Volume VII, Issue 5

The Gadfly “To persuade and reproach” - Socrates, The Apology

Vol. VII, Iss. V November 13, 2007

Unholy Hyperbole The exuberance of youth often causes us to indulge in slight exaggerations. It’s a pastime we all engage in, and I can say for myself that for years I have found it to be true that at times there is nothing more fun than good hyperbole. But one thing I never expected was the way I would begin to speak once I got to college. Suddenly, when faced with any number of mundane questions (“How was your weekend?” “What’d you think of the movie?” “How was your dentist’s appointment?”) I found myself giving the answer: “It was awesome!”

One of two conclusions can be drawn from this: (1) my entry into college coincided with a cosmic augmentation of all things, shifting what once was good or surprising to awesome, sweet, ridiculous, incredible, etc. or (2) somehow entering into

college caused me to perceive everything as being qualitatively more extreme – or at least to express it as being that way. After giving it much thought, I’m going to proceed on the assumption that the latter is the case.

What in the world caused this?

How this sudden leap from real, normal descriptions of the world I perceived to ones that are on the very extremity of reality? Or perhaps a better question: why this leap?

It seems that for the most part it is a harmless effort at making myself seem more amiable. A positive outlook makes a person more approachable, and a humorously positive – or at times negative – outlook can even make people want to be around a person. But more and more I find myself exaggerating unconsciously, and that’s something that bothers me.

If you’ve ever known someone who has a penchant for exaggerating the truth, you can understand why I’m bothered: every post office line is three miles long, every traffic light lasts forty-five minutes, every comedian is the funniest man alive, and every fish is – you know – and I don’t want to be that guy.

An intentional exaggeration is funny or pointed, but one that occurs unconsciously is an entirely different beast. When we exaggerate intentionally, it is to point out a truth that is perhaps not so readily apparent or to state the obvious thing in a funny or charming way. But when we exaggerate unintentionally, we lose our grip on truth, throw away a little bit of our reality. We agree to trade a little truth for a better story.

Continued on page 7

The Sleeping Horse: Households A Recap of the Semester At the beginning of this semester, I felt I needed to engage in battle with a fearsome foe: apathetic households. I must say my worthy adversary kicked my butt so thoroughly that once I was almost dead, my rival quartered me and fed me to the birds.

The battles were supposed to alert households to the fact that they are slumbering off into complacency and they are letting themselves down; they could be so much more. My plan of attack was to challenge households about problems I have observed amongst their ranks, hopefully with the result that they would send out their best champions and engage in verbal battle.

This was not the case, and I had to defeat only a Goliath here and an Ajax there: No challenger reared his face at the battlefield some call “Households Have Too Much Power” and I threw my arms up in defeat and victory. Victory because I wanted to believe my wit and intelligent arguments were too intimidating for any combatant to appear before me, but defeat because I realized that it was probably the complete opposite: I was so feeble a challenger that no one took me seriously and decided I wasn’t a threat to the good of their society and just left me ranting to myself on the battlefield. My purpose was in vain: households didn’t think they had a

problem and decided not to take the challenge.

As I turned to leave and make plans to wage a battle on a different front, a noble philosopher presented his side. This philosopher thought that households don’t have too much power and my example of households ousting other residents from their wing was just a matter of demeanor. He claimed that no households should have the power to kick someone off wing, but non-household students should be moved by Christian impulse and oblige the household.

Although I don’t agree, I at least had something to disagree with and made note of this righteous philosopher and his courage in at least addressing a challenge.

I turned to go again, realizing the time for response to my challenge had long passed when came along a stout knight. He affronted me with his own version of a witty verse, and although not amused I listened on. He was steadfast in his opinion that households should have more power and that they should expand their kingdom. Plucked up by this competition, I raised my sword and entered into the diatribe.

The knight went on, staking his reputation on his illustrious rank as knight of the Blessed Virgin and saying that households should not have to lose any member on their wing to a non-household affiliated student. Knocked over by that audacious blow I fought from my knees while he went on: households should be able to

be noisy because, first of all, they aren’t the only noisy group of students and furthermore, all students should foster the ability to sleep anytime, anywhere. He finished by saying that households build character better than anything else on campus. I could not take it anymore, and rebounded from my lowly posture. Up and to the attack I claimed these to be lies. I think character is built on discipline and hard work, and being noisy late at night is the opposite of building character. It shows a lack of discipline to get to sleep by a decent hour, a disregard for dormitory rules, and probably a good indication of not using one’s time well. Disciplining oneself to go to bed early so one can get up and be awake for the next day’s activities (Mass, class, study) builds a lot of character.

