In a column in the Sept. 7 edition of the Torch, the author addressed her personal beliefs on a billboard located on U.S. 131. The billboard reads, “You don’t need God to hope, to care, to love, to live.”
In many circumstances, religion has been a sensitive topic when acknowledging the different beliefs of others. By no means was either the author nor the Torch’s intention to offend the personal beliefs of anyone who read the column. Based on the response our readers have shown, there is a level of support toward both sides of the issue. The author is clearly not alone in her opinion on this topic.
A number of individuals who have read the billboard have viewed its message as offensive, truthful, false, or an example of freedom of speech.
Regardless of how you view its message, in its sincerest form, an opinion should be viewed as an individual belief and not a means of simply proving another wrong. The opinion of the author and the billboard itself should be used as a means to create dialogue between opposing viewpoints.
If we allow this purpose to get lost in personal emotions, we lose the opportunity to gain knowledge on our differences; rather one’s personal beliefs classify them as Christian, Catholic, atheist or agnostic. The response to both the author’s column and the billboard’s message has shown that there are a multitude of misconceptions regarding the purpose of faith.
I believe the most valid point the author made in her column was “There are people who live through their faith when they have nothing else…”
This is a statement that connects us all no matter which side we stand on in regard to this issue.
The future of this debate should not continue through attacking unfamiliar beliefs or convincing another that their beliefs are misguided. It should be to understand the beliefs of others and learn acceptance toward another’s opposing views.
Well, well, well. I believe I was right. All of that critiquing of the author’s style and all we see is a rather insulting “apology” from the Editor-in-Chief using very similar arguments. I’m glad to see that the Editor-in-Chief supports argument fallacies and did not have the author write anything herself. Bravo, Torch! This is lower than my realistic expectation, but higher than worst case scenario. Please tell me that neither of these individuals are actually Journalism majors…
I do commend you on the fact that you redirected everyone’s anger towards the Sororities instead of the poor writing skills of the Opinions Editor. That was clever.
Well, well, well. I believe I was right. All of that critiquing of the author’s style and all we see is a rather insulting “apology” from the Editor-in-Chief using very similar arguments. I’m glad to see that the Editor-in-Chief supports argument fallacies and did not have the author write anything herself. Bravo, Torch! This is lower than my realistic expectation, but higher than worst case scenario. Please tell me that neither of these individuals are actually Journalism majors…
I do commend you on the fact that you redirected everyone’s anger towards the Sororities instead of the poor writing skills of the Opinions Editor. That was clever.
I hate to break it to you, but this article was almost as insulting as the first. I bet if the article was directed at Christians and not Atheists, the response would have been a little different. Also, don’t blame us for attacking the opinion’s editor and tell us that we don’t accept her view when she insulted every atheist out there. If she didn’t want that response, she should have thought twice before she wrote what she did. I mean, honestly, did you even read her article before you wrote your response?
I hate to break it to you, but this article was almost as insulting as the first. I bet if the article was directed at Christians and not Atheists, the response would have been a little different. Also, don’t blame us for attacking the opinion’s editor and tell us that we don’t accept her view when she insulted every atheist out there. If she didn’t want that response, she should have thought twice before she wrote what she did. I mean, honestly, did you even read her article before you wrote your response?
“Based on the response our readers have shown, there is a level of support toward both sides of the issue. The author is clearly not alone in her opinion on this topic.” And where are those people that support her opinion in the comments section? I am a Ferris student and I am offended greatly by both the original article and this crude attempt at trying to make it seem like it was not a mistake to have been let through, regardless if it was for the extremely poor writing, or for the extremely biased response. I am ashamed that my University would support this bigotry with a response attempting to justify its publication.
“Based on the response our readers have shown, there is a level of support toward both sides of the issue. The author is clearly not alone in her opinion on this topic.” And where are those people that support her opinion in the comments section? I am a Ferris student and I am offended greatly by both the original article and this crude attempt at trying to make it seem like it was not a mistake to have been let through, regardless if it was for the extremely poor writing, or for the extremely biased response. I am ashamed that my University would support this bigotry with a response attempting to justify its publication.
Aww…. so much for the apology. That stinks.
Aww…. so much for the apology. That stinks.
This mediocre attempt at an apology is almost as insulting as the first article. I wonder if the E-Cheif and the Opinions Editor have the same point of view on this issue? On the up side, at least this article doesn’t sound like a journal entry.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. The problem isn’t so much the view point of the author but the way the article was written. The examples used in the article to express the authors point of view were insulting.
I really love this apology article. It says, “We’re not sorry but our boss made us write this.” But in a very classy way, I promise. Basically the previous article was a cut and paste when it comes down to it. You can make everything sound good when you take it out of context. I found it interesting that the author wasn’t confident enough in her writing and position to include the complete billboard quote so that the readers would be more educated in their non-education. The full billboard reads, “You don’t need God to hope, to care, to love, to live. Basically this quote doesn’t mean that you don’t need God. It says that you are capable of being a good person, even without religion. Someone convinced otherwise is most likely suffering from belief bias. It’s dissapointing though because I used to find that the Torch’s articles were well researched and moderately well written.
Oh well.
I guess everyone has their off days.