Professional Documents
Culture Documents
THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALS/LETTERS FRIDAY, AUGUST 31, 2012 NATHANAEL RUBIN
ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., Publisher Founded in 1851 ADOLPH S. OCHS Publisher 1896-1935 ARTHUR HAYS SULZBERGER Publisher 1935-1961 ORVIL E. DRYFOOS Publisher 1961-1963 ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER Publisher 1963-1992 The News Sections JILL ABRAMSON, Executive Editor DEAN BAQUET, Managing Editor JOHN M. GEDDES, Managing Editor TOM BODKIN, Deputy Managing Editor WILLIAM E. SCHMIDT, Deputy Managing Editor Assistant Managing Editors RICHARD L. BERKE SUSAN CHIRA GLENN KRAMON The Opinion Pages ANDREW ROSENTHAL, Editorial Page Editor TRISH HALL, Deputy Editorial Page Editor TERRY TANG, Deputy Editorial Page Editor MICHELLE McNALLY JIM ROBERTS The Business Management SCOTT H. HEEKIN-CANEDY, President, General Manager DENISE F. WARREN, Senior V.P., Chief Advertising Officer, General Manager, NYTimes.com YASMIN NAMINI, Senior V.P., Marketing and Circulation. General Manager, Reader Applications ALEXIS BURYK, Senior V.P., Advertising ROLAND A. CAPUTO, Senior V.P., Chief Financial Officer THOMAS K. CARLEY, Senior V.P., Planning TERRY L. HAYES, Senior V.P., Operations and Labor
The New York Times Company ARTHUR OCHS SULZBERGER JR., Chairman, Chief Executive Officer MICHAEL GOLDEN, Vice Chairman JAMES M. POLLO, Chief Financial Officer R. ANTHONY BENTEN, Senior V.P. ROBERT H. CHRISTIE, Senior V.P. MARC FRONS, Senior V.P., Chief Information Officer TODD C. McCARTY, Senior V.P. KENNETH A. RICHIERI, Senior V.P., General Counsel LAURENA L. EMHOFF, V.P., Treasurer DIANE BRAYTON, Secretary
TO THE EDITOR: I wish to write in response to the recent article written by Joe Kalicki. I feel that his stance on the importance of reading for children in school is a very well articulated. I agree with his idea that we should encourage children to read what they are interested in, and the idea that as long as they are reading its a good thing, is a valid notion. I had a very similar experience to the one he described. I too would skim through my assigned reading throughout my school days, only searching for the key points, and then go home and read big long novels of my own choosing. I remember thinking how much more I would enjoy school if they only let me read the things I was interested in rather than the dry antiquated books I was being force fed. This left me feeling detached and uninterested during most of my English classes. The only problem I can see with this proposed approach to reading education, is how will it be implemented? I know when I was a kid we had a program called accelerated reader which was a way to read books you were interested in(as long as they were in the program) and take quizzes on them afterwards. At first this appears to be the type of program that Kalicki suggest however, I remember that while I loved this program and consistently ranked in the highest I the class
for books read and tests passed many of my classmate found work arounds to get grade without actually reading. And the program was eventually done away with because of this. The article raises great points and I would like to see more ideas on the future implementation of programs to encourage reading. CALEB THOMAS TALLAHASSEE, AUGUST 30, 2012 TO THE EDITOR: Mr. Kalickis evaluation and opinion on the education system in America is one that I agree with, and am sure many of the readers of your newspaper would agree with. He sheds light on the fact that reading has become such a chore for students that they have no desire to read outside of class and many have developed a hatred for all kinds of reading. He suggests that electronics take center stage and be the hero of the reading crisis, saying that products like the iPad and the Nook, although not cheap, are good tools to get the kids more interested. While I agree with Mr. Kalickis suggestions, there is a question of funds for this type of endeavor in our school systems. Even Kalicki mentions the fact that he is aware that money is an issue. Usually, if the schools are being encouraged to add something to the school (such as a few hundred iPads) for the students sake, something else will have to be cut. It is the argument of what is not working at all that deserves to be cut from the schools budget that really intrigues me after reading this authors editorial ANNA CURTIS TALLAHASSEE, AUGUST 28, 2012
Allison Beckley of the Legal Aid Society writes that the Nokia company has gone down the drain. nytimes.com/opinion
One of the worlds most debated topics today is the Catholic Church and their stance on homosexuality. Religion, no matter the denomination, is supposed to bring good faith and happiness, yet still in this worlds advanced society homosexuals are not welcome, nor is their life style condoned in the Catholic Church. The Churchs choice to not welcome all of Gods children is inexcusable; God has made every person to be unique, and the Catholic Church has no right to exile the people that the leaders of the Church deem unfit. God created each person to be different from the next and everyone to have a purpose. This is what the Catholic Church believes; yet they believe that they have the right to determine what beliefs are right or wrong. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. The Catholic Churchs current stance is to have homosexual feelings toward another person may be unavoidable, but to act on them is not to be tolerated and is categorized as a great sin. Thus the only alternative is to live chastely, in order to be accepted. The fact the Church is proposing that parishioners mask their feelings in order to be accepted contradicts one of the main beliefs the Church preaches. If God has made these men and women to posses these feelings, the Catholic Church has no right to discriminate. The Catholic Church did not create each of their parishioners, God did; yet they believe they have the right to choose other peoples life styles. It tends to be much easier to make choices, forcing others to conceal feelings for a lifetime, when the leaders of the church, or the ones developing these rules are not the ones forced to follow them. Many Catholics believe that the scripture itself condemns homosexuality. Although one may agree that the scriptures are very clear about the meaning about the lack of acceptance, there are many things in the bible that God did not approve of that the church and followers choose not to bring to light. For one simple example, the fact that one is not supposed to eat pork. To not acknowledge God in all of his requests would be considered a sin. The unfortunate fact is that many men and women in the homosexual community are still attempting to be a part of their church, but they feel unwelcome and not accepted. The Catholic Church seems to have a choice memory when it comes to choosing scripture to back up their discrimination. Some people act like if someone is homosexual they must be from a completely different planet, but they are just people that live their lives differently. The Catholic Church doesnt ban people with different colored hair or tattoos because they are still people, they are only different. Segregating a group so large that only wants to practice their faith is wrong. In my mind, all I see is a second civil rights movement. They should have the same rights. With people or organizations like the Catholic Church standing in their way, it will give them more strength to fight for what they should not need to fight for in the first place. Although the worlds tolerance is advancing, the Catholic Church is still holding on to their fossil ideas. They are forcing human beings to choose the lesser of two evils; they either defy their religion, continue on sinning and face the consequences, or mask their feelings, their thoughts, their whole person, in order to be a part of this omitting community. To embrace who you truly are and the unique aspects God made you with is an idea the Catholic Church lives by; yet only for those who are normal enough to do so. The Church is losing followers daily. The reason so many people are infuriated is due to that fact that they cannot bring their beliefs and ideas into this time period. If the Catholic Church is going to stand by their belief that God does not accept homosexuality, as written in the scriptures, they need to continue on by following everything that is stated in the scriptures. If the Catholic Church honestly believes the only way to proceed on to heaven after death is to not disobey the scriptures written thousands of years ago, then they should stand by everything stated. If everything stated is abided by, the lack of acceptance for very specific groups or lifestyles is gone because the hypocrisy is gone. The Catholic Church then has the argument we are following the scriptures. Even if this all were to occur, a large majority would still not accept the Churchs stance. They would still be considered aged, hypocritical elitists, yet they would possibly have a leg to stand on.