OPINION & EDITORIAL
UWRCF deserves fair treatment
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- UW to fund discrimination (April 20, 2007)
- Anti-Catholic bias may fuel dispute (April 25, 2007)
- Students shouldn't be forced to pay segregated fees (March 8, 2007)
- UW leaders ignore religious rights (October 10, 2006)
- Roman Catholic Foundation gets greedy (October 27, 2003)
by Letters to the Editor
Friday, April 27, 2007
In his recent column, Ben Patterson repeats several misconceptions about the Roman Catholic Foundation and the court rulings about our funding status. I would like to clarify some of them.
First, Mr. Patterson asks if a Muslim student would be welcomed by our staff and students. The answer is an unequivocal yes! We welcome all students who respect our beliefs and mission, even if they don't agree with all of it. We hope that they will thoughtfully consider what we believe, but respect is all that is necessary. Many non-Catholic students have participated in events here, such as our musical productions and retreats. When students of other religions participate respectfully in our activities, it is a good learning experience both for them and for us.
Second, Mr. Patterson misunderstands how the courts, from ASM Student Judiciary to the Supreme Court, apply the First Amendment. Several years ago, a conservative student, Scott Southworth, sued the UW because he did not believe he should be required to pay student fees which would be distributed to groups that existed explicitly to promote viewpoints he disagreed with, such as Sex Out Loud, the LGBTCC, and WISPIRG, among others. To summarize a long court ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that he did have to pay for those groups even though he disagreed with them. However, they also ruled that any group with a specific viewpoint, religious, political, or otherwise, must also be funded in proportion to the services it provides to the campus.
Essentially, the courts argue that just because Catholicism is "religious," we are not significantly different from the groups mentioned above in promoting a viewpoint others disagree with. So the RCF must receive funding, or other Catholic students and I should be able to withhold the portion of our student fees going to groups we disagree with. We could then donate it to the RCF instead. Also, only student fees, not tax dollars, are going to the RCF. The courts have consistently ruled that taxes, paid by everyone, have much stricter rules with regards to religious activities than student fees, which are only paid by UW-Madison students, and may be used for a wider range of activities.
Finally, Mr. Patterson says that we would be hypocritical and "purely political" if we supported other religious organizations in their efforts to receive funding, because according to him, we believe that all non-Christian people are going to hell. This is false. Where other beliefs directly contradict ours, we believe that they must be mistaken, but we can agree to disagree. The Catholic Church teaches that there is much truth in other religions, even if they are wrong on some points. In fact, the Church explicitly teaches that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, other religious believers, and even atheists may achieve salvation by seeking what is right. It teaches that it is more possible to lead a fulfilling life on Earth and to achieve salvation afterwards within the Church. Therefore, people should consider what they believe and give Catholic teaching a fair shake rather than holding to other beliefs out of pride, habit, or selfishness, but no one is punished if they never had a genuine opportunity to consider Catholicism. The RCF recognizes the good work other religious organizations do on campus, and believes that they deserve funding in proportion to the number of students they serve and the quality of service they provide.
I hope this addresses some of the concerns of Mr. Patterson and the student body at large.
Alex Wagner
Junior, history and political science
ajwagner1@wisc.edu
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 10:35am):
You can provide all the legal justiication's you want, but the UWRFC isnt providing $250,000 worth of services to UW students.
The RFC is exploiting ASM's rediculous funding procedures to get money.
I happen to have this silly idea that the money I put towards getting my Undergraduate degree should actually fund things that improve my education or the campus. Not fund the "musical productions and retreats" of social groups.
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 11:15am):
"...than student fees, which are only paid by UW-Madison students, and may be used for a wider range of activities."
This is where we fail at UW...we use our seg fees to pay for more than activities. I'd be fine with funding the UWRCF if it was going to activities. My problem is paying for office space, office supplies, salaries, etc.
If they want to throw a retreat and invite everyone, kudos to them - use seg fees. We should be paying for activities, not operations!
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 9:48pm):
The point is that the UW is not required to fund any religious organization. The problem comes if they support some and not others. Say "no" to them all and save us all some money
--Germain E Stemme
Anonymous (April 27, 2007 @ 11:31pm):
Amen
Anonymous (April 28, 2007 @ 6:28pm):
"In fact, the Church explicitly teaches that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, other religious believers, and even atheists may achieve salvation by seeking what is right."
In fact, the Church explicitly teaches that Jews, Muslims, Hindus, other religious believers, and atheists CAN'T achieve salvation without accepting Jesus as their personal savior.
And doesn't Jesus have a problem with liars?
Anonymous (April 28, 2007 @ 11:38pm):
Well at least the Catholic Church no longer insists that nonbelievers be put to the sword, unlike Moslems. I can do without "salvation", I don't want to be killed as as a blasphemer or an apostate. I'm not gay but there's another "reason" for being killed according to the Moslems. The Catholics no longer want openly gay priests, but they don't think gays should all be killed.
Anonymous (April 30, 2007 @ 12:22pm):
6:28 that is actually NOT what the Church explicitly believes. If you look at the Catechism it says that the Church is the 'safest road' and that salvation is gauranteed through the sacraments, but that God may not necessarily be bound by that, and that all religions have an element of truth.
Anonymous (May 1, 2007 @ 2:33pm):
A word to the anonymous responder to Alex's summary of Catholic teaching on the salvation of non-Catholics: Alex is right, and your summary that tries to contradict Alex does not adequately represent Church teaching. You clearly are making assumptions based on simple proof texts, or worse, incorrect/misunderstood things you may have heard. I'll explain a bit right now, but I encourage you to go to the actual source. Read the documents of Vatican II, especially 'NOSTRA AETATE' - DECLARATION ON
THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS.
While the Catholic Church maintains that salvation only happens through Christ, that does not mean that someone must 'accept Jesus as their personal savior' as you stated, in order to be saved. The Church holds that any and all salvation is a union with Christ. It says that there is only one heaven, and that is with Christ. But it is completely open to a non-Christian going to Heaven - and for self-professed Christians and Catholics not going to Heaven. When someone is saved (Christian or not), he or she will, upon entering Heaven, see in Christ the fulfillment of the truth that they have been seeking. This is not the same as judging that every person must consciously 'accept Christ as personal savior' (become Christian) in order to be saved.
I'm not arguing here that anyone reading this must accept this Catholic view as truth. Regardless of where you fall on that issue, in order to engage in this debate you must know what the Church actually teaches instead of basing arguments on ignorant and false summations which grossly misrepresent the Church.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
