Burning Eternally

I'm sorry to all of you poor people, like me, who enjoy the benefits of Pell-Grants, Stafford loans, schools, libraries, hospitals, roads and so on.

All of these services are paid for (or at least subsidized) by the government, and are therefore considered "handouts." Unfortunately, according to a Feb. 21 letter with an un-named general authority and scripture, we are all bad people who lack faith and are basically going to endure eternal burning in the depths of Hades.

It would certainly be possible for my family to survive without these programs, but they sure help. I currently work full time (both jobs are well over the minimum wage, yet my family is still well under the poverty line) and go to school full-time while my wife stays home with our son.

We enjoy WIC and Medicaid, which have allowed us to follow God's commandment to have families, and to do so without attaining massive debt.

Furthermore, using these services allows me to finish my education quickly, so as to become more economically stable, and to spend at least a couple precious hours a day with my family. If I can use some of the services my taxes pay for in order to be with my family, I'm all over it. Criticize me if you will.

Andy Westover

Hamilton, Mo.

Increasing Ability to Give

A BYU couple that uses Medicaid is operating under the same principle as a BYU student who accepts grants, scholarships, or even the tuition subsidy from the Church. All BYU students are foregoing income now to get an education in order to increase their future income and to contribute more to society later. Our housing, food and medical needs continue while we're in school. Medicaid, grants, scholarships and the Church's tuition help are all forms of cost subsidy: transferring wealth from others with more to us with less. I don't see the difference. According to "Don't use Medicaid" (Feb. 21) then, we have all "denied the faith, and are worse than an infidel."

Brad Lowe

Vancouver, Wash.

Guns = Freedom

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb arguing over what to have for dinner. Freedom is well armed lambs." When our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment, they had the intention of giving citizens the means and the rights to protect themselves and their families from others, but most especially from the government.

Guns are not merely tools whose sole purpose is to kill and wound, but are symbols of the freedom which we as Americans have. In the past, countries that outlawed guns include: pre-Nazi Germany, Russia when Stalin took control and also Communist China. Our founding fathers thought very highly of guns, and encouraged people to own the best guns they could (one of the main reasons we won the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812 was because the American forces used rifles instead of muskets). I personally feel that the Founding Fathers would want me to have the best weapons available in order to defend my rights, both from attackers and from oppressive government.

By the way, when one looks at the number of guns owned in a country, compared to the number of violent crimes committed, you will find more guns does not equal more crimes. In fact the opposite is true: the more guns citizens own, the fewer violent crimes occur.

Brent Beardsley

Belvidere, Ill.

Step Up, Internet Wizards

For all the complainers who have written in about the new BYU Web site, you might want to read this sitting down. Let's have a little pride in our generation. Our grandparents know us as the ones who can fix their wireless problems. Old school professors can count on someone in their classes to get the projector running so they can add visual aids to their lectures. It's our generation that is concentrated with Internet wizards, or even regular Internet users who should be able to navigate various Web sites whether they are completely new, or just redesigned.

Welcome to the 21st century. Let's make the most of it together.

Lily Von

Honolulu, Hawaii

Web Site Not Complicated

I seem to be one of a very few people on campus that has no difficulty navigating my way through the new BYU home page. I find it hard to believe anyone on this campus is taking more than a few seconds to find the location of basic e-mail or AIM on the site. It works exactly the same as the previous home page; you type in your NetID and password and off you go.

It isn't as confusing as everyone is making it out to be. On that note, before anyone goes crazy accusing me of practicing during the trial period, I didn't. I never used the new site before the first day it was launched and haven't had any trouble with it. The debate can rage on about whether or not we actually needed a new homepage, but honestly folks, you are university students and if you can't figure out how to navigate that page then there are some bigger problems that need to be addressed.

Caleb Flanagan

Bartlesville, Okla.

Cartoon Demonizes

I was disturbed to see a political cartoon in The Daily Universe Feb. 21 implying that Barack Obama's presidential candidacy is supported by terrorists. It underscores a false notion: that to be anti-war is to be somehow "pro-terrorism" and un-American. Being "tough" on terror does not mean curtailing civil liberties or labeling all critics of your policies as terrorist supporters. Sen. Obama said, "there are patriots who support the war, and there are patriots who oppose it."

Surely we can be informed on the issues without labeling those who disagree with us as terrorists, Nazis, or worse yet, that dreaded word: liberals. Let's not give in to easy labels but seek to understand the root problems of this country and work together to solve them. As Elder Wood asked in his 2006 conference talk, "Have personal or partisan differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views?" I hope not. I hope that we can disagree without these false accusations.

Diana Smith

McLean, Va.

Recruiters Not Wanted

Since when did BYU start allowing all sorts of recruiters to enter into our classrooms and peddle their "one of a kind" employment opportunities? I have suffered through no less than half a dozen "presentations" where some "branch manager" for some "top company" promises me all of my wildest dreams can come true if I work for them.

