Student Life Archives

Jews for Jesus deserves respect like other groups

While sitting at the Jews for Jesus table, I had many students come up to tell me that what I was doing offended them. As one student pointed out, what I believe denies who she is. However, they are not concerned in the least that they are denying who I am. Yoni Cohen emphatically stated in his column, “You cannot be a Jew and believe that Jesus was the Messiah any more than you can be a vegetarian and regularly eat meat.” I disagree. I am Jewish and I believe Jesus is the Messiah. I do not stop being Jewish just because I follow a Jewish man who claims to be the fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophesies. When people make such blanket statements they are denying my identity, which is offensive to me.
However, I am not using this letter to evoke sympathy or cry injustice. I merely want people to discuss what they believe without having to insult the other viewpoint. If we disagree, that is fine, but let’s disagree about the issues. Is Jesus the Messiah or not? I believe that Jesus was sent by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Our sin separates us from God because He is holy and cannot be in the presence of sin. God requires that sacrifice so that our sins can be forgiven, washed away. By trusting in Jesus we can be reconciled with God and be with Him forever.
I will be the first to acknowledge that it is everyone’s right to decide what they believe. However, I do not see how sharing with others what God has revealed to me denies them that right to make their own decision. You can accept or reject the message of Jesus; it’s up to you. But let’s keep it to the issues instead of making personal attacks.

Jonathan Buchanan
Class of 2002

____________________________________________________________

Clarifying U College enrollment

To the editor:

Thanks for your Sept. 27 report on the recently enhanced tuition benefits for university employees and the related increase in University College enrollments. May I offer a couple of clarifications? Percentage gains were highest in the humanities overall but student interest was strong across the board: english composition has the largest number of new enrollments; math and anthropology were the next highest. Second, the enhanced benefit has been granted to employees not by University College but by the university as a whole, as part of the faculty/staff benefits package managed through Human Resources.

Dean Bob Wiltenburg
University College

____________________________________________________________

Response to “Friendly Fire”

On the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I, a Jew, can see both sides. Israel has made mistakes in some of its aggressive attacks and equally aggressive settlement policies. The Palestinians, though understandablely frustrated, are fighting a morally repugnant terror campaign (I don’t think five-year-old children deserves to be murdered over their country’s military activity). Also, as an American, I kind of feel, in regards to Israel, that “ye among you without sin, cast the first stone.”
Regardless of my relatively moderate views, I find statements in Fak’s column extremely offensive. When talking about Jews who support Israel’s actions Fak writes, “This Judaism measures the gravity of any catastrophe by the number of Jewish last names on the list of casualties (and puzzles over ambiguities like Miller or Rose).” I am not sure how Fak can generalize like that or accuse people of being so unfeeling. Israel has mourned the death of Israel-Arabs, its own citizens killed in terrorist attacks. Israel was the first country to offer its condolences and unconditional aid to the United States on September 11. Let us remember, not only Jews were killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Also, I doubt any American Jew who supports Sharon’s policy only cares about other Jews. In addition, Fak neglects to remember that there are also non-Jews who support Sharon’s policies, in Israel and abroad. The issue is not as clear-cut as it seems.
Also, I was offended by the statement about Jewish youth groups, “and has set up youth groups for the purpose, as some students have gleaned, of having young Jews date each other and not goyim (gentiles).” Excuse me? I believe Jewish youth groups are quite similar to Christian youth groups; groups were members of the same religion can do social, religious based activities together. If members date each other fine, they have something in common, it happens. Sometimes it is encouraged by parents, but is it so wrong to encourage your child to date people of the same values and interests of yourself? Should all special groups be chalked up as bigoted?
In short, Fak is right, “one need not be an anti-Semite to be concerned over Israel’s actions in Palestine,” however one would be deemed prejudice by making a broad, biased generalization over an entire group of people and ascribing them maniacal motives one cannot prove.

Hannah Grossman
Arts and Sciences
Class of 2003

____________________________________________________________

Ethics code does not censor

Last Tuesday’s Student Life staff editorial (“Religious Groups Should Not Censor Selves”) made two assertions about the Interfaith Campus Ministers Association concerning our recently revised code of ethics-that it constituted censorship and that members signed despite the fact they did not believe in it. Neither is true.
As the opposing column correctly stated, the voluntary code of ethics is not censorship. Rather, it is an exercise of free speech and religious freedom itself-a group of people who believe that all human beings are children of God and should be treated with the utmost love and care choosing freely to commit to act according to that belief.
All who signed the code did so voluntarily and because they believed in the principles behind it. To assert that some signers didn’t believe in it deeply disturbs and saddens us as it impugns our integrity and, by association, the integrity of all the faithful people who care for the spiritual lives of those at this university.
We regret that Student Life chose to print this editorial without first coming to us as an organization and getting the full story behind the code of ethics and the nature of our relationship as interfaith campus ministers. We would like to invite representatives of Student Life to come to a future meeting of the Interfaith Campus Ministers’ Association to see firsthand who we are and what we are about and so we can have an open dialogue about any issues that concern us.

