Letters to the Editor

Dear Weather Vane Editors,

Mallory,

I want to start off by saying, and making clear, that I respect the opinion that you shared in the Weather Vane concerning the war, our troops, and the issue of respect. I love dialogue, debate, and discussions about tough issues, and I especially enjoy differing opinions because they force me to think in different realms and ultimately put to words what I believe.

I guess I should preface all this by saying that I am Mennonite, grew up Mennonite, and I believe in the peace stance. What bothers me the most is not what you wrote, but how you wrote it. Especially in reference to your P.S., I was and am "insulted" by your letter and would say back to you, "You don't know me." Essentially, what you did in your article, whether you realized it or not, was to attack me, my beliefs, my denomination (Mennonite), and my religious convictions, and then you expect not to be treated in a similar manner? I would also disagree with your opinion that one cannot respect/support the troops and not support the war. Soldiers are never the ones who start a war. It is old men who make the decisions while the young men bleed and die, regardless of how they feel. Maybe it should be clarified more often, but I feel that when I or others criticize the war, I/we criticize Congress and the administration who have made the decisions, not the soldiers who have no say or choice in the whole matter. In my eyes, the best way we as a nation could respect our soldiers is to bring them home and out of harm's way. How many more thousands of our own, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, need to die before "we" decide we respect life enough to bring our sons and daughters, fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, and brothers and sisters home? I see Iraq becoming another Vietnam, and time and history haven't been kind to Vietnam, Johnson, Nixon, et al. History has a funny way of repeating itself, and being an American who cares about my country and its future, it pains me to see such a mess unraveling before my own eyes. I "respect" and am grateful for the country I was born in and the people who serve. I desire the best for both and don't care to see any more lives "sacrificed." Again, thank you for voicing your opinion. I know it takes guts to state what one believes. I just hope and would implore that the next time you do so you'll go about it in a way that doesn't tear down, insult, or disrespect another's opinions, beliefs, and religion. I am as guilty as the next of losing my temper and lashing out in order to feel justified, but I feel that if we could accomplish this sense of "respect" for another's beliefs, then our nation and world would be a much better place.

-Jon Risser

While I respect Mallory Watson's right to her opinions on the matter of our current state of war, I cannot possibly disagree more. We live in a free nation, and all arguments aside, I have the freedom to disagree as loud as I want with the war and its consequences. Mr. Bush is nearing the body count that Saddam reached after 24 years of dictatorship in Iraq. That's six times the pace. I agree with Kevin Ressler in his article "American Blood Baath," which says that treating life in such a manner of numbers is disgusting in and of itself, but the only thing more disgusting is staying silent while we watch hundreds of thousands die. I am disappointed in myself for not more actively speaking out against such an atrocity. While no concrete connections between Saddam and 9/11 or those responsible have been made and no weapons of mass destruction found, our government has reached beyond our borders in the name of, what, Freedom? Democracy? I'm sorry, but I don't understand how Saddam effected my freedom. You can argue for the freedom of the Iraqis on that standpoint, but I am sorry Mallory, you cannot argue about our freedom here in this circumstance. Democracy? I see none. 9/11/01 saw the tragic and horrible death over 3,000 innocent people, but March of 2003 until now has seen the death of at least 300,000 and some say over 600,000. I am ashamed of all of that blood lost, no matter the nationality. I soon will go to another country as a part of EMU's cross cultural program, and my shame over my nation's actions will be unanswerable and nigh unbearable. There is no excuse, no honor, no justice in the actions of Mr. Bush or his administration. I will not stop criticizing him or the Iraq war, even though many are offended by my protest at such unimaginable loss of precious God-given life.

Mark Fenton

P.S. Mallory-You came to EMU knowing both the university's stance and the common student's stance on the war-you should expect our reactions to the war to be as they are. We have every right to express them. Just as you have every right to express yours. Maybe we think your opinions are disrespectful to us. You still have the right to express them. Often those against the war can be hostile towards those for the war: Maybe you should be asking us to be less hostile and more courteous (and we should be) instead of telling us to be quiet.

It was with shock that I read Ben Butcher's Feb. 1 opinion piece, "A New Civil Disobedience." Mr. Butcher makes claims and takes stances in his article which we, as people of faith and, even more so, people of conscience should find profoundly disturbing. Mr. Butcher states "Many argue that the government in the United States contributed to the wealth of our society by forcing businesses to give equal opportunities to everyone and forcing them to integrate...but in reality, these measures have transformed our 'free' society into a society catering to the whims of the nonproductive: a totalitarian regime for freeloaders." Before I go further, I would like to remind readers that the United States is based on the maxim that "All men [women too] are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" (US Declaration of Independence, 1776). Therefore, integration is not a matter of "wealth" or "catering to freeloaders;" instead, it is the job of the US Government to insure that all citizens are given the same opportunities. Who are these "freeloaders" Mr. Butcher talks of? The answer by Mr. Butcher's implied definition is anyone who has ever benefited from being given an equal opportunity in the United States. Therefore, we are all, Mr. Butcher included, "freeloaders."

Furthermore, I would like to remind readers of what society was like before integration. I am not old enough, and neither is Mr. Butcher, to remember the time of segregation. But I don't know any person who would prefer to go back in time to before businesses were required to serve African American clients, to when school children were segregated into well-funded, white schools, and black children were sent to schools where having enough textbooks at the beginning of the school year was a rarity.

In light of this, one of Mr. Butcher's next statements is even more disturbing. He writes, "Believe it or not, our society and its use of a free market system should allow discrimination." I beg to differ. As thinking people of conscience, it is our job to stand against injustice; if discrimination does not count as such, I don't know what does. If this is what our society encourages, then it is our job to change it. We must oppose discrimination on principal, and not just because it does not suit us as consumers. Despite Mr. Butcher's belief that consumers would change a segregated/discriminatory economy, he forgets that a discriminatory economy thrived in the United States until the mid 1970's.

Though Mr. Butcher writes that he is not convinced by "any argument from a ‘Christian' perspective," I must end my argument by referring to the example of Jesus. The Gospel message was intended for all, all countries, Jew, Greek, Roman, slave, and free. Who are we, therefore, to advocate discrimination and anything less than equal opportunities for all?

-Ethan Zook

Mallory Watson invites comments on her letter in the Feb. 1 Weather Vane. Her passion is clear, but her thesis rests on the tired myth that our freedoms come only from military action. This thesis suffers from two realities:

(1) History shows that Canadians gained virtually the same freedoms that U.S. citizens enjoy, without armed force. Likewise, India gained freedom from British oppression without any military action.

(2) Currently, 16 U.S. spy agencies have stated that the invasion of Iraq has fanned the flames of terrorism and thus has made this country less safe. Respect for people in the military is one thing, but believing that they are truly fighting for anyone's freedom is something else. They may be told that they are advancing democracy and freedom, but the U.S. spy agencies find the reality to be otherwise. Exactly what our troops are fighting for, and what the results will be, has never been as clear as our President has claimed. Saddam Hussein killed thousands of innocent Iraqis; we have killed, directly or indirectly, hundreds of thousands, and the survivors hate us for it. Perhaps, Mallory, you can write again and help us understand how more military action will fix that.

-Ray Horst

Faculty Emeritus