comments on the columns:

Hey, Ben, I read your first column when it first came out. My name is
Josh Barsch, and I was the editor-in-chief of the Arrow last year. I
live in Kansas City now.

I thought the column was great, probably because we seem to have exactly
the same beliefs about religion, but also because you wrote it well. I
also saw the letter to the editor from the dumb shit complaining about
it. People like him just blow your mind, don't they? I bet people like
him taste even better to the coffin maggots than regular folks.

Anyway, keep up your work. I hope Speight hires you. If she does,
they'll finally have one columnist that's worth reading.

Take care,
Josh

Dear Stallio or whatever name you wish, Stallio is quite a fine name, I
might add,
I have actually been thinking about commenting on your column right after
I first read it.  What is amusing about it is that those who are offended
by it are exactly what you describe.  Closed-minded to different ideas on
other things, because of what their already set-forth religion describes.
People that were offended by your column, deserved to be offended.  It
was their own damned fault.  They saw something of what they were doing
in what you were saying, and they probably didn't like it, so they
backlashed at you.
I am not much of a person for organized religion to say the least.  I
think that since we are all individuals, then perhaps a relgion that is
meant for the masses isn't really going to do us much good.  I would love
to see everyone go out and figure out their own philosophy on relgion
instead of just swallowing the information that churches around them
present.  And that information, I might add, changes all of the time,
which kind of makes me think that religion is more of "society"
worshipping than "god" worshipping.  It seems like the doctirnes of such
organized religions change as often as hair-styles.
I also agree with the fact that, although I choose not to believe an
organized relgion, that I do not down others who do.  I realize that we
all come from different view points and that, if they are happy with
their dcision and remain happy with it, then I am glad that they have
found that.  I just cannot do that personally, and I am glad to see that
there are others who can't either.  Its good to talk to other fellow
non-believers and perhaps listen to their veiwpoints as well, because I
hear alot from religious organizations, but not from non-religious
religious organizations and it is good to hear you publically talk about
it and explain it a bit to those people who attack the first person they
see with pamphlets about how you are going to hell.  Well, thank you very
much, and I would be interested in hearing about other opinions you might
have on the subject.
Sincerely,
Janet

thanks very much for commenting on the column.  you're only the second
person to respond from the page, so i'm appreciative of anything i get
to add something to the response page.  someday i'd like to have actual
discussion of the columns there, but i suppose CONF ERROR is a better
place than my web page for that.

although i'd love to see the day when everyone tries to figure out their
philosophies instead of blindly clinging to others, i don't imagine it
could happen within my lifetime (just as i don't imagine a complete
anarchist utopia springing up any time soon).  the problem is too many
people are followers, and if they don't have someone to lead them, they
become lost.  it'd be all right if i and others like me (maybe you)
could be their leaders into discovering themselves, but that's an
impossible task.  how could we lead everyone into becoming what they're
not?

what i found most ironic about how my column appeared in the arrow was
the headline they'd attached to it.  "find your own path to god, but you
must have faith to survive" effectively reversed the audience.  all the
people who would be offended by it decided to read it because the
headline was pro-god.  at the same time, the people who would have
wanted to read it if they'd known what it was about probably got
turned off the sickeningly pro-god tone of the headline.

I must say that at first I was indeed a bit apprehensive towards reading
your column, because the title was rather frightening.  I do always try to
read "the other" pro-god side, just so I am not so closed minded, but I was
relieved after reading what you had to say.  That title was very misleading.

I try to get people to think about their beliefs quite often, but the only
ones who really listen to what I have to say are already agnostics or
atheists and they don't really need to listen to me, because they know what
I am saying anyway.

I would be a hypocrite if I said that those people were entirely "wrong" in
their beliefs.  I believe that if it does work out for them, great, but they
should not blindly follow.  They should listen to all types of veiwpoints.
I sure as hell have to listen to them alot.  And I do listen.  I listen,
think about it, but then realize that religion for the masses is not for me.
The probalem with religion that I have come across is that many are not
willing to truly question their faith.  They may "question" it, but then
come up with a stupid answer that comes directly from their interpretation
of the bible (Now I am just talking about christians, since I have had the
most experience with them) and then go along their merry way without worry
about what they are actually doing.  Sometimes I admire them in the fact
that they can be ignorantly happy.  Hell, I wish that I could be ignorantly
happy.  That would be true bliss.  Sometimes I think that christians want to
recreate the ignorance of their fable about Adam and Eve.  They don't want
people to think or gain knowledge, because they think that then they will do
bad.  I think people do "bad" (or at least in society's eyes), because they
do not have all of the information.  Its like in my psychology class, we
were talking about the different types of parenting skills.  There is
authoritative, and then authoritative Democratic.  In authoritative
parenting, the parents just yell at a kid when he does "bad" and don't ever
explain why it is "bad".  Of course then the kid does it behind his parents
back, because he doesn't really see the point in it.  In authoritative
democratic, the kid gets told WHY his actions were "bad".  I think that
Christianity is rather just plain ole authoritative.  Things are "bad"
because they are.  Do this, because the bible says so.  Its really pretty
ignorant.
Well, enough of my bitching.  I would love to hear some more of your ideas
on this subject....
Sincerely,
Janet

the problem i see is that the majority of organized religions have their
own almost-arbitrary but rigidly-set moral codes.  these codes truly
hamper their followers' ability to truly become what they could.  things
are decreed as "bad" (things like drugs, sex out of marriage,
contraceptives, whatever) and these decrees sometimes ruin lives.

there's a great sketch in the beginning of monty python's "meaning of
life" where a catholic couple have had so many children (they can't use
condoms, so every time they have sex they bear a child) that they need
to sell them all for medical experiments.

the sketch was just a joke, of course, but it's great example of people
letting their religion control their lives.