Rev. Mike Kinman, Episcopal Campus Ministry
Sarah Stanage, Episcopal Campus Ministry
Rabbi Hyim Shafner, Hillel
Rev. John Lottes, Lutheran Campus Ministry
Amy Thoren, Lutheran Campus Ministry
Roger Jesperson, Wesley Fellowship
Leslie Limbaugh, Baptist Student Union
Sr. Linda Straub, Catholic Student Center

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 1st, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Summers was right to address anti-Semitism

To the editor,

I agree with Alex Fak in his recent column, “Friendly Fire,” that the boycotts of Israeli products do not help to solve the current crisis in the Middle East, nor do they help the condition of the Palestinian people (especially since many Palestinians work in Israel). However, I believe that Mr. Summers was right in addressing the issue of anti-Semitism at his annual university address. Members of the Harvard and MIT communities are proposing to divest any endowment funds that are invested in companies that do business with Israel. That is not fair. If they want Harvard or MIT to divest money from companies that do business with Israel because they claim that Israel violates human rights and represses the Palestinians, then they should also recommend divesting money from companies that do business with China, Indonesia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Colombia. Those students and faculty members should not drink Colombian-grown coffee, fill their cars with gas from Saudi Arabia, or wear Nike shoes. Let’s not be moral relativists. To specifically target only Israel is anti-Semitic. I applaud Mr. Summers for standing up against bigotry.

Michael Delman

Class of 2004

Arts and Sciences

Rushdie, postmodernism, and injured feelings

To the editor,

These are clarifying comments on Siddiqui’s remarks (Student Life, Sept. 27) concerning “Rushdie: Fact and Fiction.” I hope those interested in substantive and courteous criticism would find them useful.

The Ayatollah may not have enjoyed postmodernism but those of us who do still expect intelligent art to act responsibly. Teasing conventions is one thing, violating human dignity another.

While it is relatively harmless to speculate about the Ayatollah’s literary taste, we should rely on facts with regard to events. The rejection of the Satanic Verses in the Muslim world happened before the fatwa or the ban on the book. The publication of the novel led to tragic events involving death and destruction in Europe and South Asia (October 1988 to February 1989). By the time the Ayatollah issued his harsh decree (Feb. 14, 1989), six people had already died.

Most Muslims did not take angry action despite injured feelings. These millions, who according to Siddiqui do not “deserve” to be taken “seriously” (for the sin of not being versed in postmodernism?), were fortunately taken seriously by insightful people across the globe. The sympathizers were not fundamentalists nor did they approve of the fatwa. Many appreciated modern and postmodern thought as well. Ex-President Jimmy Carter wrote: “While Rushdie’s First Amendment freedoms are important, we have tended to promote him and his book with little acknowledgment that it is a direct insult to those millions of Muslims whose sacred beliefs have been violated and are suffering.” (New York Times, 1989). Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a Jewish feminist activist, identified with the Muslims and the injury they had suffered: “My Jewish-self remembered when the American Civil Liberties Union defended the Nazi’s right to demonstrate in Skokie, Ill. Many Jews felt that constitutional principle was being distorted to justify anti-Semitic hate-mongering.” (Ms. Magazine, August 1989)

Muslims (like others) have fundamentalists as well as liberals. I mentioned the free thinkers-and their supporters-because they are the ones who are often missing from the picture. The institutions named by Siddiqui do not represent the Muslim general public.

The issue of security needs is used in contradicting ways. When Rushdie’s suffering is highlighted, we are reminded of his perilous underground life. When security gets in the way, we are told he has lived in the open since mid 1990s. Both accounts cannot be true. I assume measures, such as closing the event on public, are for security reasons not added excitement.

No amount of training in postmodern theory will stop the injury caused by reckless use of free speech. While Rushdie’s move to the political right, and the decline in the quality of his works are significant, the most pressing issue is his abuse of free speech. Assaults on the dignity of people are unacceptable whether in the main plot or the sub-plot, wakefulness or dream, or by sane or insane protagonists.

Fatemeh Keshavarz

Associate Professor

Persian and Comparative Literature

S.A.R.A.H. misrespresented

sexual assault

To the editor,

I felt the Sept. 27, letter to the editor from S.A.R.A.H. unfairly and completely mischaracterizes Alex Fak’s Sept. 13 Student Life column. S.A.R.A.H. claims that, according to Fak, if a rape occurs while the victim is drunk the perpetrator should not be considered guilty of a crime. What the column said was that if a woman consents to have sex with another, that consent should not be invalidated after the fact by a rule that applies to women and not men. Nowhere did the column suggest to me that a person should be responsible for things to which she has not agreed.

In addition, the analogy about holding a man responsible for getting mugged simply because they were drunk was blatantly misleading. A more analogous example would have a man in a bar who, after a few too many drinks, meets another man from campus. The other compliments the first man on his generosity and asks the man to give him some money. The flattered man is happy to oblige. Can the drunk man get up the next day and claim to have been mugged?

I think the point of the column was not to impose greater responsibility on the woman because she was drunk, or to remove responsibility from the man for clear violations, but rather to say that it might be more equal to hold a woman to the same level of responsibility for decision making that a man would be.

Brendan Charles Braat

Graduate Student

School of Law

Rethinking Jews for Jesus

To the editor:

I concur with Jonathan Buchanan, the Jew for Jesus who wrote in last Tuesday defending his tribe. Isn’t anyone else tired of groups being attacked simply because they offer a unique or contrarian view? I, for one, am a card-carrying member of Evangelical Christians for Jews who Don’t Believe in Jesus. Like Mr. Buchanan’s organization, we have also come under fire from purists too closed-minded to understand our faith. While we share many of the beliefs and customs of Christians, we also consider ourselves culturally Jewish and, of course, we feel the Messiah is yet to make her/his triumphant return to Earth. To the Yoni Cohen’s of the world, this somehow disqualifies us from being “true” evangelics. But we will continue to spread our message, regardless of the Babel we encounter along the way.

So, to the Jews for Jesus I say, “mazl-tov.” You are welcome to pray with us anytime.

Jonathan Stahler

Class of 2002

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 1st, 2002 at 12:00 pm and is filed under Opinions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.