Let me state that I support free enterprise and wish success on all ethical businesses, but the problem is that these recruitment meetings have all occurred at the beginning of my classes. I am not a business major and so you can see how I have a hard time understanding what selling a satellite system has to do with the transcription of DNA. One particularly bold "area representative" even assured my bio class that his "internships" he was offering would help us get into medical school. Later we found out that his internships involved painting houses and recruiting other unsuspecting "interns" with delusions of wealth and prestige.

I hope that our teachers can crack down on these aggressive sales people and stop allowing the propagation of their pyramid schemes since I am here for an education. You can keep your "filthy lucre" because I for one am tired of being targeted for my advanced door-knocking skills.

Brandon Prince

Airdrie, Alberta, Canada

Bear Arms to Defend Self and Others

Do you understand the Second Amendment or the constitution? The main purpose of the right to bear arms is to defend citizens from a corrupt government. Yes, technology has advanced and guns are more deadly, but so are the weapons of the government. The Second Amendment is the safeguard for our rights if all other checks and balances fail us. If one thinks it impossible for the government to ever reach this point it is because they are naïve. Unarming all citizens would reduce everyone to subjects to a supreme power.

Guns are also to protect ourselves and the lives of others. Those who "tout the need" for guns do not base their conviction on the fact that criminals will still have guns. We demand the right to protect ourselves against anyone who threatens our lives. I defend the right of an old lady to carry a gun to defend herself against an attacker even if he doesn't have a gun- would you leave her defenseless? If anyone threatens my life or the life of my family I reserve the right to use lethal force (a gun) to stop the perpetrator.

Remember prohibition? Ban guns and people will find other sources and even resort to making their own- and that's assuming it's possible to ban guns.

By the way- no one knows how many lives were saved at Trolley Square because an off-duty cop (aka citizen with a concealed firearm) held off the shooter until the police arrived. God bless America.

Troy Hunt

Kingwood, Texas

A Defense for the 2nd Amendment

Stating guns are only capable of and useful for violence is the true oversimplification here. Firearms are part of many valid and peaceful pastimes and they represent a large part of our national culture.

The assertion that they serve no other purpose than to "wound or kill"?? is incredibly ignorant and ill-informed.

The assertion that the framers never foresaw the gun capabilities of our day, fails to consider that the military and civilian firearms of the framers day were practically identical - a large militia in their day practically matched the standing U.S. army for firepower (certainly not the case today). A muzzle loader is perfectly capable of being used to rob a 7-11 incidentally, and from a personal defense standpoint, your message becomes: Citizens have a right to defend themselves so long as they use unreliable, inaccurate weapons. The fact is guns have become vastly safer since the days of the framers.

It was said people using stolen guns perpetrate most gun crimes and therefore, legal availability is the problem. Automatic assault rifles and automatic pistols are not legal to own and therefore cannot be readily stolen from legal owners. How is it that in a nation that has hundreds of tons of drugs smuggled into it, we think that criminals will not be able to obtain weapons if we make them illegal? If stealing legal guns is the current practice, let's raise awareness and take action to safely store legal firearms.

Adam Hurst

Boise Idaho

WEB LETTERS: Many More Responses About Medicaid

In response to "Don't use Medicaid," (Feb. 21) and as someone whose family is currently using WIC, I would like to point out that the author's fast offering monies go toward church welfare. If the stance of the church were in fact that we are to be completely self reliant, the Church wouldn't bother to offer the welfare program or keep the bishop's storehouses open. The correct context of the scripture he quoted is that we must do all in our power to provide support for our family by whatever means necessary by asking family, then government, then church sources if aid is necessary.

Another point is every couple's circumstances are different. If there are students that can work two jobs, go to school and raise a family at the same time, kudos to them; but they aren't everybody, and they certainly aren't me. Does this make me a bad person for not being able to rely solely on my own genius to support my family by not only applying and qualifying for WIC (yes, you have to make below a certain income to even be considered, so it is not a free handout) but also asking the Church to help me, as my parents cannot always come to my financial rescue? One last point; the law of consecration says we should give up things we don't need to those who are more in need, does it not? Shouldn't we be more supportive of such programs that give to those who don't have as much, whether they are church-related or not?

David LaTomme

Coos Bay, Ore.

The gentleman who preached against Medicaid greatly simplifies the issue of today's healthcare system. Most people receive health insurance through their employers. How many small-businesses provide health insurance, especially to part-time employees? Few. Quality insurance is too expensive to buy individually.

BYU insurance is cheap because it runs its own health care facilities and has many contributors. Personally, I have paid $5,000 into insurance since becoming a student and have never seen a physician. Should I complain about being forced to provide for other students' medical care? Yet, unlike my non-student wife, I have access to cheap insurance.

Medicaid was created to provide basic medical care to those who do not receive medical benefits and are too poor to pay today's high medical costs. Everyone, including the beneficiary, pays into Medicaid. It is not free money or a handout. We as college graduates will most likely pay more into Medicaid over the course of our lifetimes than we will ever receive from it.

And since we love to throw the Church into these discussions, ("But if any provide not for his own...hath denied the faith"??), what about the church welfare system? Bishops pay rent for unemployed fathers. The Church doesn't require Perpetual Education Fund recipients to put off school to earn those funds.