Studying for tests (even if one doesn’t remember them, as the knight claimed) builds character. The outcome of this battle was not decided, but I stand firm in my victory that if the argument for more household power is that households build character, then be defeated I say to you, for a house divided against itself cannot stand, and a group of people that engage in activities that do not promote the edification of character cannot build character.

Continued on page 6

Page 2

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR One of our main goals is to offer a forum for public discussion. In order to further this goal, we would ask that all letters to the editor be kept to a maximum of 500 words. Thanks for your support and submissions and keep writing! ~Editorial Staff

Staff: Ubiquitous Bubble-Burster:

An Open Letter to the Administration, Residence Life Staff and Campus Security of Franciscan University of Steuben-

Mike Andreola (MA) Brian D’Amico (BD) Emily Davis (ED) Gary Klump (GK) Jamie Kropka (JK) Mad Scientist Correspondent: Callie Langworthy (CL) John Mario Levri (JML) Andy Moe (AM) The Goodkind Gnostic: Michael C. Pezzulo (MCP) Hannah Starre (HS) High Inquisitor: Mark Schreck (MS) Dan Tysz (DT) Business Manager: Sarah Bartley (SB) Layout Editor: Manuel Garcia (MG) Editor in Chief: Cate Shultis (CS)

** Please note that the views held in the articles do not necessarily express the views of the whole staff.

Interested in joining our staff?

Email us at notestothegadfly@gmail.com

~Mission Statement~ The Gadfly is an attempt to “bite the sleeping horse” in the spirit of Socrates. It is a student publication whose purpose is to facilitate discussion concerning campus and cultural issues as they pertain to students of Franciscan University.

It aims to be a forum for open, well-thought out, and honest discussion towards the end of knowing and loving truth in its most robust sense.

Advisor: Dr. John White Advisor Extraordinaire

Is there a premium to be placed on the security of our young people? A young man and student at Franciscan University of Steubenville [The University], an institution based around Christian values, prays that there is not. It is offensive when our University family is made to feel anxious and those in power to alleviate this insecurity neglect their responsibility thereof. The University has a moral obligation to defend its students, faculty and staff from assault and harassment.

I am referring to the incidents occurring at the women’s dorm at Padua Hall, a residence of Lower Campus for older and non-traditional students. Recently there have been a number of unpleasant confrontations between the women of Padua and impolite and raucous men who are obviously intoxicated. Padua Hall has occupancy of thirtythree women who live within 100 yards of a sports bar, “Damon’s Grill.” This is a prime opportunity for intoxicated persons to exit the bar and approach the Dormitory which is surrounded by a six-foot-high aluminum fence, and a gate which can be easily pried open by sheer leverage. I have witnessed the prying open this of gate and scaling of this barrier in efforts to demonstrate the facility by which it could be circumvented as a security measure.

The visual façade of security is not enough to protect our young women from harassment and insecurity. To this end, a security officer has been provided the dorms of Lower Campus and cars routinely (if relatively infrequently) patrol. However, the security officer is only tasked from late evening until early morning, and the only “Blue Light” tower is outside the gates; in order to activate it, a resident must leave the gated area. As often happens, individuals or groups approach Padua before the security officer is detailed, and harass the residents. It is unreasonable to expect that a security officer be established at Padua all-day, every day, but surely that an officer be present from when the bar is highly patronized until well after its closing is not irrational.

These women have earned the right to that safety by the virtue of their conception and birth as they maintain the dignity of the

human person so rightfully upheld by our Church and this University. This is not to mention, of course, the monies which have been paid to The University for housing ($3,600 per annum), with the understanding that the housing would be adequate, comfortable and safe. I ask again, is there a higher price to pay for safety? Tell us and we shall pay it. Despite this necessity and reasonable expectation, the women of Padua have been approached, propositioned, insulted, gestured at, physically threatened, and on at least one occasion lewdly exposed to. Because of this, women from Padua, along with men from Lower Campus took it upon themselves to finance and erect a visually-inhibiting barrier to protect, at least, the privacy of the women. However, recently some men aggressively approached the fence, did attacked a bicycle chained to that fence, and climbed on the fence, though not going entirely over it.

