Churches have right to hold views
Even though I enjoyed reading Stephens’ article that was published in the Collegian on the Feb. 13, there are a few things that I want to air my views on.
Before I proceed further, I would like to differ on the title of your article, “Tax churches for hating homosexuals.”
Often times, individuals or groups that have opposed homosexuality have been labeled as “hating” homosexuals. Webster’s College Dictionary defines hate as “intense hostility and aversion or to feel extreme enmity toward.” It is not always true that whoever disagrees with homosexuality has extreme enmity toward homosexuals.
Although there have been cases of some individuals and groups hating homosexuals and as a result tragically committing hate crimes against them, I passionately, together with all reasonable beings, oppose such hatred.
According to Stephens, “when a church steps beyond the realm of charity it should pay the price (a tax) like other organization does.”
There are churches that support homosexuality, just as there are churches that are against homosexuality. Although you, I and others disagree with some churches, they are still nonprofit organizations, having different beliefs about marriage does not justify the need to pay taxes.
Churches have the right to oppose whatever is in conflict with their belief, a right guaranteed by the constitution. It is up to all rational beings to either align with them or disagree, that is the beauty of democracy.
Sophomore, Social Work
Organic foods good for environment, too
I find Mr. Bezek’s views on environmental policy to be poorly researched and quite arrogant. Although some studies may not support the health benefits of buying organic produce, many people do not purchase these goods for health reasons.
The driving force behind organic products is generally to be environmentally friendly, not necessarily healthier. It is true that pesticides are only found in trace amounts on conventionally produced food, however they infiltrate not only the soil in the areas from which they come, but also local water supplies.
Organic farms can sometimes utilize more acreage than conventional farming, but having a toxic water supply hardly seems worth the sacrifice to increase productivity. This creates a much bigger impact in a community than an increase in the size of a farm. Not only will this impact the local population near these conventional farms, it will also impact the local wildlife, adding to an already dangerous problem.
In addition to these problems, the pesticides are often not handled properly and cause health problems among farmers and their communities.
I believe it is important to be critical of new “green” ideas, but Mr. Bezek has no ground to stand on until he is willing to research every side of his articles. His latest article continues his arrogant trend of attacking those trying to work towards a cleaner planet.
It appears as if Bezek believes that we have inexhaustible resources and that humans have no impact on the planet we need to fight to sustain.
Keyless entry concerns to the editor:
Along with all the many benefits of the new keyless entry system being installed on campus touted in the front-page article in Wednesday’s Collegian, isn’t in reassuring to also know that “the university now has the ability to track a cardholder’s entrance into each building?”
Students, please remember: When you attempt to gain a little security by giving up a little freedom, you are likely to end up with neither.
CSU Alumnus and Fort Collins Resident
Lauding Lancaster to Brian Lancaster,
Well done is all I can say. Without sarcasm either!
Your article in Wednesday’s Collegian was fantastic and I agree wholeheartedly. I think South Park put it best by saying “Either everything is OK to make fun of, or nothing is.”
This is a short submission to the editor section, but I felt that someone who actually stands up against critics and defends their right to express an opinion especially when they are trying to bring some humor to the subject deserves an “atta boy. ”
So once again, well done. Keep up the good work.
Junior, Speech Communication
Responding to “Repeat/Delete”
Ladies of CSU, hear my plea.
I have distanced myself from the entire Andrew Woods scandal until now, though I have been silently seething along with the rest of you. I have seen the futility of your counter-strikes against the straw man that he has set up to shield himself.
Forgive my bluntness, but you have all been acting in vain. To affectively cripple your enemy, you mustn’t strike at what he presents to you, as we have seen time and again in the comics, specifically “Fun-ology” by Ashley Rosson; this is where he is strongest. Rather seek out his weakness — the area of his life that he believes is safe from your attacks. In short, cut him off at the waist.
He chooses to humiliate the feminine aspect with his demented sense of humor through his portrayals of sex. His comic is not weak, but its subject matter reveals his deficiencies. I call on the women of campus to cut him off — and not just him.
Women, display your dignity. I realize that there are addictive aspects to sex; it stimulates the same parts of the brain as many pleasure drugs. However, you are in control.
I would ask that the strike be expanded. Make the males of campus hate your enemy. Remove his base and he will become weak. Most importantly, do not attack his comic as if it was the main issue. Pretend that it doesn’t exist. Then you might succeed in destroying your opponent.
Sophomore, Construction Management