Letters to the editor

Bill McKeown, Knight Ridder Tribune

Student Life should have
rejected advertisement

To the editor:

I am deeply concerned to have found an advertisement for Jews for Jesus in your Sept. 10, 2002, edition. Jews for Jesus is known for using deceptive practices to turn Jews from their own faith. Jewish, traditional Christian, and ecumenical groups are unanimous in stating that Jews for Jesus are not practicing any form of Judaism and in denouncing Jews for Jesus for appropriating Jewish symbols to fool religiously unknowledgeable Jews.
This advertisement clearly targets such Jews with the message that they can “be Jewish and believe in Jesus.” This is nothing less than false advertising, which should have been rejected for publication by the staff of Student Life.

Michael Hamm
Graduate Student
Arts and Sciences

Jews for Jesus: the “religion hijackers”

To the editor:

After seeing the advertisement from Jews for Jesus in the Sept. 10 edition of Student Life, which was dedicated to the victims of 9-11, I couldn’t fail but notice the irony. As I see it, this group attempts to hijack people from the Jewish faith and divert them toward belief in Jesus.
An airplane is “hijacked” when it is captured by those who wish to divert it to a location or purpose that it doesn’t wish to travel to. Similarly, this group attempts to introduce entirely foreign beliefs into Judaism and pass it off to unwitting individuals as authentic Judaism.
Two thousand years of history tell us that believing in Jesus isn’t Jewish dogma; it belongs to the Christians. If a Christian wants to tell me that belief in Jesus is integral to his or her faith, that’s fine. But to call it “Jewish”-that’s hijacking.
In an edition of the paper that was dedicated to the victims of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, for me, the irony was loud and clear.

Hershey Novack
Rabbi, Chabad Jewish Center
[email protected]

Protecting the environment means more than recycling

To the editor:

I just wanted to respond to the article I just read online about recycling off-campus. You said many people are not well-informed about options, etc. I think that includes you because there is a recycling drop-off center for University City that isn’t that far away on 1015 Pennsylvania Ave, off Olive, which is about a 5-minute drive from campus and even closer from U. City off-campus areas. Unfortunately, this isn’t well-known among students. For other non-U. City areas, check out www.earthsharemo.org or www.ceegr.org for a recycling center search link. I think as WU students we expect certain things to come so easy to us, such as doorstep recycling, but the fact remains that if you want to make a difference, you may have to put in some effort. Recycling is one way people can help, but it doesn’t automatically make you an environmentalist and doesn’t automatically mean you’re helping the environment. They should consider making significant changes to their consumption habits if they really want to have an effect. If you don’t buy as much, then you won’t have as much to throw away. Thanks for the report about recycling, though, and I hope you keep encouraging it.

Sarah Powers
Class of 2003
Arts and Sciences

Understanding September 11 is a two-way street

To the editor:

The anniversary (Sept. 10, 2002) issue of Student Life carries several calls for better understanding of Islam. These are quite appropriate, for the business of a university is understanding.
Understanding is not the same as condoning or forgiving. The attacks of September 11 were a manifestation of pure evil. It must be understood, but it must be understood so it can be fought and extirpated.
Understanding is a two-way street. The rest of the world should understand Islam, but the Islamic world needs to understand the rest of us. Radical Arabs need to understand that their causes must compromise with others’ causes. They must understand that if they take the existence of other states or civilizations as a grievance, that grievance has no moral standing. The ashes of 3,000 dead cry out to us that a cause pursued by terror is invalidated by terror.

Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Arts and Sciences

Treat all forms of liability equally

To the editor:

I thought Alex Fak’s op-ed piece, “Focusing on intentions,” brought out into the open a previously unheard viewpoint on the inequalities of equality. Why should a woman need a man to take responsibility for her actions when she decides to get drunk and sleep with somebody? Does a man get that sort of backup? Do we want to move toward a world where men and women are treated as equals except in the bedroom? Is a woman still not liable for her actions when, instead of sleeping with the guy with the free beer, she decides to drive her SUV home and winds up killing your kids or siblings?

Brendan Charles Braat
Graduate Student
School of Law

Leave a Reply