Letters to the EditorOct. 26, 2000
BU shouldn't assume 'role of God' in pregnancy policy
I have been attending Baylor University for a year and a half now. I faithfully read The Lariat ever yday, and every day I bite my tongue at some of the things that are said in this newspaper. However, I refuse to sit back any longer and watch some of the self righteous students at this school get away with their one-sided opinions. One of the major problems in this day and age is that people are constantly trying to put themselves on the same thinking plane as God. We are a Christian university, but this university in no way has the right to take on the role of God. Its ironic how this university will fund a building that will be used to explain God in a logical, scientific way but yet has the nerve to consider turning away a young, unmarried mother who is desperately trying to correct her mistake and get an education so that she and her baby can live a decent life. We are not in any way privileged to judge people for their actions or turn them away because they do not fit the 'Christian' mold that some people at this school have created. Becoming a Christian is becoming a servant.
We as Christians are supposed to be servants and set an example to others. We are the light of the world. However ,we cannot be who we should be if we do not encourage one another to pursue a relationship with God through Jesus.
How can you reject someone for making a mistake by becoming pregnant before marriage? Doesn't that violate the very idea of salvation? Didn't Jesus work through the most unlikely people to present His message to the masses?
We are commanded to love one another and not to turn each other away because of pregnancy or any other reason. Being Christ-like is opening your hearts to all people, no matter their circumstances.
Maybe we should ask ourselves: Are we fulfilling God's mission first and foremost or are we just concerned about fulfilling our own personal mission?
Lariat reporter Revekah Kim, in her Oct. 24 editorial, expressed her distress that Dr. Laura Schlessinger, national radio personality, licensed family counselor, author and full-time mother, commented negatively on a quote from her article on Baylor's pregnancy policy. The complete quote that Kim wrote in her Oct. 12 article and that Schlessinger read over the airwaves is as follows:
'There was a time when to be pregnant [out of marriage] would have been wrong,' Dr. Jimmy McCluskey, dean of student development and services, said. 'But with the changing of times and changing of culture, we have adjusted our policies accordingly.'
That, as a stand-alone quote, suggests that Baylor has compromised on their standards to join the rest of society in their lackadaisical view of right and wrong (though we now know that was not Kim's intention).
Schlessinger says that pregnancy outside of wedlock is wrong. This quote clearly suggests otherwise! I got the same impression when I read Kim's Oct. 12 article for the first time. Schlessinger wanted to alert her listeners to the fact that Baylor may be on the verge of losing the moral foundation that has kept it distinct from all other universities thus far. She was not attacking Baylor's pregnancy policy, Kim, McCluskey or the university. If nothing else, she was giving us a wake-up call!
Schlessinger's messages regarding morals and values parallel beautifully with any message on morals and values given from a pulpit on Sunday morning. She believes there is a right and a wrong and that we, as a society, have become too lax in our thinking and encourage behavior that is destructive to our country, our cities, our homes and ourselves. She has no patience for fools and no tolerance for moral compromise. Schlessinger is a woman who has armed herself to the teeth with a sense of honor and dignity that few Christians have the courage to wield!
John C. Forkner
Theater Arts '02
I would like to respond to Britta Spann's letter to the editor. Let me just say it was a refreshing breath of air . . . and completely off the mark. Heather Brown's letter was not written to support or criticize policy on unmarried pregnancies. It was written in response to Dr. Jimmy McCluskey's comment. She never once mentioned whether they should be expelled. Spann has the right idea that we should forgive and that 'sinners should be educated.' That was never an issue in the original letter to the editor. It was to comment that the view of unmarried pregnancies in a Christian standpoint should not change, merely because society dictates. So next time a letter to the editor is written, Spann needs to make sure she reads and understands it before she comments on it.
Music Education '04