions against U.S. imperialism but is unwilling to take on problems of concern to his core constituency over which he has actual influence.\nCurtis McNeely\nBloomington resident \n'IDS' errs in not covering Planned Parenthood issue\nOn June 20, the Bloomington City Council voted to give taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, but nary a word about the controversy has been printed in the IDS. The story made the front page of The Herald-Times, and a press release from IU Students for Life was both faxed and hand-delivered to the IDS office. It's disappointing that the IDS chose not to cover the controversy, especially since a student group was involved.\nThe subsidy itself was a bad idea. While testing people for anemia sounds good on paper, I do not believe the money should have went to an organization that ends human life every Thursday morning here in Bloomington. Many Bloomingtonians have deep moral and/or faith-based objections to abortion and should not be forced to subsidize abortionists through their taxes, even if the subsidy does not go directly to Planned Parenthood's abortion services. While it is true that Planned Parenthood does more than the abortion procedure, the abortion issue is so controversial that city government should stay out of the debate entirely.\nIn addition, Planned Parenthood is a political group that frequently lobbies the state legislature on issues. Out of respect for the wide diversity of political beliefs in our country, government should not be giving money to political organizations, whether that organization is Planned Parenthood, the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club.\nIt would have been very easy for the eight City Council members who voted for the subsidy to take an opposite position while still supporting legal access to abortion. Unfortunately, they did not take a truly pro-choice position by voting "no".\nI hope that city government will take the concerns raised at the meeting into consideration the next time they are asked to give taxpayer dollars to an organization that ends life.\nScott Tibbs\nClass of '98\nBasswood Drive blockade necessary\nIt is understandable that local taxpayers would find it problematic that some individuals opposed to the proposed Canterbury Apartments erected a barricade on the road leading to the site, causing damage to the road. However, it is important to place this action in context, which your editorial of June 28 failed to do. First, the damage done to the road is trivial compared to the damage that will be done to the woods if the development is built; who can put a price tag on that? Worldwide, humans destroy forest acreage approximately the size of Indiana every year. Financially and otherwise, that is something we cannot afford to keep doing. Furthermore, you make a big deal out of a few thousand dollars worth of road damage but fail to even mention that we taxpayers are going to be forking over several million dollars (via low-interest loans and tax waivers) to an out-of-town developer for a project that, by all indications, few people in this community support. Some may not like the fact that unknown opponents of the development damaged Basswood Drive, but most of us like it even less that some of the last wooded acreage on Bloomington's west side is being cut down to build "affordable" apartments that are not really needed and in fact are not affordable by the substantial minority of Bloomington residents who make less than about $20,000 a year, and we are footing much of the bill for constructing them. And who will pick up the tab if this development, to be constructed on the most sinkhole-prone piece of land in the entire county, collapses into a sinkhole? Most Americans consider the Boston Tea Party, which destroyed three shiploads of British tea valued at more than 10,000 British pounds, to have been a patriotic act. Perhaps some day history will also judge the Basswood Drive "vandals" more kindly. If we cannot recognize that a beautiful, ecologically fragile forest and the creatures that inhabit it are more valuable than a few feet of pavement, I fear for the future of this planet.\nJeff Melton\nBloomington resident\nNo place for ignorance at IU\nHaving the privilege to study at such a prestigious school as Indiana University, I was shocked when I read about the growing complacency regarding HIV and AIDS in our community. I was deeply saddened to learn of Mark Price's retirement from HIV/AIDS advocacy due to the increasing complacency. It takes courage to stand up and fight for increased knowledge when the people around are deaf to the message. Maybe Socrates was correct when he wrote "there is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance."\nCensus data from 1998 estimates that there are 410,800 reported cases of HIV/AIDS in the United States. A fraction of those, 1,220 cases, are persons living in the Indianapolis area. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention reports that 40,000 new cases of HIV are appearing yearly, with persons in the 25-34 year old and 35-44 year old age brackets representing the majority of those infected with the virus. Rural area rates of infection are rising rapidly, as are infection rates in heterosexual women and minorities. A shocking fact to most people is that persons age 50 and older represent 11-15 percent of U.S. AIDS cases with numbers expected to increase due to treatment advances and the aging of the baby boom generation.\nIt may appear that the risk of infection is lower now because of a lack of the constant media coverage of the past two decades but, the risk of infection is still very real. The HIV virus is not eradicated. HIV/AIDS is treatable but not curable. \nI close with a plea to fight ignorance. Don't shut out the voices of advocates, such as Mark Price, who are encouraging awareness and increased knowledge. We have a responsibility as college educated adults to spread the knowledge of HIV/AIDS to the ignorant people of the world. Fight complacency and keep talking!\nSue Myllykangas\nDoctoral student\nMitchel doesn't analyze all the issues\nDuncan Mitchel revealed his bias in the June 21 story on gay parenting. As the professional he cynically referred to in the article, I would like the opportunity to respond. First, Mr. Mitchel assailed the AP for displaying "journalistic balance" by quoting me. Note to Mr. Mitchel: news stories are supposed to give both sides of a story. Readers should be allowed to make up their own minds after hearing both sides. That's called reporting! It is also called tolerance. Second, as I told the AP reporter, we know from more than 30 years of research that children need both parents and do best -- academically, emotionally, and physically -- when they are raised in a married mother-father home. Children are, of course, legally raised in all kinds of circumstances in this country. But as a society we should promote what's best for people. And social science clearly tells us that's marriage. Third, and most important, what I referred to as "alarming" in the research is the fact that children raised by gay parents are much more likely to engage in homosexual activity than those raised in straight families. Mr. Mitchel suggests this is no more alarming than kids raised by Jewish parents being more likely to follow the Jewish religion. However, there is a BIG difference: being Jewish doesn't have the potential to kill you. \nAs much as we hate to talk about it, we cannot deny the truth that homosexuality is a dangerous activity. A newly-released CDC study shows that AIDS is increasing among homosexuals. Gays also experience other STDs and health problems in far greater proportion than the general public. In light of this danger, it should be "alarming" to all of us that children raised by gays are more likely to follow this destructive pattern. Mr. Mitchel asserts that "people who care about children would be asking how to make things better for (them)." People who care about children will tell the truth!