Your Turn Letters to the Editor

To EC or not to EC

Dear CT,

I read Sara Duke’s Monday, March 20, letter concerning emergency contraception with much interest. Please allow me to correct the record here.

The high hormone levels contained in emergency contraception cause the endometrium, or lining of the uterus, to thicken, thereby making implantation of the living human zygote quite difficult should ovulation occur. If sperm and egg do indeed unite, creating life, and the embryo dies as a result of the emergency contraception, an abortion has occurred.

It is very clear that pregnancy begins at fertilization, not an arbitrary point selected by the abortion-minded.

– Steven C. Latimer

Editor’s reply: I’m not sure what record you’re correcting. Sara Duke was absolutely right when she explained that “EC is not the abortion pill RU-486.” Also, recent research by the International Committee for Contraception Research and other groups have found that emergency contraceptive pills appear to have nothing to do with disruption of post-fertilization events such as implementation of a fertilized egg in the uterus. Finally, while it may be “very clear” to you that pregnancy begins at fertilization, your beliefs are at odds with the medical and legal communities. The good news is, if you don’t like emergency contraception you don’t have to use it.

An attack of faith?

Dear Editor,

I am a fan of the Op/Ed section of The Commonwealth Times and have been since my freshman year. I am not an avid sports fan. I don’t listen to a majority of the music that gets reviewed. So mainly I check out the Weird News, sometimes the Comics and, of course, the Op/Ed articles. I like reading other people’s opinions on current events. The editorial cartoons are funny sometimes too. But I can’t seem too enjoy the Op/Ed section these days because every time I have picked up a copy of The CT in the past month or so, the only thing that people seem to want to talk about is the “origins of life”: Darwinism, or evolution vs. creationism or intelligent design.

But the discussion isn’t what irritates me. It’s the fact that there is no actual debate going on. The discussion seems so one-sided. Whenever I read it, you primarily seem to print the opinions of those who believe in the theory of evolution. A majority of those pieces talk about how intelligent design is only an “ideological theory” and how intelligent design should not be taught in schools. Sadly enough, even the editorial cartoons talk about how religion should be left out of every social and political aspect of life. I get the point already, Commonwealth Times. The atheists, agnostics and religiously indifferent of VCU don’t like Christians or anything that has to do with God and their views and opinions are more important and more valued than those of us who are Christians. I get the message. Now can we move on to something else, please?

Lately, when I pick up a copy of The CT, I feel as though my beliefs are being attacked or as if people are trying to say that I am inferior or I am less competent or compassionate because I am a Christian. I am proud to be a Christian and I hold no animosity for those who do not share my faith. I will never be outside the Business Building with a giant yellow sign that says “Obey Jesus or Perish!” or handing out pamphlets with pictures of mangled fetuses in them while people walk to class in the mornings. You might catch me in the Commons, quietly reading my Bible in between classes, but you won’t see me forcing Scripture and religion down someone’s throat. Not all Christians are that insensitive. I know from seeing it in action that if you want to steer people away from God, go out on your soapbox and yell at them.

I can believe that not too many people are interested in debating or reading a debate about evolution or much less anything else science related, unless you are studying science or are actually interested in evolution. So why spend nearly over a month discussing it, or should I say, just having people talking about why intelligent design, and Christianity as well, is wrong?

People continue to say that public school curriculums should allow students to think for themselves in order to start dialogues with others, to be well versed, knowledgeable and educated about their own world and the world around them, in order to be better prepared for the “real world.” But how can that be possible if you don’t present students with ALL the necessary information to make those kinds of things possible? How can free thinking be allowed when you are forbidden to teach topics because one group is offended by the subject matter? Teaching all of the different aspects of a topic is the only way mental growth is possible.

Let’s think of it this way. There is no way possible that “selective education” would catch on at VCU. The gay/lesbian/transgender community would run human sexuality teachers out of Richmond if they didn’t promote tolerance and understanding of their respective cultures and lifestyles in their classes. Nobody would attend government classes if the professors only talked about the positive things the government does. And world religion teachers would have no credibility if they didn’t cover religions aside from Christianity. So why should the rules be any different when it comes to biology and intelligent design? The discussion of Darwinism and creationism in schools has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. It’s just keeping students from learning about both theories on the origins of life just because of the sensitivity of one group to the materials falls in the realm of the separation of reason and reality. The REALITY is that both sides exist and have been debated extensively in the scientific community. Some people believe God did it all. Others believe that Darwin is right. It’s that simple. So it is within REASON to present both sides to students and give them the opportunity to decide for themselves what they believe instead of sitting here, trying to decide for them. To neglect to do so would be hypocritical, because I am willing to wager that no one reading this wants someone to tell them what to believe or what to know and not know, and it would be barring students from making informed decisions or making their own judgments, plus disallowing them from learning, thinking and better understanding one another’s viewpoints, no matter how much they may differ.

Thank you for your time, and peace be with you.

– Benn Berkley

Editor’s reply: Yes, there has been a LOT of talk about evolution and intelligent design. It’s because the people who wrote about it chose to write about it, like you have done. You say you aren’t interested in the debate, but you spend a good while defending your view – which is absolutely fine. But you are very mistaken. We are certainly not Christian bashers. We respect all opinions equally, which is why we print ALL of them. Furthermore, in three issues the intelligent design theory was defended and in three evolution was argued for. I don’t know about you, but that counts as two sides to me. And the ones you see as attacking your faith are not CT opinions; they are the opinions of the author.

Praise for April Kung

Brava to April Kung for speaking her mind and saying what is often on many other minds as well. For all the clamor about improving educational standards, it boggles the open mind why leaders and education systems alike are willing to include ignorance as a required course of study. I once listened to the leader of a large, fundamentalist congregation speak about the need for religious education in “our” schools. Talking afterwards, I asked him if he was willing to have a science teacher come and speak about evolution from his pulpit for the purpose of demystifying the subject. I was prepared to give him a phone number. “No,” he said, “that mess has no business in God’s house.” Amen, April.

– Randy Attuso

I just wanted to give props to April Kung for her honesty. I know you are going to get a lot of crap for this but someone had to say it and I think you did a great job of doing so. Don’t back down or apologize! I’m sure a lot more people agree with this point of view than they’d care to admit.

– Tess von Geczy