No "Justice Graduation Day" for Dubya?
At least some aren't marching in lock-step!POMP AND POLITICS IN GRAND RAPIDS: Bush visit brings controversy
BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER
Calvin College may be predominantly Republican, but a visit from President George W. Bush on Saturday is stirring up some discontent among students, faculty and alumni.
One-third of the faculty members have signed a letter of protest that will appear in a half-page ad in the Grand Rapids Press on Saturday, the day Bush is to deliver the commencement address to 900 graduating seniors at Calvin. The ad cost $2,600.
"As Christians, we are called to be peacemakers and to initiate war only as a last resort," the letter says. "We believe your administration has launched an unjust and unjustified war in Iraq."
More than 800 students, faculty and alumni also have signed a letter protesting Bush's visit that will appear Friday as a full-page ad in the Grand Rapids paper. The ad cost more than $9,500.
"We are alumni, students, faculty and friends of Calvin College who are deeply troubled that you will be the commencement speaker at Calvin," the letter states. "In our view, the policies and actions of your administration, both domestically and internationally over the past four years, violate many deeply held principles of Calvin College."
And about 100 students are expected to adorn their graduation gowns with armbands and buttons bearing the slogan: "God is not a Republican or Democrat."
"I'm definitely worried about a Christian school being affiliated with the Christian right," said Elise Elzinga, a 22-year-old Lambertville resident who will graduate Saturday with a degree in political science and international relations.
Elzinga sometimes has felt isolated during her years at Calvin because of her views. She volunteered for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign last year. In a poll before the 2004 elections, 80 percent of Calvin's student body said they planned to vote for Bush.
But the visit from Bush also has aroused alumni and faculty.
David Crump, a professor of religion at the college for the past eight years, said even though he's not scheduled to get tenure until this summer, he felt he had to speak out.
"The largest part of our concern is the way in which our religious discourse in this country has largely been co-opted by the religious right and their wholesale endorsement of this administration," he said.
Others said they're concerned that the Bush speech will politicize the event.
"I can see that the Bush administration is gaining capital from this appearance, but I don't see what it does for Calvin," said Dale Van Kley, who was a history professor at Calvin for 28 years before he joined the staff at Ohio State University in 1998.
"What it will mean for the students is that they will be objects of a kind of campaign appearance."
Many faculty members don't share those views.
Randall Bytwerk, a communication arts and sciences professor at Calvin, said this week that he's thrilled that the president will speak to students.
"It will make commencement memorable. Unless it's somebody really interesting, it's low on people's list of memories," he said. "But no one is going to forget this." Administrators at the college tried to address concerns raised about the Bush visit in a letter to parents of seniors.
In the letter, President Gaylen Byker said it is an honor for Calvin to be chosen as one of only two sites where Bush will speak to graduates. The other is the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis.
"It provides an opportunity for Calvin to communicate its distinctiveness to a broad audience," he wrote. "Please know that accepting this request from the White House does not identify Calvin as an institution that is necessarily aligned with the person or the politics of the president."
Nick Monsma, a junior at Calvin, will return to the college Saturday to volunteer at the commencement ceremonies. He views the president's visit as a historic opportunity for Calvin.
"It will be a neat opportunity to get close to a sitting president," the 21-year-old Hudsonville native said.
He said he's disappointed that students, faculty and alumni are protesting the visit.
"There's a certain forum for that kind of discussion and I don't think this is the right forum."
Contact KATHLEEN GRAY at 248-351-3298 or gray@freepress.com.
15 Comments:
I am confused are Christians "Jihadists" as in your next post or are they "Peacemakers". Which is it?
I am confused
Obviously.
are Christians "Jihadists" as in your next post or are they "Peacemakers".
Which is it?
Each decides for himself.
Your the host who puts one article calling Christians "jihadists" and in the next they are "Peacemakers".
I just wanted to know if you see an inconsistency?
You say "Each decides for Himself"
I doubt you really believe this. Many have decided for themselves that they are peacemakers because they have removed a mad man from power who tried to assasinate a president.
You would not agree with that, would you?
You'll find no love lost on Saddam in The Whirlpool, but let's remember reality for a second. If the definition of a "madman" includes that he kills and tortures his own people and attempts moves on other countries, then Saddam has always been a "madman". The first mass graves in Iraq were filled with bodies killed by chemicals and weapons delivered by Donald Rumsfeld during Bush XLI's failed Administration.
What necessitated the death of over 100,000 more Iraqis now? Why the rush to send thousands of American boys and girls to their deaths now?
WMD? Oooops.... weren't none.
Threat to America? Oooooops ...... weren't one.
Evil tyrant? Oooops..... has always been one.... just like a whole bunch of others that we deal with regularly.
Any ideas?
Kids are dying to know... and dying.... and dying..... and dying........
"You'll find no love lost on Saddam in The Whirlpool"
I believe you, but it seems that if the left got their way he would still be filling those graves, raping those women, giving safe passage to terrorist, and still conspiring to assasinate american politicains.
So what actually is the difference if the left loved him or hate him?
This way of thinking is why Americans don't think it is safe yet to vote for a democrat.
"if the left got their way he would still be filling those graves, raping those women, giving safe passage to terrorist, and still conspiring to assasinate american politicains."
So, you're settling on "evil tyrant". OK. The question is: why the rush to go to war? The world is filled with evil tyrants.
The NeoCons had a plan for this War before Bush was elected. They needed reasons to get Americans to agree with their scheme. The kept floating them out there until enough stuck.
WMD, 9-11, Al Queida, Threat to America, Evil Tyrant, "they tried to kill my daddy", etc., etc.
