[ Letters ]

Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Oct 24, 2001 by Capital-Journal

Point made well

This letter is in response to Jamie Kennedy's letter to the editor Sept. 27. I would almost guarantee you that the majority of teens who looked at that page and saw a kid in an orange jumpsuit and the words "Tough Guy" (which was only part of the title) took the time to read the article. It sure did catch my eye.

In case you didn't read the article, it was an inspirational report to teens to, "put down the guns." I give praise to those involved in writing the article. They described what it is like sitting in jail, day after day, month after month, being able to do a limited number of things, and also, losing some common rights.

Just because he shot and killed someone, doesn't mean 100 percent of the people consider him a "tough guy." It was mentioned several times that Cody King regretted what happened, and I am sure the ideal purpose was to influence teens to put down the guns, not to tell them that if they shoot someone, they are tough.

I did a report in high school, only two years ago, on the same issue. One of the questions I asked was, "Do you feel tough with a weapon in your hand?" Out of the 20 pupils I asked, two said yes. Therefore, 90 percent said no, and the majority of them said they would never hold a gun. Sounds to me as if the message is getting out. That article was nothing but reinforcement for this issue.

--- BRYCE WHELPLEY, Topeka

Know who friends are

Michael Ryan writes, in his column Oct. 7, that Americans are "more reflective, serious" after the events of Sept. 11.

Too bad he is not more reflective and serious himself. He opens his column with a joke about how Osama bin Laden's face "should be rearranged in some fashion," and then goes on to expose levels of ignorance about contemporary Islam and its practitioners that simply cannot go unchallenged.

His ignorance begins with basic terminology. "Islamic" is an adjective. The noun used to refer to believers in the Islamic faith is "Muslims." That no one seemed at The Topeka Capital-Journal aware of so basic a fact suggests how deeply misconceptions about Islam run among the paper's staff.

His premises are fundamentally flawed, as well. Ryan insists that "Islam has one hell of a PR problem, " and insists that "our peaceful Islamic friends take some responsibility" for the use of Islam as a justification for terrorist acts. Why should they? They aren't responsible for others' interpretation of their doctrine, any more than, say, Ryan himself, as a practicing Christian, is responsible for every crackpot version of Christian theology that has turned up over the course of history, from witch-burners to Fred Phelps. Does Ryan think he has "a hell of a PR problem" because of Fred's lunatic rantings?

Ryan's political understanding is not only based on faulty premises but on a range of errors of fact. He writes, without qualification or explanation, about "Islamic regimes," but he clearly means "states with Muslim majorities." The only specific state mentioned in the whole column is Egypt, and the foundation of law and government in Egypt is quite secular. Throughout the whole of the Islamic world, there are relatively few places where the practice of statecraft is founded solely on the Islamic religion and the Shari'a as a legal system: Iran, Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, and a few counties in northern Nigeria.

But Ryan is not one to let facts get in the way of his anger. What can he mean when he declares: "If this has nothing to do with Islam, then why are so many Islamic regimes allied against us?" So many? The Taliban is against us; the non-Islamic regime of Iraq opposes us as well. But on this one, even our traditional enemy of recent decades, Iran, is playing it neutral, in part because of its own deep disagreements with the Taliban. And so many? Pakistan and the Emirates have allowed us to use their facilities to help launch the current wave of attacks, as have Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, states in the dominantly Muslim portion of the ex-Soviet Union.

Now that the bombs are dropping, it seems advisable that we know who both our enemies and friends are.

Ryan's ill-considered and ill-informed column fails to make any such distinction. How long can you openly insult friends before they, quite justifiably, stop being so friendly?

--- THOMAS PRASCH, Topeka

Know what you support

I am writing in response to the Sept. 21 column "KU calls for peace." In the editorial was a quote for a man named Cody Jackson, a junior from Nickerson. He states, while speaking at a rally, "I love everyone here; I love the Taliban. It's not about killing one another; we should unite."

I am flabbergasted by this uneducated remark. I am a 23-year-old mother and wife of an active duty service member stationed in Germany. I wonder if Mr. Jackson even bothered researching what the Taliban stands for in Afghanistan.

Please allow me to tell him. The Taliban is responsible for widespread chaos and unrest throughout Afghanistan including the murder and rape of innocence. The people of Afghanistan have none of the basic rights and privileges that we share as Americans. How can Mr. Jackson proclaim love for a government that denies basic medical care to women? One in five children under the age of 5 dies in Afghanistan annually because of the Taliban's laws banning this medical care. It is illegal to educate girls over the age of 12, and anyone who speaks against it is signing her own death warrant.