I have a Catholic friend who was telling me about his sexual relations with
his girlfriend.  He said that he was not using a condom and I asked him,
"Are you an idiot?"  He explained that it was against the Church's doctrine.
Of course, I then had to ask, "Does the Church support premarital sex?"
And, of course, the answer was no. That just seems so ridiculous to me for
him to obey one thing, but not another, especially when it would be much
better if he did disobey the "no contraception" rule.
I hate it when people do not think for themselves on subjects as serious as
spirituality.  They just follow exactly what they are taught.  Never
questioning any of it.  Although I do not agree with Chrisitianity, I have
respect for those who did TRULY question it, and then came back to it.  I
have yet to meet a person who asks the right questions and also finds their
information other than with circular reasoning by going back and getting
their information from "the bible" (I do not feel the need for
capitalization).
I haven't seen that Monty Python sketch, but I will sure try to. I have been
meaning to see the "Meaning of Life", so perhaps I will rent that soon.
By the way, I somehow beleive that we are in the same American Lit class.
Do you happen to have turquoise and black hair?  I think that is you, but I
am not sure.  Well, "hi".  If you do have that class with me, isn't our prof
a bit on the amusing side?  I always feel like I am in some southern baptist
sermon or something.  Although that particular fact is somewhat disturbing,
I am glad to see that he is more open-minded than most baptists.
In Ending,
Janet

i was born & raised catholic, but fell out of it in high school.  i
don't actually know many practicing catholics my age any more.  they've
all lapsed.  i'm not sure if that's more of a statement on the
catholic church or the people i associate with.

yeah, that's me in the class.  i realized for sure who you were today,
but didn't say anything.  i was going to try to be sly and pop off some
info about you before you could figure out who you were talking to.
i guess that's shot

do you really think apathy is in?  i don't.  among the peoepl i know here
who are cool at all (i mean i'm basically leaving out a lot of the iu scum)
i think there's a growing desire to see something happen, even if it's
something that's happening for on reason, or for no good reason.  peoepl
organize protests, write letters to corporations that piss them off, yell
and scream if there's no salt.  which is more fun if you ask me.  i mean,
for god's sake don't GO to the inauguration... sack it or burn it to teh
ground!

just a comment (i'm dying to be on your web page...)

while i admit that there are still enthusiastic people out there,
i don't think they're even close to the majority.  by now,
americans (especially young americans) have been so inundated with
world crises that they've become jaded.  remember the 4 horsemen?
war, famine, pestilence, and death.  you'll find all of them
on any daily or weekly national news broadcast.    

in response to this daily onslaught of trauma, i believe many
americans have begun defending their psyches the only way they
can: they don't let it get to them.  they don't let themselves
care.

there are tons of "causes" in our society, and i think the sheer
number of them is one of the reasons apathy has swept the nation.

   
I think Column five is your best so far (although coming from me, who is
not a big fan of the column, that doesn't say much.  I hope it gets
published next week.  It makes an important point, and is more important
than those letters to the editor.  I also agree that CONF ERROR is a
better place for discussion than the webpage.

MIKE SNELLER

yes, conf error is a better place for discussing the columns, but only
for people who have SEMO email codes and use MUSIC.  i have the comment
page for people (like josh barsh or paul goyette) who don't have those
codes (i guess also for people who use eudora).

stAl!:

Forgive my drunkeness.  I got da' Seagram's 7 goin' on!

Anyway....I went to the inaug. and I was certainly skeptical of the
whole damned thing.  I think that I went, BECAUSE Angelou wasn't
coming.  The whole "let's pack fifty goddamned celebrities so that we
can look almighty and goddamned impressive" attittude is the very ill of
it.  Since the "ill" was cut out, I saw no problem with it.

So I went, and it was somewhat interesting.  Got to hear Kala blathering
in her usual somewhat drunk sounding voice.  That rocked!--not really.
(Is that the former president you were referring to? Or was Atchley a
drunk too?)  Anyway.  I went ther ena d the only thing that I found that
was really fruitful was the program.

Now granted they spent like a hundred goddamned dollars on each program,
but I'll leave that alone at this moment.  The program WAS kinda;
informative.  You got to learn above Academic Regalia and some of the
traditions behind the cap, gown, and "sash" that university types wear
to these things.  That was pretty neat.  As for the rest--boring!

Now did I WANT it to be anything more than boring--that IS the
question.  For it to be anything more than boring, we'd have to have
Cosby up there crackin' jokes or something, instead of Kala going, "And
thwis time ish a great thime fur tha Univershitwee." in her drunken
voice.

See, I didn't want Angelou and Cosby and all those mutha' fucka's comin'
in here like they're "all that", carrying away the show.  No way, man!
If I was goin' to go, I wanted it to be ceremonious (read: boring and
stiff)  and proper (read: not all flashy and shit).  The original was to
be neither, but the augmented version was both, and that's where it's
at!

So, to bring all of this to a point, this inauguration was WORTH
attending, BECAUSE Angelou cancelled.  This allowed the ceremony to
return to its natural, un"superfly, TNT, guns-of-the-Navarone" self.
And that's what I wanted, and expected, from the university.  (Instead
of the dynamite, high-power, celebrity crap.)  'Cause frankly, that's a
waste of resources and an unnecessary boost to Pres. N. ego.

That's what I think about it.

if you'd like to add a comment, click here.