Letters to the Editor

Vote for effective USG leaders, take active role

In Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky's editorial (Dec. 9), he states that the USG elections do not matter. This is a dangerously misleading accusation. If we elect caring and driven students to USG office, there is no better method to effect change on this campus.

This past year, hardworking members of the USG effectively lobbied against the seven-week moratorium, raised money for club sports, persuaded the administration to keep 1903 open, worked with the ICC to ensure a safer social atmosphere, found additional funding for community service and campus publications, launched the LGBT Issues Taskforce, organized countless new community-building events, effectively defended against the Alcohol Ordinance, chartered the Cultural Leaders Summit, and convinced the administration to comprehensively review freshman orientation and residential advising, to name a few projects.

Despite these projects, Mrosovsky's editorial does rightly recognize that a large portion of the student body sees the USG as illegitimate. I acknowledge that we have made many empty campaign promises and we should have a more active involvement in the everyday life and interests of students. Mrosovsky condescendingly urges students to vote for the candidates who promise the least. Instead, I believe this perceived illegitimacy is exactly why students should take an active role during these runoffs in figuring out who they think will accomplish the most. By electing effective candidates for all USG positions and holding those elected accountable, the average student can increase his or her utility dramatically in one short year. William Robinson '04

Park's Bible reading is selective in subject matter

Julie Park in her column (Dec. 9) seems to feel fine in using the narrow meaning of certain Biblical passages to "condemn" homosexuals for being in romantic sexual relationships. She dismisses arguments against this position that resort to "mocking obscure Jewish civil laws from the Old Testament" since such "ridiculous" laws are "not directly applicable to Christians." She states, however, that the "moral teaching" of the New Testament is "directly applicable." I wonder, therefore, if she reflected as she made this contribution to public debate that exactly such a "direct" interpretation of Biblical "moral teaching" has been used to prevent women from even voicing their opinions publicly (and still is used to prevent women exercising leadership positions in certain Christian sects). St. Paul prescribes male headship as a rule in society at numerous points throughout the New Testament. Take 1 Timothy: "I do not permit a woman to be a teacher, nor must women domineer over man; she should be quiet. For Adam was created first, and Eve afterwards; and it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who, yielding to deception, fell into sin." It would appear that Julie Park does not interpret this passage as literally as she does the passages which condemn certain other groups. It is also well known that that the New Testament condones slavery and instructs slaves to obey their earthy masters "with fear and trembling, single mindedly, as serving God" (Ephesians 6). How does Julie Park "directly apply" this passage?

Of course, pointing out that such ideas are in the New (not the Old) Testament will lead many if not most Christians to argue that such attitudes towards women and slavery are radically incompatible with the guiding principle of the New Testament as laid out by Jesus — "This is my commandment to you: love one another" (John, 15:12). I could not agree with such sentiments more. (It interesting to note that Jesus himself is not reported as having made any disparaging remarks about women, slaves or homosexuals.) But if certain New Testament attitudes towards women and slavery are radically incompatible with such love, then isn't an attitude which condemns homosexuals to a life of complete celibacy similarly incompatible with such a notion? David Erdos GS