Dear Editor,
I write in response to Breanne Reed’s article in the March 22, edition. Don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to see a reporter writing a religion-bashing article disguised as a problem with the war in Iraq that is semi-based on fact. I say “semi-based” on facts, because it’s true that it is claimed by those not a part of any of these religions that the Jewish God = Christian God = Muslim God.
Why did she write the article as she did, with very little war statistics and facts, and instead based the arguments of her article on second-hand, already prejudiced opinions that she states as fact?
Also, I have to say that the God claimed by these religions isn’t the same; if it were how did three completely separate and distinct religions develop instead of one? There would be minor differences in this three-in-one religion, but even with the possible hypothetical differences, they would still logically claim to be one. But they don’t, and I must ask “why?”
Because of Jesus, who Christians believe is the incarnate form of God and worship him as God, while Jews have any number of opinions about him ranging from a liar, a teacher, or else crazy, and Islam teaches that he was another prophet like Elijah, Isaiah or Mohammed, but not actually God.
How can one validly argue then that the same God is worshipped by all, when all three say something different about who he is and claims to be? You simply cannot.
So please, the next time you write an article about the War in Iraq, stick with that instead of going on a tirade about religion (and when I say “religion,” I really mean “Christianity,” because, let’s be honest, that’s really what you despise). As you said, Breanne, “Opinions should be based on facts.” Not a bad idea.
– Lauran Suggs

Author