Editorial Espouses Personal Belief on Christianity and Sex, Not That of All Christians
To the Editor:
This is a restrained response to Sharon Samuel’s article, “Christianity and Sex Not Mutually Exclusive,” for better judgment has perhaps corralled my disgust. While I have no problem with religious views that inform matters that pertain to sex, I find it dangerous to champion an entirely private decision as if it were an all-encompassing religious belief. Who are the Christians that Ms. Samuel is talking about? When she attempts to assess the centuries-long relationship Christianity has had with sex and sexuality in brief, sweeping generalizations, she tries to validate her loosely grounded historical opinions by claiming an insider’s perspective. By identifying herself as a Christian, and framing her argument as if she were the spokesperson for Christianity, she unfairly binds all Christians to her rather personal feelings. Yes, Christianity and sex have had a long and interesting relationship, but it cannot be explained simply by saying: “After so many sexually mute generations, when we finally started to break the uncomfortable silence in our homes and churches, we broke it using lists of rules, and corresponding lists of punishments for breaking those rules.” To what era is Ms. Samuel referring? Medieval Western Europe or 21st-century America? Is she referring to Catholicism or Protestantism? The trajectory of understanding sexual morality varies not only according to each Christian denomination, but also according to each home and church. I hate to break it to you Ms. Samuel, but not every Christian is saving his or herself for marriage. Not every Christian thinks that Christianity is an “unbreakable union” with the “God that created both love and sex.” Not every Christian thinks it is “obvious” that sinfulness is the defining characteristic of humanity. Not every Christian is a “doubter” who does not think that the “solution” to can be found within his or herself—there are Christians who believe that they have agency and their choices reflect a conscious resolution to improve their condition. And, finally, not every Christian reads the Bible as inerrant and literal. Christianity is multi-faceted and fluid, and of all people Ms. Samuel should know that Christianity fulfills each believer in a specific and special way, so let’s be a little more careful with how we present individual thoughts next time, okay? Don’t get me wrong, I think it is wonderful that there are people who have such strong devotion and thirst for their respective God—I just deem it prudent to define personal religious beliefs as just that: personal.
Lauren Olsen, CC ’09
October 7, 2008
California Legislation Seeks to Stop Cruel Practices, Close Confinement of Farm Animals
To the Editor:
Thank you for covering the Blessing of the Animals right around the corner at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine (Oct. 9). Right now, the animals could do with another kind of blessing, as well and one that each Californian can offer.
Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, aims to stop the cruel confinement of farm animals to spaces so small they can hardly turn around or stretch. It will appear in California’s November 2008 ballot.
Can you imagine living in a space where you cannot stretch your body or turn around? That’s the life of calves raised for veal. Torn away from their mothers, often soon after birth, veal calves are tied by their necks in tiny, barren crates. That’s the life of female breeding pigs confined in individual metal stalls only two feet wide. Some become crippled and lame from such confinement. That’s the life of egg-laying hens who are crammed in cages, where they have less space than a piece of letter-sized paper.
Millions of sentient pigs, calves, and chickens undergo such extreme suffering every day behind the closed doors of factory farms. Proposition 2 is a much-needed measure to help these animals. And what helps the animals also helps us. The close confinement of animals increases the risk of disease spreading, and factory farms cause massive environmental damage.
As critical as the November elections are to America’s future, Proposition 2 is of epic importance to animals. Farm animals are, by sheer numbers, the most widely abused animals.
Those who endorse Proposition 2 include Family Farm Defenders, United Farm Workers, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Greenpeace USA, the Organic Consumers Association, the Center for Food Safety, Clean Water Action, the Consumer Federation of America, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and many California farmers, vets, medical professionals, religious organizations, and elected officials.
But the final decision lies in your vote. I appeal to Californians to vote yes for Proposition 2.
Please log on to www.humanecalifornia.org to learn about how Proposition 2 helps reduce animal suffering.
Isabel Vadivu Govind
School of International and Public Affairs
October 18, 2008