Campus Security, the police and representatives of Residence Life arrived promptly, but no amount of reaction can supplant prevention.

Because of this demonstration, I must conclude that the Administration and Security departments are ignorant of the situation's extent, or are far too slow in responding.

Whether it be the establishment of a Campus Security office at Padua, the relocation of the women, or the establishment of greater physical security at Padua, something must be done; The University must respond to the egregious and reprehensible incidents and serious lack of security which our sisters face.

It is because of this therefore that I, and hopefully the student body en masse, respectfully, but urgently call for immediate action on behalf of the administration to resolve the growing concerns regarding the safety of the Padua residents..

I regret that circumstances have forced my hand into such frank discourse, and it is my hope that my candor will not be interpreted as an attack or as a display of disrespect, but merely read with the sense of urgency which is so apparent. It is in this hope that I remain, respectfully yours in Christ, Brandon M. Belinsky

Page 3

St. Paul, patron saint of journalists and newspaper staffs, pray for us.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR There is a problem with the liturgy at Franciscan University. But for most students, simple acceptance of the Chapel liturgies is the status quo. No one will deny that the students here have an overwhelming desire to worship how God wants them to. So the question becomes: are they fulfilling that desire here on campus?

If the answer is no, then clearly there must be reform.

What is liturgy?

So many of us have been taught that the word “liturgy” means “the work of the people.” The CCC, however, says that liturgy “the participation of the People of God in ‘the work of God.’” Liturgy is not something that we do for God, but rather something that He does for us and through us. We have a solemn obligation to make manifest through our actions this “work of God.” How can we possibly know the proper way in which to worship? Joseph Ratzinger, in The Spirit of the Liturgy, provides the answer: “Man himself cannot simply ‘make’ worship.... Real liturgy implies that God responds and reveals how we can worship him.”

Liturgy is revealed through the Church and develops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so only in adhering closely to the Church’s directives on liturgy may we properly worship.

Active Participation “Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy,” says Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Vatican II liturgical document. This often misinterpreted phrase is at the heart of what drives the liturgy at Franciscan and elsewhere. The proper understanding of this phrase is key to getting at the heart of liturgy.

Joseph Ratzinger, while speaking of active participation, says, “The uniqueness of the Eucharistic liturgy lies precisely in the fact that God himself is acting and that we are drawn into that action of God. Everything else is, therefore, secondary.” External actions, while they have their place, are not the substance of active participation.

As the exemplar of active participation, one may turn to Mary. Fr. Calvin Goodwin, FSSP said the following in a homily: “And what is it that Our Lady does there, at the foot of the Cross? Nothing in fact that mortal eyes can perceive... And yet no human being ever was or ever could be more fully or more intimately involved in that Sacrifice than she was at that moment, because her heart and soul and being were united to her Son and to what He

was doing for us all.”

The core of active participation lies in attuning our hearts and minds to the sacred realities being made real in the Eucharist.

What results when we forget this principle is a liturgy turned in on itself, more concerned with the emotional satisfaction of the congregation than with the true worship of the True God.

Be Cool and Visit our Advertisers

Advertise with us!

Music Music is the most glaring problem with liturgies at Franciscan. The style is overwhelmingly praise-and-worship style rock music. One problem is the music for the ordinary often does not contain the exact text of Roman Missal. The Church does not ask for different or additional prayers to be inserted in the mass. In fact, She forbids it!

“No other person [other than the Apostolic See], even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority,” says Sacrosanctum Concilium.

Failing to be faithful to the text is a serious liturgical abuse Beyond this, praise-and-worship music is not even fitting to the character of the Roman Rite. In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI states “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another. Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided.” Praise-andworship music is nothing more than religious sentiment and reworded Scripture set to secular pop and rock music. It constitutes a break in the Church’s musical tradition, and is an unfitting genre for use in the mass. The Church even provides an alternative: Gregorian Chant, which the GIRM says holds “pride of place.” Ask yourself if that is the case at Franciscan.

