I am writing in response to the article claiming that all "Christian conservatives" are ignorant Republicans. First thing I would like to say is that assuming all people in a certain group share the exact same beliefs and morals is, in itself, most ignorant. I am a Christian conservative, but I hold quite different views from those of my Christian conservative friends. I am outraged that a person is able to write a weekly column in the Collegian without being held accountable for the things being written.
One of the first attacks made on Christian conservatives is that the very title of Christian conservative is in itself contradictory to the separation of church and state. Now let's get this straight: the separation of church and state is in place to make sure that our government cannot require citizens to be of a certain religion to hold any offices or obtain certain rights. I personally agree with the separation of church and state because I don't want my government telling me how I can worship, nor do I want a certain religious group to have influence in such things as making laws or deciding where our tax money is spent. The claim made Wednesday, that a person's title can contradict the ideals of separation of church and state, is absolutely ludicrous.
Another upsetting part of this article was when Mr. Waddingham said, "In fact, it's best to be either Christian or conservative, not both." I ask what book of facts did you pull that load of garbage out of? Please, do not state your opinion as being solid fact. If you are trying to convince someone that a group of people are "ignorant," using your own closed-minded ignorance is not the best road to take.
While we are on the topic of closed-minded ignorance, I would like to refer to the issue of the war in Iraq. Whether you support the war or not, saying that Iraq was, "a country who did not pose a threat to us," is about as closed-minded as it gets. If a country whose government is so corrupt that the leader is able to rule not by the laws of his country's constitution but by what he personally decides, that country is not only a threat to us, but also a threat to justice throughout the world.
The Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein had an interim constitution, which provided for separation of church and state. In reality, Hussein's regime greatly constricted freedom of religion and "sought to exploit religious differences for political purposes." (International Religious Freedom Report, 2003). Hussein even had citizens killed for religious differences. Not wanting to bring justice to such corruption, now there's something that is contradictory to separation of church and state.
The United States, being one of the most powerful countries in the world, has a responsibility to serve justice, whether it be here at home or somewhere else in the world, i.e., Iraq. We must stop saying that the war in Iraq is for profit. Thousands of soldiers have died and thousands more are prepared to do the same for the cause of this war.
I have friends in the Army stationed in Iraq, who tell me how wonderful it is to see the smiles on the faces of the newly freed Iraqi citizens. They also say it never gets old hearing people say "thank you." To say this war is for profit is an outrage and an insult to all the brave soldiers of this land who stand and fight for what is right: justice and freedom.
I think that if a person is in a position to present their thoughts for the public, they should be held accountable for researching what they are writing and should understand that writing is a privilege. The loaded, pretentious piece of filth that was in the paper on Wednesday was as off-base as the religious lunatic shouting in the plaza Thursday afternoon.