In response to the article entitled “Christ and the

Constitution,” I would like to point out a few fundamental errors.

I would first like to address the title. The Ten Commandments were

given to use quite a while before the son of God (Jesus Christ).

The writer of this article seems to forget that the Christian

religion is not the only religion that finds faith in the Ten

Commandments. Obviously, the majority of U.S. citizens who would

wish to have the monument stay are Christian, but I think it is

more important to look at the Ten Commandments verses religion.

It is written that God was the creator of the Ten Commandments.

God brought his power down from heaven and carved them out of

stone, keeping in mind that Jesus Christ was far from making his

appearance. Now let us look at who created religion, man. It was

not God (the father) who created religion and it was certainly not

Jesus Christ. I am hardly saying that the belief of any God should

be forced upon anyone; citizens need to make that choice for

themselves. I, however, do not see why the monument was such a

large issue. Are people that intolerant of God? I am just waiting

for someone to put a restraining order on God; “religious doctrines

are not allowed within 50 feet of this individual.”

Maybe I am just unable of comprehending why citizens feel so

threatened; the Christian religion is not going to be taking over

our country anytime soon. It’s ironic when people say this country

was not founded on God, when God created our world.

Ben Griffin

Freshman, business administration

In response to John Teten’s editorial of Oct. 9, “Too sensitive

when it comes to skin color,” I would suggest he misses the

point.

People are not outraged by Rush Limbaugh’s comment that Donovan

McNabb is a “black quarterback.” They are outraged because Limbaugh

argued that McNabb received more praise than his accomplishments

merited because he was African-American. Clearly, this is a racist

and ludicrous statement.

Also, Teten doesn’t seem to understand the outraged response to

Limbaugh’s statement. What is a more appropriate response to an

outrageous statement than outrage?

On the other hand, I must agree with Teten that too much has

been made of the Limbaugh situation. It is far easier to vilify

Limbaugh than it is to pay attention to the demonstrable racial

bias in many areas of American life, including education,

employment and the criminal justice system, or to look at our own

tacit acceptance of such examples of institutional racism. In fact,

the extent to which we refuse to act to end institutional racism is

the extent to which we are personally guilty of the perpetuation of

racial injustice.

James Erik Baumli

Junior, History Major