\nThat's a huge step toward making things better. I trust the readers can now make a more informed decision on the issue. \nAmy Desai\nJ.D. Marriage & Family analyst \nPublic Policy Department Focus on the Family\nColumn not reflective of America\nJoshua Claybourn's editorial is just a frustrated and misplaced attempt at "something or other." I happen to agree with a few of Mr. Claybourn's points, namely that we were all lied to about important facts concerning our country's somewhat in-glorious history. I also agree that the initial provision for separating church and state was indeed at least partially to keep the government out of the religious lives of its citizens. However, Mr. Claybourn, obviously not a fan of logic, would have understood that this provision necessarily goes both ways; not only ought the government stay out of religious affairs, but religious groups should not feel they are able to exert pressure on the government on that basis, either. \nTo be more plain, this is a double-edged sword, that means it cuts both ways. You can't have one without the other. If we, as Americans, wish to continue to enjoy the right of governmental non-interference in our religious beliefs (if any), then we ought to respect the right of the government to not be interfered with by religious groups, too! WE ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION, AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY "CHRISTIAN" HERITAGE, period. We are a country of various peoples and cultures, with backgrounds as disparate as they come. We are, and have always been, a country of many religions, Deists and atheists included. What we ought to celebrate on July 4 is the same thing we celebrate every year on July 4; the random date employed to celebrate the independence we illegally declared from England. What really upsets me about Mr. Claybourn's opinions is the assertion that America is collectively denying some religion-specific portion of our collective heritage. George Washington, prior to his induction as President of the United States, was asked to support a Constitutional Amendment declaring Christianity the national religion. Washington was no Deist, but he declined to support such an Amendment, and in fact spoke out against it, wrote letters denouncing it, etc. Washington, and the rest of the founders, knew something we've apparently forgotten. This country was intended to be the land of the free, not the land of the free (so long as you agree with our list of things)...\nOn a final note, it is worth mentioning that the reason the Declaration of Independence makes mention of a Creator (not Jesus, not God, not Buddha, not JR Bob Dobbs) because that is who was credited with our existence. There was no debate, no evolution versus creation, no nothing. The educated of the Western World were taught that God created the Universe; seems reasonable that an appeal to a king (by "divine right") factor in a reference to the Divine, whether or not it ought to have repercussions twenty years later when the laws of the land were being codified.\nMr. Claybourn had an agenda, an unpatriotic and unAmerican agenda. I do not think he realized this when he wrote his editorial; yet it is clearly an agenda. Mr. Claybourn wants this to be a Christian nation, because, to use his words, "most" Americans are Christian. Well, out of 250 million (or so) people, "most" may be Christian, but what kind of Christian? Anybody need help getting back up THAT slippery slope? I trust not.\nSteven Kepler\nAlumnus\nColumnist makes different point than intended\nThe editorial "Celebrate Our Christian Heritage" does have a good point, but probably not the point Mr. Claybourn wishes to convey. Examining the Christian history that led to the constitution reveals some very different lessons about the roles of government and religion. Certainly it is true that many at the Constitutional Convention were Christians of some sort. But perhaps most importantly, all of them were heretics, infidels and miscreants, both in the eyes of the governments they were fleeing and in each other's eyes. The Constitutional Convention occurred at the tail end of the Reformation. This was an era before "United Ministries" and "Christian Coalitions." It was a historical period in which it was still quite reasonable to speculate as a rumor that Baptists were having hedonistic orgies of drink and sex during their more private meetings. Memories of bloodshed and massacre were as vivid in the communimal memory of French Protestants and English Catholics as the anti-Jewish pogroms are today. It's not surprising that the Constitutional Convention wrote into the First Amendment the strongest language possible preventing entanglement of religion and government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."\nA quick look in the OED reveals that in the turn of the century language of the founding fathers, "an establishment of religion" meant the symbols, texts and ceremonies sacred to a church. This in fact is quite a bit stronger than a "wall" because it simply states in plain language that Congress can make no law regarding liturgy or scripture, no law regarding symbol and no law regarding ceremony. In addition Article VI, Section 3 further protects freedom of religion by stating "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Jefferson's own law providing for religious freedom in the State of Virginia includes, "We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities ..."\nJefferson may certainly have been willing to attend services himself, but he was highly opposed to the government mandating any kind of attendance. Madison pointed out that the same governmental power that could favor Christianity over other religions could just as easily be applied to favoring the Southern Baptist Convention over the Society of Friends. And it is exactly this threat that the First Amendment was intended to prevent. It is perhaps because the Founding Fathers were Christians and inherited a Christian heritage of protestant dissent, civil war and persecution that they felt that both the First Amendment and Article VI were needed to protect freedom of religion. And insisted on a separation of church and state to protect Christianity from the government. \nKirk Sluder\ndoctoral student