Then, with concerted effort, the likes of John Bolton et. al. cherry picked intelligence that would lend itself favorably to any of reasons 1 through 4.
Amazingly, Reason 5 and 6 didn't need evidence because everyone had known Saddam was a bad guy for a long time. We knew that back when we went to war the first time. We knew that earlier when we gave him the weapons and gas. We've know that for a long time.
After we were able to get a Coalition of the Willing and send American boys and girls to their deaths and the deaths of over 100,000 more Iraqis, the dirty secrets that Reasons 1-4 were, as many of us were saying, discounted. Now, you and many others and especially the NeoCons are focusing on reason 5.... he's bad!
There are lots of evil bad guys out there. Should the US declare war on all of them?
I think your a pretty good representive of the left's point of view. Because of your mocking the hard work and accomplishments being done in Iraq, not take seriously a man who would attempt to assasinate a president, not take serious the UN sactions he violated, along with the short sightedness of not seeing that it is good that the fight is "over there" instead of here, only one conclusion is being drawn by America.
It is not safe yet to vote democratic.
And no they should not go to war with all of them. You pick one that you have a history, you get UN backing, you get approval from congress, and you put together a coalition of the willing.
You then give the enemy almost two years to convince us they are not in violation of the surrender from the previous war.
Then you invade.
Then you don't have to go to war because the other nations know we are serious. They then volunteer to give up their weapons and they start working to convince us they are not a threat.
It changes the whole couse of the war on terror.
I think your a pretty good representive of the left's point of view.
Actually, I'm impressed with your ability to represent your party. The Republican's have been doing the shuck and jive on the issues for a while. You call stating the case very clearly about mistakes made by this Administration, "mocking the hard work and accomplishments being done in Iraq". Interesting.
I think is was Dubya that said, "You're either with us or against us" wasn't it. If one dares criticise this Administrations lies and distortions, they are "mocking" or "aiding and comforting the enemy" or "anti-American" or "not supporting the troops". Did I miss anything?
Democrats and others opposed to the Bush Regime's rush-to-war took serious all the allegations made by the President. All the more disconcerting when it is found out later that the information was distorted, cherrypicked and/or fabricated. Many good people were duped by the NeoCons.
It is not safe yet to vote democratic.
Well, it's proven Bush isn't safe for innocent Iraqis, that's for sure. But, one thing is for sure: he sure has made it easier to find terrorists. The gathering in Iraq in order to kill American boys and girls.
It is the american electorate that is saying that it is not safe to vote democratic. They are voting in election after election that they support the republican agenda.
I actually said your a good representive of the "left" not the democratic party. The direction the leadership is taking our once great party is going to put this party on the trash heap of history. But they have to do it because the left-wing is so powerful.
Our only chance is if more level headed leaders get the opportunity to return or party to ideas the american voter can support.
You seem very sensitive to being called "anti-american" "un-patriotic". I don't now people who call you that. Maybe you feel guilty.
My fellow moderate democrats just think you're ideas are wrong. Besides, it is not our fault that your ideas would have supported Saddam's continued tyranny not to mention extending the cold war.
Country Joe is back!
Support the Troops
Beat the drum, wave the flag,
For those who won’t be coming back.
Numbers rising, build another Wall
For those who answered the Country’s call.
Support the troops
Support the troops
Gold Star Mothers, Gold Star Dads
Left with nothing but a folded flag.
Gold Star Brothers, Sisters too
Feel their pain, it could be you!
Support the troops
Support the troops
Chorus:
Chicken hawk, draft dodging, son Of A Bush
Look at all the damage you did!
American war in the Holy Land
Blood for oil, not in my name!
Oh, not in my name
Oh, not in my name
Oh, not in my name
Some day soon, don’t know when
We’ll see the wounded women and men
Lining the walls of American streets
Hands out begging for something to eat.
Support the troops
Support the troops
Forgotten heroes from a forgotten war
Wondering "What were we fighting for?"
World War III around the bend
That’s what we get with the George Bush Plan.
Support the troops
Support the troops
Chorus:
Chicken hawk, draft dodging, son Of A Bush
Look at all the damage you did!
American war in the Holy Land
Blood for oil, not in my name!
Oh, not in my name
Oh, not in my name
Oh, not in my name
Not in my name
American shame
Not in my name
American shame.
http://www.countryjoe.com/support.ram
That song is very funny and it was nice to see you today. You're the best brother a guy could have.
"The song is very funny"? I'm sorry. I missed the funny part. Was it,
Beat the drum, wave the flag,
For those who won’t be coming back.
or
build another Wall For those who answered the Country’s call.
or
Gold Star Mothers, Gold Star Dads Left with nothing but a folded flag.
or
Feel their pain, it could be you!
or
Look at all the damage you did!
American war in the Holy Land
Blood for oil, not in my name!
Fill me in on the funny part that I'm missing. I'm always up for a guffaw or two.
Funny as in foolish and mis-guided. Like I said before, your not going to see the white house for a long time if these are you're voices.
I just watch the serious "Band of Brothers". By hearing how you would handle the war on terror and the voices that you think are so inspiring, I am becoming convinced we would not have won that war if the left was in charge.
What is funny is that the voters are laughing at the left. You just don't get it.
Funny as in foolish and mis-guided.
Oh. Ha! Ha! I get it....
.... actually, I guess I don't.
Sorry. But, I think the joke is really in the White House and the rest of your party. 48% of America wasn't laughing on election night and many of the 52% are wondering what the fuck they were thinking back then. They are waking up to their tragic mistake.
Post a Comment
<< Home