I am confused by Mr. Reece’s letter to the editor printed in

Wednesday’s Collegian. He claims a liberally biased professor

flunked someone at the University of Northern Colorado because they

were conservative. This is absurd. The student chose not to answer

the question given and instead decided to answer his/her own. Thus

he/she flunked. This would be the case in any class with any

professor!

The question about Bush being a war criminal isn’t open to

interpretation, neither by a conservative nor a liberal. The

question is not about opinions, but laws, and it can be easily

answered by looking at the laws that apply, defined at the Geneva

Convention.

Incidentally, international law states that a sovereign nation

cannot attack another without being first attacked. Did Iraq attack

the United States? NO. Although Bush verbally made a connection

between Iraq and Sept. 11, 2001, it was supported by no

evidence.

Brandon Lehman

Junior, engineering

In response to Elena Trevino’s letter to the editor Monday about

“all men are created equal.” I wanted to clarify that the belief

that ‘all men are created equal’ and the belief that ‘all men are

created to be in a marriage relationship with a woman’ originate

from two entirely different theoretical paradigms.

Within many arguments today there are two conflicting arguments

simultaneously taking place. The first is a conservative divine

paradigm, which purports that God opposes homosexual behavior in

all forms. The second is the theory contained in the Bill of

Rights, which the United States strives to operate by today.

Individuals in society today do not make a clear distinction

between these two sets of theorem. Although the U.S. Constitution

contains references to ‘In God We Trust,’ it also goes to great

lengths to establish a distinct ‘separation between the church and

the state.’

The Bill of Rights states that ‘all men are created equal,’

while the divine perspective asserts that ‘God created man and a

set of standards by which he is to behave.’ I wish to point out the

conflict that occurs when these two perspectives are intermingled.

They were not intended to be and thus do not collaborate well when

forced together.

People need to decide which system they believe holds ‘The

Truth’ about how society should be governed. If society is to be

governed by the Bill of Rights, then accordingly we need to follow

all the rules it outlines. However, if on the other hand, the

United States society decides it wishes to be governed by the

divine paradigm, then rightfully we need to change the existing

laws to create a judicial system that can enforce sanctions for all

disobedience from ‘God’s standard’.

Erin Butler

Senior, sociology