To the editor:

Jan 232005

Tyler Wittman's column on Thursday held many contradictions and historical inaccuracies, many of which I found completely laughable.

First off, if Mr. Wittman is arguing that liberals are NOT religious, then why is he labeling them with a religious term? The "Luciferian left" is a bit contradictory for such an atheistic group, is it not?

Second, Mr. Wittman's statement that marriage originated in the church is completely unfounded. I think Mr. Wittman needs a history lesson. Is Mr.Wittman suggesting that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Native Americans did not practice marriage?

All of those religions have been around for a lot longer than Christianity. In fact, even Pagans had marriage before they ever met Christian missionaries. What an amazing discovery!! Greeks and Romans got married, too!!

Mr. Wittman also referenced the Bible. I wonder if he just completely skipped over the First Testament, which is about the many years before Christ, and therefore the Christian church. I believe marriage is covered in that testament in many forms, including the usage of terms such as husband and wife.

So, I think that it is safe to say that marriage DID NOT "originate" in the church.

I suggest Mr. Wittman research his topics more thoroughly before he writes another absurd and laughable article.

Jennifer Kawasaki

CSU Alumni

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

To the editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Jan 232005

I was deeply disappointed to read the article by Tyler Wittman entitled "The religious right vs. the Luciferian left" on Thursday. I was disappointed by the fact that Mr. Wittman used no facts, and all fiction or name-calling. I was surprised that this piece of dribble could go into the paper.

Just to name a few things that I saw wrong, calling an implied non-religious person "Luciferian" is highly insulting, especially considering that Lucifer is a construct of the church itself.

Second, marriage is not just an institution of the church, but actually predates the church itself in many forms and ceremonies. The state has taken into its folds the idea of marriage and molded it to suit itself, just like Christianity did. To follow Mr. Wittman's train of thought to its logical conclusion, only straight Christians should be allowed to marry.

That excludes all other religions: Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wican/Pagan, or even atheist/agnostic. I do not think this is what is meant by equality, an idea that most Americans hold close to their hearts. The United States has tried to separate church from state, but nowhere in the Constitution or Bill or Rights does it say "separation of church and state," so ideas should be able to transfer from church to state, such as the idea of marriage.

A third thing is the original transcripts of the Bible make no mention of "homosexuality" and only recently has been mentioned in the King James Version of the Bible that was first published in 1611 C.E.

The original Hebrew text does not refer to homosexual acts in general, but rather to specific immoral behaviors such as rape, prostitution and most notably ritual sex in Pagan temples. So to say that "Two thousand years of Christian scholarship agrees that the Bible prohibits homosexuality." is an outright lie, not to mention all the Christians who do not agree that the Bible prohibits homosexuality.

I do not think that Mr. Wittman has the idea right that the gay-marriage argument is not about "infiltrating and perverting the Church" but is about equal rights. This article comes to show how a topic that is very touchy to all of us can turn in to a mudslinging battle of words that is not based in fact but in personal prejudice.

Andrew M. Darrow

Hydraulics Laboratory Assistant

Colorado State University

Engineering Research Center

 Posted by at 5:00 pm

To the Editor:

 Uncategorized  Add comments
Jan 232005

On Tuesday, I sat down with the newspaper thinking to myself, "I wonder what new things are in store for my last semester here at CSU."

As I was reading through, I stumbled upon an article that shot my blood pressure through the roof. In an article by Vincent Adams entitled, "$4 won't buy you freedom," I saw the same moronic display of "I Hate President Bush" articles that have been plaguing my school newspaper and that the students of this town seem so fond of.

Much to my surprise, nothing has changed except the level of unprofessional and pride-bashing tactics used against Bush and College Republicans because Vincent Adams and others like him are still crying about the fact that their side didn't win the election.

The fact that Vincent Adams uses language like "a flag waving nimrod" in his article makes me severely question his ability to be a professional journalist. Though we, as higher education students, will be able to move on and live life day-by-day, but much like those annoying campaign bashing ads on TV that ran through the fall, I see that we are still putting up with the same asinine opinions of anarchy against the country we live in.

Have all of the people in Fort Collins forgotten those who died protecting their right to cast out their own government? What's next in this radical movement? Effigies of Bush being burned in the streets? I will miss this town, but I will not miss the anarchist and sensationalist opinions of people like Vincent Adams.

Mike Eads


Construction Management

 Posted by at 5:00 pm