No soup for queer folk
To the Editor:
I find it interesting that those who would criticize the veracity of the Bible always choose some archaic Levitical law to make their point. The laws set down in Leviticus and other Old Testament books were as much symbolic as anything else. They were symbolic of the cleanliness and purity the Jews were trying to achieve in order to remain in communion with God.
Menstruating women? Well, in the pre-Kotex era, menstruation cycles were rather messy. Women were simply resigned to a special tent with other women until their cycle was done.
Demolish a house because of mold? Mold is unclean: it can cause illnesses. The safest thing to do was to demolish the house.
And I love this one: Do you still sacrifice animals to God? Well, as a Catholic, I would assume you’ve heard of this guy that was pretty big in the New Testament: Jesus. He made animal sacrifices and all those other cleanliness laws, obsolete. He became the bridge by which we, unclean sinners, could connect with a pure and holy God.
But back to the issue at hand: homosexuality. All of the above laws, as I’ve mentioned, were made null and void by Jesus, and they are never mentioned in the New Testament. Homosexuality is – twice (Romans 1:27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9). So if you want to make your argument, fine. But do it with a solid backing.
Emily Poole
Undeclared, freshman
‘Iraq and Achewood ,’ good stuff
To the Editor:
Thanks for running Achewood. The faculty’s letters to the Editor attempting to curtail free speech shows what a sad world it is when people don’t have a sense of humor.
Achewood is much like cartoons like “South Park” where social commentary is made using bigoted and ignorant characters. The point of the humor is that we laugh at them, not with them. Once you decide that one thing is not funny and you try to enforce your humorless bones on the masses, it is, as Bronson points out, fascism.
To offended faculty: when is the Free Press burning party going to be?
I too will make the incredible leap from cartoons to Iraq. Bronson made an argument that I have yet to see in print, but it’s a viewpoint many of us share. OIF is an extension of Desert Storm. We’ve been fighting Iraq for the last decade. The United States screwed the people of Iraq when we encouraged them to fight for their freedom and then stood back and watched them get slaughtered. All because we didn’t want to break the coalition or go against the UN mandate.
I look upon the world as a neighborhood. Countries are homes in this neighborhood and the U.S. is the biggest house on the block. We had a neighbor who verifiably used WMD on his own people, who murdered thousands, whose son raped and threw new brides off buildings for sport. Other neighbors like France and Germany, verified that he was still producing WMD. 9/11 showed that if you ignore a problem like that long enough, that problem will directly affect you.
To close your blinds and lock your doors to the suffering in Bosnia, Iraq and Rwanda, when you have the ability to stop it: that is a crime that history will not forgive.
For those that complain that the faces of Iraqi citizens killed in the war are not shown on the news, I would ask of them, where were your voices when Saddam was conducting genocide against his own people? Why did you not cry out then?
Erik Reynolds
Alumnus
Headline accuracy is important
To the Editor:
We so appreciate the interest your staff has shown in getting the word out to students about The Southern Maine Review (formerly The Maine Scholar), but I’m afraid I do have an issue with the negativity of the headline introducing the recent article by Kate Brown. This is the second time in approximately nine months that The Free Press has run a negative headline with regard to The Southern Maine Review. As someone in the publishing business myself, I understand the rationale behind “grabber” headlines, but I also believe that negative headlines should only be coupled with negative stories, and the fact that USM has a new journal is
hardly that.
Having such negativity consistently attached to the journal is not only bad for us, it is equally bad for you because your readership will quickly become inured to such headlines and stop paying attention to them.
You could have set a much different tone with the headline “USM Inherits Scholarly Journal” or “The Maine Scholar Is Transformed.” These descriptors are actually quite neutral but get the job done without placing the journal in a negative context.
We take no issue with the article itself; Kate did a fine job of accurately depicting the journal’s situation. It’s just too bad that her even-handed article was not introduced with the same care.
I hope that you’ll take this concern into consideration the next time you write a story on The Southern Maine Review.
Wanda P. Whitten
Managing Editor, Southern Maine Review
Paper Quality Chosen can Create a Better Images
To the Editor:
Nino Kemoklidze’s Free Press article (April 26, 2004) titled “What it costs to put out a literary magazine” is a fine review of only some of the costs associated with printing USM’s wonderful annual magazine, “Words and Images.”
The article wrote about the priority attached to “full color printing,” print quality and the high cost of advertising. The magazine is apparently now getting positive national recognition.
Particularly in that “Words and Images” is created in the great paper-making state of Maine by a university striving to gain national recognition for regional excellence, shouldn’t we be concerned with the University’s image and pay attention to the quality of the paper we use?
I looked in vain for some acknowledgement that “Words and Images” had carefully selected environmentally-preferred, acid-free, archival quality papers for this edition. I check for the words “Printed on post-consumer paper” before I buy.
Dudley Greeley
Sustainability Coordinator