Wildcat: don’t cast the first stone
I’m tired of the Daily Wildcat being overly critical of student organizations. They do the best they can with what they have in order to add life to the university. The Wildcat should be forgiving of “”sloppiness,”” especially after their own mistake in printing a racist cartoon. Talk about organizational issues.

Adam Back
pre-education sophomore

LDS not only opponents to Prop 102
I’m writing in response to Taylor Kessinger’s column “”Mormonism the next threat to traditional marriage”” (Nov. 24, 2008). I was appalled by the very incorrect and ignorant attack against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I have a hard time understanding why the LDS church is being attacked for its support of Proposition 102 when the percentages of LDS members in Arizona and California are quite small. According to a 2008 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, only 4 percent of Arizona’s population are LDS members, and in California it is even less with 2 percent of the population. Obviously, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are not the only Christians taking a stand against gay marriage.

The reference to polygamy in the church is very incorrect as well. The church did practice polygamy for about the first 50 years of its establishment, but ceased the practice in 1890. In the church today, a member practicing polygamy will be excommunicated. Why are LDS members being persecuted today for something that happened over 100 years ago? And what is a “”Mormon marriage””? I have been in the church my whole life and I don’t know what that is. If he is referring to a temple marriage, then I may understand since LDS members do choose to be married in the temple much like a Catholic may choose to be married in a cathedral. In case you didn’t know, LDS members are Christians; Jesus Christ is our savior. If he wasn’t, maybe our church would be named “”The Mormon Church,”” as many people mistakenly call us, instead of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If you are going to write such a rude and offensive column, at least have your facts straight.

Sara Bingham
pre-education junior

Mormons exercised ‘democratic right’
In the past six-and-a-half years I have been at the UA, I have never written in but I feel that I must try to address some of the false information that is going around, leading to things such as Taylor Kessinger’s column (“”Mormonism the next threat to traditional marriage,”” Nov. 24 2008). Kessinger, you appear to be upset at the involvement of the Church of Latter-Day Saints in the passing of the propositions in California, Arizona and Florida. However, to blame one religion for the passing of these propositions is foolish. First of all, the Latter-day Saints were not involved in Proposition 8 in California until June, when Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento, asked the church to join in a coalition that already involved various people including Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, etc. In fact, the Latter-day Saints were among the last to join.

That church members decided to contribute money of their own accord does not mean they “”bought”” the election. Yes, the church asked members to get involved if, after thinking and studying the subject, they felt that they could. Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did get involved, like several other churches, and exercised their democratic right. The church did not support a candidate or a party, just a moral cause. And yes several members of the church – not all -ÿdid vote yes on these propositions. They exercised their legal right to vote, as I hope you, Kessinger, also did.

I also hope that you might take time to look around and realize that people who belong to this religion are everywhere. They may be your friends, neighbors, classmates or work buddies. You might feel upset at them, and I can sympathize with you wanting to focus your anger and frustration on a “”bad guy;”” however, these aren’t crazy lunatics but people that you know who demonstrated their democratic right. I hope one day you can look past the fact that you don’t agree with them on this subject and come to know them as the individual people they are.

Shana Thompson
physics accounting assistant

Letter not meant to offend cartoonist
In response to B. Mitchell Gingras’ letter (“”Correspondent missed point of comic strip””, Nov. 25, 2008), I’d like to apologize for causing any confusion. My previous letter to the Wildcat was completely sarcastic, and on several levels. For instance, I really did mean that it would be ridiculous for anyone to write in to the Wildcat about Gingras’ cartoon – even though I was writing in to the Wildcat, doing the very action which I was criticizing. I intended my letter to demonstrate the absurdity of responding outrageously to a cartoon. I personally appreciated the Dibbs cartoon portraying Gov. Sarah Palin being chased by a helicopter; I laughed out loud when I read it. I thought it was very clever.

I wrote my letter to show in a satirical what so many students have said plainly in their letters: that comics are simply comics. To read into them anything more than that is silly and a waste of everyone’s time. Gingras, I hope you continue writing witty stuff. I promise I won’t write in about any more of it.

Michael A. Schaffner
systems engineering freshman