Franciscan is a college famous for it’s orthodox teachings. Our liturgies, unfortunately, are rather infamous. If we are to become an orthodox Catholic college in every sense, we must have more orthodox liturgies. This means not only throwing off praise music, but also introducing things traditional to the Roman Rite. Above all, it means a congregation inwardly uniting themselves to the action of the mass instead of outwardly making a spectacle of themselves.

We must work together for the common purpose of beautiful, reverent, and meaningful liturgy.

Vincent J. DeVendra

Letters to the Editor: “Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy” continued on p. 7

Students with:

•personal businesses/ads •household functions •clubs •sports •school organizations email for more info: sarahmichelle43@hotmail.com

Professor Quote of the Week:

“This sounds like one of those girlanalyses that has no relation to real boythought” -Dr. Lewis, in response to a student’s explanation that little boys either tease or ignore girls they like on the playground

Page 4

QUO VADIS? WANTED: SIESTA Spain’s greatest gift to culture is the siesta,” said Valle, solemnly. Then he added, “Of course, we’re all too busy to actually take siestas these days… but it is still the greatest part of our culture.”

Somehow, that discourse struck me as ironic. If the siesta is so great, what could possibly come in between a man and his siesta? Just being busy? Is that really an answer? Why are we so busy?

I decided to seek out the root of our business, first attempting to ascertain where it all begins. Is it in high school?

Certainly there is an immense pressure to do. Guidance counselors wax eloquent about transcripts and college admissions, blah, blah, blah… I remember several high school chums who had a club or honorssociety meeting every day of the week, often followed by sports team practice, all of which was followed by returning home to sludge through stacks of homework from AP classes. These friends have excellent study habits. They are also incapable of being alone and of taking vacation. They never take siestas.

But it seems like this push to always do starts even earlier. Case in point: Lucía, the four-year-old to whom I give English lessons. Now, when I was four years old, the vast majority of my time was spent conspiring with the other neighborhood urchins and frolicking in the backyard.

I was in preschool, but I’m pretty sure that was just glorified day-care. However, Lucía has school all day, followed by English class, swimming or tennis.

her book about hermitage, Poustinia. She writes about how when people enter the hermitage, they often feel like they’re not doing enough, although they are following the traditional pattern of the monastic life, which is centered on work and prayer. Even though their days are spent in the most important activity that one can do, developing their being and orienting it more perfectly towards God, they feel as though they are not doing enough.

And I just can’t help but wonder – why? She definitely does not cherish our lessons, and I can’t really imagine she enjoys the other activities much more, since she is worn out from school by that point in the day. So why make her do so much? Yes, she will probably grow up to be bilingual, athletic, and very good at keeping a schedule, but will that contribute to her ultimate happiness?

However, learning how to be is, in fact, the fundamental task set before every human person. Because it doesn’t matter what medical advances we make to prolong life if the life we are prolonging is not worth living.

It seems like we are all so concerned with being talented, successful, and, above all, busy, that we may be forgetting how to be human. Catherine Doherty addresses this tendency towards business in

So cut out some of those activities! Go nuts, have fun, and relax. And I would love to write more on this theme, but unfortunately I’m really busy today, and I don’t have any time to waste…

~ED

Outside the Bubble: Let’s Talk About The Weather

Caragabal, Australia- In the 1950s, the remote, arid, eastern Australian town of Caragabal boasted a population of 500.

Today, that number has dwindled to 38.

Once the two-year supply of water in the town dam dried up, the future of the town was cemented. Downtown today consists of a post office, a pub (closed), and a farmsupplies shop started by Andrew Trotter when a (inaccurate) forecast was made for rain this year. The drought has had devastating effects across the continent. In a single year ending last June, the average farm cash income in Australia dropped 70%. The farm-supplies shop’s manager, Larry McDonald, offers this advice, “Go and have a bloody game of bowls. At least

it will take it (the drought) off your mind for awhile.”

Tabasco, Mexico- After days of rain, seven rivers breached their banks last Thursday, Oct. 25, rushing into the low-lying plains of the southern state of Tabasco. Refugees fled to neighboring Veracruz but thousands more were trapped in six and a half feet of water. Only one confirmed death was reported as the search continued last weekend.

The destruction of crops is valued at a $480 million loss. With close to 80% of Tabasco under water, officials have called the flooding the “worst natural disaster in decades.”

