Forum editor is the ‘voice of evil’

Dear Editor:

I would like to start off by saying that when I read this article (“When I die, where will I go?”), I literally shook with anger, resentment and most of all, hurt. Steve, if you are unappreciative of those who preach morality to you, I feel that the absolute least hypocritical thing to do would be not to preach immorality in return. I have gathered from your column the highest degree of ignorance, emotional laziness and evil I have ever witnessed in what is supposed to be a forum of information and education for the population of Kent State University.

We as a people and university should be dedicated to assisting our friends and peers to eliminate the impending intention of sin, and stop advocating those behaviors that are harmful and potentially fatal.

The president of the school should be informed.

True, life is short. Too short to glorify such a repulsive goal as placement in Hell being eternally tortured by all of your deepest, darkest, most disgusting and horrifying fears. I hope that your worship of indulgence and earthly pleasures get you exactly where you want to be – eternally watching your mother get raped and murdered, eternally getting your most beloved possessions stolen and destroyed, eternally getting your throat slit into a bloody mess, to then have your freshly spilled blood burned by an unimaginably hot fire. Yes, Hell must be a really fun party. Because you are an advocate of sin, you not only condone these things, but condone others doing these things.

Go ahead and steal, because hopefully you will feel the same “happiness” when someone steals from you. You are the voice of evil. I am sorry and scared for you. I see that the uniqueness and pursuit of true happiness of the human spirit has been sadly wasted on those so ungrateful of their only gift – life – as to accept eternal burning for the selling of your soul to temptation.

I too am human. I too am a sinner. The difference between you and I, Steve, is that you are hopeless.

Ashley Nordin

Sophomore journalism major

Intelligent design is not science by definition

Dear Editor:

It is clear that the editorial board does not know anything about science nor education. The definition of science is the observance of the natural world. Intelligent design promotes something that is outside of the natural world, and is therefore, by definition, not science. It is not testable or falsifiable, so it has no place in a science classroom. Science does not say that there is no god, it can’t. There are limitations to science, and one of them is that it does not deal with the supernatural. We are limited to only the evidence we can collect. Intelligent design doesn’t even qualify as a theory, as much as its proponents would like to label it as such. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested repeatedly and accepted. Evolution is not a debate in science. It is only a political debate, and not an intelligent one at that. If you look up the scientists that have backed intelligent design, you’ll find that there are very few biologists and geologists on this list. That is because these are the scientists who are studying this topic. They have seen the evidence. And the more evidence that they gather, the more strengthened evolution becomes. 

It is sad that people that are not scientists nor educators feel that they understand enough about this subject to actually publish articles for mass consumption. Really, as journalists, you should be ashamed of yourselves for publishing an article about a topic that you know very little about. Next time, you should do more research. 

Tammy Chabria 

Columbus, Ohio