April 24 letters
Debates should use facts and opinions, not dogma
TO THE EDITOR:
I’m not sure when the letters to the editor section at The Daily Tar Heel became a soapbox for religious testimony, but the trend is getting worse and the standards for what constitutes a reasoned opinion worthy of publication are dropping.
The fiasco surrounding Don Wheatley’s antics was bad enough, but Thursday’s letter from Marianne Tioran on the Gospel of Judas sent me over the edge. Tioran’s banter demonstrated a complete ignorance of information regarding the gospel itself, thinly veiled with Christian confessional rhetoric.
For starters, Bart Ehrman never said the gospel was written by Judas himself. In fact, in his Monday lecture following the National Geographic special, Ehrman specifically emphasized that the gospel was written after Judas’ death. The authentication process was only intended to show the document is in fact an ancient manuscript.
It is strange that Tioran’s letter speaks so confidently of the books from the Orthodox canon, all of which were similarly authored decades after the death of Christ and many of which, from a historical perspective, are of disputed or unknown authorship. She mentions that “it was also witnessed by the other apostles that Judas hung himself … after he realized he had betrayed the Messiah.” Is it really witnessed as such? Matthew’s Gospel certainly relays this account, but where is this story “witnessed” in the other Gospels? The Book of Acts tells a completely different story, one in which Judas falls headlong into a field, his intestines spilling out at impact.
Then again, rhetoric like Tioran’s is not particularly strange at all on the back page of the DTH these days. Tioran is absolutely sure that the Gospel of Judas “has no truth in it,” but what she really means is that from her Christian perspective, the Gospel is not theologically significant. The fact that the message of this gospel does not corroborate Ms. Tioran’s personal religious opinion does not relegate its historical value to “entertainment” or “fantasy” status. The back page should be a place for substance and enlightened debate, not for cheap proselytism or religious testimony.
Ben Lundin
Junior
Religious Studies
Everyone, partisan or not, should vote in the primary
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing in response to the recent articles about primary voting in Orange County.
First, I would like to thank you for your information on early voting, you are providing a valuable service to the campus community. Secondly, I wish to clear up a misconception.
In both articles you mentioned that “to participate in the primaries, voters must be registered with a party.” This is not the case. The Orange County Board of Elections Web site states: “Unaffiliated voters may vote in Party Primary Elections by choosing one of the party ballots that is being voted on. Doing so will not change the voter’s party affiliation.”
Unaffiliated voters can vote in either the Democrat or Republican primary — they just have to choose one or the other, and not vote in both. Therefore, I hope to see all voters — Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated — at Morehead Planetarium starting today.
Jill Trufant
Secretary
Orange County Dem. Party
Turn to the printed media for accurate information
TO THE EDITOR:
Recently it struck me that this spring has been a very tumultuous time for the academic world here in the Triangle. What I mean is that we are facing shocking, controversial events in our local community which might cause us to re-evaluate our world view.
I am referring specifically to two events: the SUV attack in the Pit that some people have chosen to label as terrorism, and the charges being pursued against members of the Duke men’s lacrosse team.
We all have to be aware that the printed word is our most important source of information in this kind of situation. The national media can’t tell us what to think, because although these things are very important to us, they’re not that important to the rest of the country. And we can’t let rumors or secondhand information cloud our judgment, either, because our peers are bound to no standards of objectivity or truthfulness.
As bystanders, no one says that we have to hold an opinion on these matters. But if we want to hold an opinion, then we have a responsibility to be reliably informed. And the most reliable source we have for information is not our peers, or our teachers, or television, or the Internet, but the printed press. There’s a reason the right to a free press is listed specifically in the Bill of Rights — this is the reason.
Tyler Boyd
Junior
Psychology
Cartoon wasn’t sensitive in lynching comparison
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing in response to the publication of the April 20 editorial cartoon that likened the recent Duke lacrosse rape case to the numerous lynchings that occurred in the New South, 1880-1920.
Such a comparison was done in poor taste and was a gross historical misrepresentation. Blacks were lynched based on false accusations of rape without any judicial due process and had no opportunity to refute these claims legally.
The two lacrosse players have the exceptional ability and access to both legal representation and due process under the law. Contrary to the cartoon’s implications, the players have not been strung up, killed, burnt alive, castrated, mutilated or made into souvenirs by the media or black community.
Before making such comparisons in the future, I highly recommend that you consult the numerous scholarship on lynching, a general textbook, a historian or an individual who has been directly affected by lynching.
Hilary Green
Graduate student
History
Predecessor: Brewer will make good BOE chairman
TO THE EDITOR:
I am writing to express my support for Jim Brewer as Board of Elections chairman.
I know him to be judicious with his decisions and fair with punitive actions. His hard work has been displayed in our organization of the many polling places during the previous election and will continue to be prevalent in his movement to replace faulty elections software. Jim is not only the right man for the job but also the best man for the job.
Nicholas Mosley
Junior
Economics, Political science