2008 Woodie Awards
Letters to the editor
Issue date: 2/25/08 Section: Opinion
Tomlinson wrong about Jesus
I feel obliged to address some of the inaccuracies in your opine on waterboarding, Mr. Tomlinson.
First, you are correct that Jesus would not waterboard. And on that point, I commend your insight. That said, it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he would do it. It only matters whether he would condone it, a point for which you singularly failed to address or allow.
For example, would Jesus imprison people? Answer: no. Does he condemn the government doing so? Certainly not. He recognized government's role in justice and other realms many times in his teachings.
Also, would Jesus tax people? Not to my knowledge. Yet, we are to render to our government what is the government's. It's what the man said. The point is that Jesus makes a distinction between individual liberty, responsibility and actions and the like of the government's.
That said, you can make the argument that a Christian is not to do anything immoral even at the bequest of the government. That is true but you did not make that argument. You merely stated that Jesus wouldn't do it. You cannot use that as an argument for it being immoral, because of the distinction I have outlined.
There are many acts of government that Jesus would never do that are even specifically condoned. No conclusive argument can be made that Jesus condemns public executions, taxation, imprisonment, war or even, as you put it, "eye for an eye" justice.
You said that he tried to do away with it altogether. That is simply unprovable.
You also said, "...Christ was a radical pacifist with long hair..." All that can be definitively stated of Jesus in this regard is that he spoke out against individual violence in most cases, not even all.
Would Jesus chase or attack people with a whip? Yes he would, and did.
Jeremy Carrell
Graduate Student
Electrical Engineering
Iron Chef or Iron Recipe?
As a spectator at this year's University Iron Chef competition, I am shocked at how things turned out.
If you know anything about the actual show "Iron Chef," then you know that there is a secret ingredient and, based on that secret ingredient, the chefs are to come up with five dishes. These dishes must feature the secret ingredient and be spontaneous.
At the school's competition, the team that took first place brought in a variety of outside ingredients, only to be used by them. This seemed like an unfair advantage to the other five teams who made dishes from the ingredients provided by Chartwells.
The secret ingredient for this competition was citrus fruit. The winning team made a super spicy sushi roll and a brown seafood dish, which do not require citrus. It is obvious that no matter what the secret ingredient was, the winning team was going to make the sushi and brown seafood stuff that they had practiced at home and for which they brought in all the ingredients.
How did the winning team actually win? I don't know if the judges were not experienced or if this competition was just poorly monitored. Either way, the team that "won" had an unfair advantage over everybody else. I will not be going back to watch the Iron Hoax next year.
Margaret Campbell
Junior
Hospitality
I feel obliged to address some of the inaccuracies in your opine on waterboarding, Mr. Tomlinson.
First, you are correct that Jesus would not waterboard. And on that point, I commend your insight. That said, it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he would do it. It only matters whether he would condone it, a point for which you singularly failed to address or allow.
For example, would Jesus imprison people? Answer: no. Does he condemn the government doing so? Certainly not. He recognized government's role in justice and other realms many times in his teachings.
Also, would Jesus tax people? Not to my knowledge. Yet, we are to render to our government what is the government's. It's what the man said. The point is that Jesus makes a distinction between individual liberty, responsibility and actions and the like of the government's.
That said, you can make the argument that a Christian is not to do anything immoral even at the bequest of the government. That is true but you did not make that argument. You merely stated that Jesus wouldn't do it. You cannot use that as an argument for it being immoral, because of the distinction I have outlined.
There are many acts of government that Jesus would never do that are even specifically condoned. No conclusive argument can be made that Jesus condemns public executions, taxation, imprisonment, war or even, as you put it, "eye for an eye" justice.
You said that he tried to do away with it altogether. That is simply unprovable.
You also said, "...Christ was a radical pacifist with long hair..." All that can be definitively stated of Jesus in this regard is that he spoke out against individual violence in most cases, not even all.
Would Jesus chase or attack people with a whip? Yes he would, and did.
Jeremy Carrell
Graduate Student
Electrical Engineering
Iron Chef or Iron Recipe?
As a spectator at this year's University Iron Chef competition, I am shocked at how things turned out.
If you know anything about the actual show "Iron Chef," then you know that there is a secret ingredient and, based on that secret ingredient, the chefs are to come up with five dishes. These dishes must feature the secret ingredient and be spontaneous.
At the school's competition, the team that took first place brought in a variety of outside ingredients, only to be used by them. This seemed like an unfair advantage to the other five teams who made dishes from the ingredients provided by Chartwells.
The secret ingredient for this competition was citrus fruit. The winning team made a super spicy sushi roll and a brown seafood dish, which do not require citrus. It is obvious that no matter what the secret ingredient was, the winning team was going to make the sushi and brown seafood stuff that they had practiced at home and for which they brought in all the ingredients.
How did the winning team actually win? I don't know if the judges were not experienced or if this competition was just poorly monitored. Either way, the team that "won" had an unfair advantage over everybody else. I will not be going back to watch the Iron Hoax next year.
Margaret Campbell
Junior
Hospitality
Be the first to comment on this story