President Calderon confirmed that 7,500 local law-enforcement and military person-

nel were working to restore order after the outbreak of looting that followed Thursday’s events.

Bogotá, Colombia- The most powerful hailstorm in the recorded history of the capital wreaked more havoc last Sunday in a country already ravished by earlier flooding.

The hail was reported to be the size of a large coin. Emergency personnel fought the elements for several hours to rescue more people in 30 cars trapped in one intersection submerged in five feet of water and ice.

While 15 were treated at local hospitals for hypothermia, the rest escaped unscathed.

Miraculously, no lives were lost. ~BD

St. Pancras, protector from perjury, pray for us.

Page 5

Of Old Fashioned Courting or Modern Dating Ponder this conversation: Girl 1: Are you guys dating? Girl 2: Yeah, we’ve been dating for almost two years now. Girl 1: So are you considering marriage? Girl 2: No, are you kidding? There is no way I could ever marry this guy ...on a dating level we’re fine but I can’t see us actually together for life, he’s just not for me.

If the previous conversation is a typical idea of dating, then has the important process of seeking your life partner disintegrated to a casual relationship with no real purpose or goal in mind? If this is the definition of dating, then I’m not so sure if dating as a relationship status should even exist. Dating someone in our modern secular America has become terminology for romantic behavior free of mature decision making and responsible actions. It allows young people the liberty to go out with someone without having any future plans or real commitments, to feel like they belong to someone when they really don’t, to indulge in a romance that is passionately temporary. This creates inclinations to lose sight of the true purpose of dating and use the relationship as a way to satisfy your own

sexual desires. Not exactly the ideal plan for Catholic romance.

When it comes to actually developing romance in pursuit of marital goals, Catholic relationships can and should take the term dating to a whole new level. R o mance is worthwhile and certainly observed by many students here at Franciscan, yet it’s purposeful only if it probes the question: would I want to spend the rest of my life with this person? If it is a relationship that involves mature discernment, an openness to commitment, and a primary interest in the other person’s happiness above your own, then it’s a relationship worth pursuing through much thought and prayer and God’s grace. Most importantly, romance involves a preparation for marriage and a search your future marriage partner. Yet if this is dating, how can the previous definition of “a temporary commitment” also define dating?

Perhaps dating is an inadequate term altogether for serious relationships and maybe a better term could be employed here such as…. Courting! Ever consider courting? Courting may sound old fashioned, but the idea of courting is not outdated, at least

it shouldn’t be. Courting is defined as the relationship of a couple who is fairly serious about each other and who is considering important decisions about the future together. Courting invites maturity, discernment, commitment, and responsibility into a couple’s relationship, and its ideals are very Catholic. It’s really a term that defines everything modernized dating should be but isn’t. We have somewhat lost sight of this old fashioned sort of romance that the word courting invokes. But as ancient as it sounds, maybe courting should be considered again if mainly for the sake of its Catholic value and wholesome applications.

After all, as Catholics, we want wholesome dating experiences, don’t we? Not that you have to go around saying that you are courting so and so – the term dating is sufficient enough to convey your relationship status.

Just keep in mind what the words really mean. Which one you use doesn’t matter so much as the meaning you give to the term.

So what will it be: dating or courting?

~HS

THE GNOSTIC SPEAKS: Praise God and Pass the Nietzsche, Part III When we left off last issue, it was declared that the inimitable Herr Nietzsche, while having provided a column title, had for the second time escaped consideration. Well, let us say, direct consideration. If thinkers we like and agree with deserve respect (which was our principle concern last issue), then so do those we might not like or agree with.

Especially those with whom we might disagree with on fundamentals or have some inclination to prejudicially dismiss. This little gnostic agrees with his honors professor that Herr Nietzsche is one such example.

Already this writer hears the replies, “You’re as crazy as Nietzsche! That psycho deserves no respect. He actually said God was dead!” Well, he did say that. But the scholarly mind doesn’t stop there, but

goes on to ask, “Why in heaven and heck would anyone say such a thing?” Nietzsche said it because he looked around and found that the society of which he was a part (a modern western society of not so long ago or far away) had been founded on God. But this same society no longer had a place for God. It may have said it did, but to his eyes all it really had was people who wanted to clothe their own naked vanity in the mantle of God and Church. It seems people still do that today. For all its exclamatory venting, my last column did point out that we “dynamically orthodox” Franciscan U students can be easily tempted to do the same.

