In response to Ryan Chapman's "America: Home of the Free, Land of the Hypocritical" in the Collegian on Thursday. I realized just how many hypocrisies are present in people's view of life. I have problems with conservative views where a "double standard is deemed acceptable," so I have a few questions for Mr. Chapman.

Let's talk about human rights since you are so concerned with the issue. Mr. Chapman, if "murder equals murder all of the time and …every single life has value," why are so many conservatives pro-death penalty? I agree with you that we have not yet reached a "hypocrisy-free state." Being such, how can conservatives bash women who choose to have an abortion when the Bush administration makes public schools teach wholesome abstinence and cuts funding for safe-sex education? How can we "provide human rights to every citizen" when many women who choose to have an abortion live in poverty and are practically children themselves? Who "will lead us to a more wholesome and virtuous civilization?" Will it be God himself using the American judicial system as a vessel for ultimate good?

The purpose of a jury is to uphold the Constitution, not enforce conservative Christian values and ignorance. Until you become a woman and have a uterus, I believe you and your views, Mr. Chapman, are hypocritical. Do not place women who choose to have an abortion on the same level as Scott Peterson. Promote tolerance, don't preach.

Libby Lees

Sophomore, English education

In response to Jerry Magloughlin's letter to the editor Wednesday, I am proud to be a CSU student with a paper that allows me to have my natural rights to express my opinion.

The recent attacks of 2001 where not carried out by means of weapons of mass destruction. There are three types of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and nuclear. Airplanes are not in this list. In history the United States of America has been the only country to ever use weapons of mass destruction on another country. On the note of national security, Republicans believe in defending, preserving and extending peace. President Bush has done everything in his power to not uphold these beliefs.

Our Constitution was written with the basis of separation of church and state. Politics and religion are two separate entities. Never has religion and politics been so intertwined. By claiming Bush was the "chosen president by God," he was combining religion and government. When religion and government are combined, our First Amendment voice of freedom of religion is suppressed. This country is strong because there are so many cultures and religions that make the United States the land of the free.

I want to thank the Collegian for allowing me to expresses my freedom of speech and press. It is our duty as citizens of the United States to inform ourselves and question our government to make sure our voices are heard and constitutional rights upheld. I thought that was what we were fight so hard for, our freedom.

Alisa Tonozzi

Sophomore, life sciences open-option

From time to time I like to take a trip down memory lane, so I peruse the Collegian's Web site. I found the John Walsh parking article especially humorous in the Collegian on Tuesday. It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same. You see it's been six years since I haunted the hallowed halls of CSU with my presence and during my ever-so-long tenure my chief complaint was EXACTLY the same. At the time I shelled out $65 to $70 for parking and most of the time all the lots were filled. I even wrote a letter to the editor of the Collegian asking why the university hadn't stepped out of the Dark Ages and built a parking garage. Looks like I can add one more item to my list of things I can count on. Death, taxes, responsibility and no parking at CSU.

As an old Rams vet, I feel your pain.

On a side note, I shed a tear of sadness when I sold my '97 Neon with the faded purple "Z" parking sticker on the bumper two years ago.

Neal Harkner

Little Elm, Texas

It is deplorable that the Collegian permitted the Motion Picture Association of America to run its full-page advertisement on movie downloading. The advertisement was solely intended as a scare tactic against students. The MPAA's actions, both in litigation and legislation, are infringing on many fair use guidelines. By running the ad, the Collegian is implicitly supporting the MPAA's rampage on technology. The Collegian should take more than its profit margin into account when selecting advertisers.

Thomas Gaffery

Graduate student, economics

Concerning Mr. French's passionate piece on his certainty that the Bible condemns homosexuality and fornication, I am curious as to what his response would be to the actual question I felt the person he refuted, Mr. Bleckley, was posing:

How can a person who professes to have a literal belief in the words of the Bible (which Mr. French seems to) embrace the so-called "detestable" nature of certain sexual acts while accepting or at least ignoring other issues the Bible equally defames, such as eating pork, doing business with a bank and allowing women to publicly express their opinions?

Mr. Bleckley never questioned the fact that the Bible could be considered blatantly anti-homosexual. He simply wondered if, given the context in which this information is presented, is it really relevant to today's society? Or is it just another Biblical reference confined to the times in which the writings were compiled?

By the way, I can't say I agree with Mr. French's proposal that "every sin is despised by God equally" and that "to espouse otherwise is simply denying the evident." Perhaps it depends on the particular faith one identifies with, but I seem to remember from my previous experiences as a Catholic that a clear distinction between mortal sins (such as killing someone) and venial sins (such as snapping at your mother) was stressed. So … which one is homosexuality? Fornication? Who gets to decide?

If there is a God, his direct opposition to all sexual lifestyles but one is certainly not "evident" to me.

Anna Broeker

Junior, psychology/creative writing

After reading John Walsh's column "Parking services need re-evaluation," Tuesday in the Collegian I am compelled to respond. How convenient for Mr. Walsh to use his column to tell only his side of the story, from his point-of-view, while heaping put-downs and insults on the University Parking Services staff. I'm certain that the cathartic release Mr. Walsh received by telling his version of the story was satisfying to him, but was it helpful? I doubt inflammatory journalism will improve parking on campus. Am I surprised by his attitude? Not in the least. Why is it that so many people lose it when they get a parking ticket? Got a ticket? Pay it. Move on.

Mr. Walsh claims that "re-evaluating" parking services will somehow fix the parking situation on campus. As a five-year member of the university's Mass Transit Committee, I think what needs to be re-evaluated is the average person's addiction to the one-person/one-vehicle lifestyle. There is no magic bullet solution to parking on campus; it is a complex issue that will require tremendous cooperation from everyone at CSU. And trashing parking services is a step backward.

Rodney Ley

Assistant director, Campus Recreation

In Mr. Chapman's article in Monday's Collegian, irony seems to know no bound. He commends the jury in the Peterson trial for "their ability to not see this issue as just black and white" while misrepresenting the abortion rights stance and taking a black and white view of the issue. As someone who supports abortion rights, I don't think Peterson should have been charged with the murder of his unborn fetus any more than a doctor should be. Where is the hypocrisy in that?

I'm not saying all abortion rights people aren't hypocritical, just as not all anti-abortion people are hypocritical. The abortion rights supporters who want Mr. Peterson to be charged with murder for the death of his fetus are just as guilty of hypocrisy as the anti-abortionists who kill doctors, or the recently elected senator who advocated the death penalty for women who have abortions.

If America is hypocritical, it is not because we have a group of people that disagree with each other. That would be like saying America is hypocritical because Democrats disagree with Republicans. America is hypocritical because we have individuals who are hypocrites.

Brian Zimpfer

Junior, philosophy