CHECK THE FACTS
(In response to the March 8 letter to the editor “Judeo-Christian ethics and gay marriage.”)
There are several things wrong with Ms. Matro's letter to the editor.
First off, she attempts to correct Ms. Eaton's column, but commits the same errors she accuses Ms. Eaton committing — namely, using flawed, invalid or false evidence to prove her point.
Ms. Matro claims “the Founding Fathers established the United States based on Judeo-Christian ethics, which were extracted from the Bible.”
Yet nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation or the Constitution of the United States does it mention the ethics or influence of the Judeo-Christian traditions.
In addition, references to a “creator” refer specifically to “Nature's God,” meaning the Deist God of Jefferson and Franklin, not the God of Abraham.
Furthermore, the principles outlined in these documents have their origins in Athenian democracy, the Roman Republic and the works of Rousseau, Voltaire and Locke.
Ms. Matro also appeals to history without looking into it. A brief glance at history would show that the Hammurabi Code, written in 1790 BCE predates the Torah by approximately 500 years.
And the principles of the I Ching are widely believed to have come into existence around 2800 BCE, thereby invalidating the claim that the Bible is the first document that provides a “civilized lifestyle” model.
Furthermore, the attempt at an argument against gay marriage from a Constitutional perspective clearly violates the First and 14th Amendments, as the principles behind the Constitution are those of individual sovereignty as outlined in the entire Bill of Rights and one of its inspiring documents: the Magna Carta.
However, to completely invalidate Ms. Matro's point, Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli clearly and explicitly states: “As the Government of the United States of America is in not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion” leaving Ms. Matro no constitutional ground to stand on. Rev. Antonio I. Villalpando Undergraduate
GUNS, GUNS, GUNS
I have been very upset that The State Press has chosen to all but ignore pending state legislation that would allow concealed weapons on campus, SB 1467.
In fact, your paper has done much worse than ignore the issue, and has instead chosen to give voice only to the tiny minority who support such legislation.
Numerous polls have been conducted and all of them indicate overwhelming opposition from both students and faculty. It is perfectly acceptable to provide a forum for a diversity of viewpoints, but you have simply presented a fringe viewpoint as though it represented your demographic.
As the official paper of the University, you have a duty to represent the concerns of the students, faculty and staff of the University. So far you have proven woefully inadequate to that task, at least as concerns SB 1467.
I hope that The State Press sees to it that its oversight in this area is corrected. Please know that, in conjunction with other concerned students and faculty, I plan to contact your advertisers to voice my displeasure with your editorial choices on this matter.
Ruth Lindsay Graduate Student
This is neither about opposition to guns in general, nor a Second Amendment issue. It is about the very compelling fact that a college or university campus is no place for guns.
A campus is a place for free and open discourse without fear, for honesty and healthful competition, for freedom from prejudice and for safety, security and an encouraging sense of well-being.
Even a moment's serious thought about the matter should persuade any of us that loaded guns would not mix safely with the stresses of the student experience, or the questionable judgment and the prevalence of alcohol, drugs and boisterous and macho behavior among college-age people.
Admittedly, we cannot realistically prevent an unbalanced person from bringing a gun on campus now, but we can be sure that the vast majority of University personnel obey the current ban on weapons on campus.
If SB1467 becomes law, anyone with an inclination to carry a gun will feel welcome to do so. Data from all over the world show clearly that the more guns there are in a community, the more deaths from gunshots result.
Moreover, the campus police fear that the presence of lots of armed amateurs in such a situation where a lunatic has a gun will make things worse, and create extreme difficulty for the police to figure out who the bad guy is.
No wonder the campus police departments of NAU, ASU and UA fervently oppose this legislation.
It is also worth pointing out that a 2008 KAET-ASU poll found 73 percent of registered Arizona voters opposed allowing people with concealed-carry permits to carry guns on school grounds or campuses.
As a voting citizen of the state of Arizona, I urge you to follow this will of the majority who agree with me that campuses are not a place for individuals to carry weapons.
One can respect and accommodate Second Amendment rights, and nonetheless recognize that there are some settings such as courtrooms, airports and classrooms that should be kept free of weapons.
John Allen
Reader
STANDING UP FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
(In response to Katie Shoultz’s March 3 article, “Bill would abolish ABOR, separate Poly from ASU.”)
I don't understand why some people think that education is going to be made better by competition. It's the same idiotic idea that has wrought such havoc on the elementary school system.
Education should not be a for-profit business, no matter what those on the far right say. I just cringe every time something new comes out of our deranged legislature, wondering if it's just one more thing to make Arizona look like a place for bigoted rednecks and worse.
Carol Masser
Graduate student