But the reply could be made, “Yeah, okay, point for you. But God is Life!

Just because people don’t listen to Him,

doesn’t make Him dead. He still speaks today in His Church” Of course God is not dead. I didn’t say we should believe Nietzsche, I suggested we think seriously about what he said. And granting that God speaks, do I always listen? Every time? And never do anything (i.e. commit any sin) that might make it harder to hear God’s voice?

Let him who has a conscience examine it.

“Granting the need for selfexamination, Nietzsche is still mad! And you just said God was ignored, but Nietzsche said God was Dead!” Indeed, he did say that. Specifically, Nietzsche claimed that we had killed God. God came once in the flesh and we killed him in the flesh.

Who is to say that he didn’t come again in a different way in our culture and that we Continued on page 6

Page 6

Gadfly Task Force on Medals Containing Slightly Questionable Trinitarian Theology Reports

Front: A dove with a flame above its heading, signifying the Holy Spirit.

“The Sleeping Horse...” continued from page 1

I decided next to assail a weak and tender spot among households: their stereotypes. No one in the entire kingdom came to fight. I was left to sit and wait and cry that no one in this great kingdom even cares to look into its problems. As I wept, a young maiden consoled me, saying she believed that household stereotypes exist and they in fact prevented her from joining one. This saddened me, but at least someone in the kingdom was alert to the Trojan “The Gnostic Speaks” continued from page 5

didn’t kill him there too? Although God does seem to have a habit of rising again, and Nietzsche seems to have missed that. (Let us hope Nietzsche can still find some mercy on the Day of Judgment.)

One can still reply, “Okay, fine. But the dude was crazy!” But if I really believe that God has come down to earth to meet the people of every age, and that the people of every age, myself included at times, have not ceased in their sometimes successful efforts to kill him-if I knew this to be so, without also knowing that despite this, God still reaches out to men (to me!) – I for my part hope that under those conditions I would be honest enough to join Nietzsche in madness.

“But what about philosophizing

Back: “Pray for us.”

horse in the walls. After I waited a while longer, a robust and courageous rogue knight of the line of the Prodigal Sons commended me saying that stereotypes against his households have kept the finest men from the premier line of knight errantry, and although they go on fighting and defying evil, it would be nice for more recruits not to be scared away from their order. After waiting but a fortnight, I decided it would be best to consider myself having failed my quest, ordained to me by God Himself: to with a hammer? And the way he kept trying to dismantle everything?” Certainly a thinker who believes that God upholds the world (whether or not the world cares about God is another matter) will have no interest in smashing things to get his own way. But the methodology of trying to see what is underneath things is still valid. Maybe underneath this thought or idea there is just pride or vanity. We shouldn’t assume that’s what is there, but we equally shouldn’t assume it is not there. Either way, an honest scholar will examine himself first and then strive to examine what he studies. Carpenters can use hammers as easily as thugs can, and use them to better advantage.

In a somewhat roundabout way I have now done what I set out to do. In my

challenge the kingdom of households to grow. The best and last thing I could think to do was to try to write my encounters and hope that someone will come upon them some day and see that there was a battle waged for the good, even if the good lost in the war in the end. Until the battle can be resumed, Godspeed and sally forth!

Peace and all good, as always, ~JML first column I set out what appeared to be the legitimate scholarly claim of theology to thorough rational engagement, and then set out the legitimate claim of the Church on scholars. I also examined scholars (by no means exclusively theologians) to show some of the temptations there might be to avoid or misconstrue those or other legitimate scholarly claims. And now I have shown what the tarnation Nietzsche had to do with any of this. Thus I have praised God (which is to say given him his due) and passed on what I learned from Nietzsche (giving him his due). From the heights of lofty abstraction, I shall ever remain knowingly yours, ~The Goodkind Gnostic

St. Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of universities, pray for us.

Page 7

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dear Makers of The Gadfly, and Dear All its Wonderful Readers, I’m writing to offer an opinion I think needs voicing on Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I hear all the time this concern that if we pull out of the Middle East as he would, we’d be nuked or something. I don’t think this is true. One reason I don’t think this is true is that half the Middle Eastern Islamic hatred of us stems from our supporting Israel. As much as people say 9/11 proved they will still attack us if we leave them alone, we have meddled in their politics for far longer than most of us imagine. If we pulled out of the Middle East altogether they might not be so concerned about us, especially considering the level of chaos and infighting among each other. They may sooner or later get their act together, but it is not necessarily crazy to think they will not manage to within eight years. I’m not saying there is no danger of our being attacked. I’m just saying that the danger, if lessened by us getting out of their faces, would be smaller than the already present disaster of government corruption Ron Paul fights.

On the other hand, I could make a case that we are in at least as much danger from corrupt politicians as from terrorists. Consider that abortionists and euthanasia activists claim that non-thinking humans are not persons and that many claim it is irrational to think religion is an objective matter. What is stopping them from putting those two together and euthanizing pesky

“Unholy Hyperbole” continued from page 1

It seems a trifling thing to be certain, but in a certain sense, isn’t it sort of a tragedy that as a culture (or a species?) we have become so loose and permissive in our language? Every once in a while I find myself at a loss for the right words to say to someone who is dear to me, not because I don’t know what words convey the right meaning, but because I realize I’ve used those same words to convey far lesser sentiments. Compare “I love this salad dressing!” to “I love you, Mom.” Or what about “These cookies are awesome!” and “My

faithful Christians en masse? Or consider that a number of Bush supporters claim enemy combatants who aren’t in uniform don’t get any legal protection, and the claim by many more that it is un-American to make members of a faith actually adhere to that faith’s rules. Logically if both of those became widely held by Federal politicians how many of us would instantly be without legal protection?

It sounds far-fetched, true. But so did widespread abortion when Roe vs. Wade happened. And so did a pro-abortion Republican as the one pushed for the Presidential candidacy. The liberals haven’t specifically stated that they want to kill Christianity, as the terrible terrorists have, but if their claims and actions in the legal field logically reach that conclusion should we consider it any less likely?

As a side note, Ron Paul is not strictly isolationist: he supported going after Bin Laden, and he supports trade and whatnot with other countries; like the founding fathers, his qualm is about political ties, which inevitably lead to entanglements. That, and he happens to believe the current war in Iraq is imprudent if not unjustified, a position that, even if you disagree with it, is not necessarily Leftist nonsense and doesn’t deserve to be automatically dismissed as such. His reasons for opposing the current war (and any other war not very clearly justified) are

God, You are awesome.” (I realize that both of my examples involve food – what can I say? I’m a college student!)

In a roundabout sort of way, excess can be profanity, can’t it? Maybe there are more subtle ways of taking the Lord’s name in vain than we usually conceive.

When we abuse our language so much that we can employ one word to describe a new cologne or perfume and the presence of our God in the tabernacle, we might want to begin to redefine certain terms.

Of course I’m not suggesting that I will never again indulge in an exaggera-

three that the Democrats are not using: 1The Constitution gives the Congress, not the President (never mind the delusional transfer of power in the “blank check” move), ability to declare war (Article 1, Section 8), 2- the shift in policy and thought from the Christian Just War Theory (how many politicians today will explicitly speak of that in the first place?) towards preemptive war, even if possibly justified as simply a larger application of “first strike capacity”, is rightfully disturbing (if for no other reason than that politicians will surely try to use it as a new precedent rather than a form of the old), and 3- the war and having our troops everywhere in the world is driving the national debt up like a space rocket and putting us in jeopardy of opening ourselves to danger simply by monetarily collapsing.

The Middle East is certainly dangerous, but, between the fact that it may be less dangerous should we leave it and the amount of danger there is here, Ron Paul’s intention of leaving there to deal with here just may not be as crazy as it sounds.

In Christ, Scott Santucci Student, would-be poet, thinker and disputer of political ideas

tion. They’re far too much fun and far too useful. I think many of the most memorable passages in literature are exaggerations of a truth or a plain state of affairs. But it does seem a good thing to avoid using language too idly. Maybe keep a few choice words in reserve for the things that are worthy of them; say what you mean and mean what you say.

That way, the next time you want to say that you love your salad dressing, it will know you mean it. ~AM

j|Çx? j|à? tÇw jtzzxÜç

~SB

Freshmen, Sophomores, Juniors, and Seniors: Join The Gadfly Today!

NOTESTOTHEGADFLY@GMAIL.COM