I don't care how many minimum-wage jobs you work. You cannot responsibly pay cash for pregnancy and delivery care -- especially with complications. You need health insurance, which brings us back to the problems of today's health-care system.

Bryant Staples

Blue Springs, Mo.

In response to "Don't Use Medicaid" (Feb. 21) I wonder if you are married and have a kid yourself. If you knew the costs of being married and expecting a baby you could understand how a couple can both work and not have enough money. Then you might not be so quick to judge and throw quotes at obedient people getting an education and starting a family.

For example, both parents go to school and work while the wife is pregnant. Once the baby is born the wife can't work while she recovers, nurses, and tends the baby 24/7. Let's look at the income and costs of this couple for one year starting January with the baby due in May. Hypothetically, both parents earn $10 per hour (high pay for Provo) Mom works 20 hours per week for 16 weeks until the baby comes. Dad works 30 hours a week during school (32 weeks) and 50 hours during the summer (18 weeks) after tithing/tax (10 percent) and Social Security and Medicare (5 percent) their income is $18,275. Conservative estimate of expenses: Rent $7200, BYU health plan for two $1,968, birthing costs $5,000, tuition two semesters for dad and one semester for mom $5,430, books $1,500, gas $480, car insurance for 1 car $450, groceries $2,400, miscellaneous baby costs $3,000. Costs equal $27,428 and don't include extras like car repairs, emergencies etc. If a couple does all they can and still fall short they should take the help offered them government or otherwise. That is a principle of the gospel. What do you think fast offerings are for?

Michael Rogers

San Antonio, Texas

I would like to respond to comments on Medicaid and WIC. I personally know dozens of couples that are or were on Medicaid and WIC, myself included. Have we denied our faith? Are we infidels? Hardly.

Grants are another source of money from the government. Are you also saying people who receive government grants are also sinners? If so, you have called thousands of people to repentance. How could those thousands of members who went through medical school, dental school, or other professional schools survive without government grants, loans, or other financial help?

I can't rely on my parents to pay for a quarter of a million dollars worth of tuition and living expenses for me. I need the outside help and financing. You asked if it is impossible to survive without government help, you're right, it is not. But do you know how long it would take me to put myself through BYU and dental school if I had to take time off to pay for my own way? I could be retired before that would happen.

I appreciate the help I received from WIC and Medicaid and also from government grants and loans. My wife could not work when we had our baby and my part-time job could not make ends meet. I could not work another job because I needed the extra time to study to keep my grades up so I can get accepted into dental school. Should I have waited to have kids until after dental school? I thought a prophet told us once to not put off having kids for education or a career. I used some help from the government when I needed it and I appreciated it. The more the government helps me out now, the more money they will receive in the future.

Paul Fawson

In response to the letter entitled "Don't Use Medicaid" (Feb. 21) I think the writer left out a few important points. I think his main point was how dare you who have a real medical need make us pay for you with our tax dollars. Unfortunately, the writer didn't include all the "handouts" that you "Infidels" who "deny the faith" take. I mean, how dare anyone accept government grants for their education.

If mom and dad don't pay your way, you can work two jobs while going to class full time, I know lots of people who do it. In fact what business do any of you even have attending BYU. You know your education is greatly subsidized by tithing money. How dare you force faithful members (yes including some Ute fans) to pay for your education?

Helping others through hard times is not what we are about. You must pay your own way, not relying on anyone because that would make you an "infidel." Or maybe we could recognize that everyone has a different situation, that we are all dependent on someone, and be thankful for the blessings that we have whether we need extra help and get it, or are fortunate enough to get by without it.

Jesse May

Rockport, Ind.

How can any BYU student be so incomprehensibly ignorant to make a blanket statement regarding Medicaid? Obviously, the purpose of Medicaid has been thrown out the window and replaced by the opinion that the few who abuse Medicaid represent all those who use this service. It goes without saying that the words President Hinckley used when referring to handouts were horrifically misunderstood. Obviously, we should not seek handouts, however to complain about being "forced to provide for someone else" goes directly against a foundational doctrine of the qualifications of baptism set forth by Alma: "And be willing to bear one another's burdens."

The incomprehensible ignorance toward proper use of Medicaid is further understood when looking at situations such as premature babies who spend sometimes three months in the NICU, incurring debts of easily upwards of $1 million. Since President Hinckley has counseled to "avoid debt like the plague" how can working two jobs in Provo or dropping out of school possibly help pay off such debts? The purpose of Medicaid is the same principle behind using fast offerings; you have to give something to get something. Yes, it is sad that some abuse Medicaid, but to express such ignorance to these purposes and such misinterpretation of the General Authorities is both embarrassing and unexplainable. It is impossible to call one self a good standing member of the church and deny those in need the aid that you are able to give. This mentality is everything opposite that the Church stands for.

Justin Bruner

Kirkland , Wash.

In response to why BYU couples would use Medicaid and WIC.

It is obvious the author of "Don't use Medicaid" (Feb. 21) does not understand what he is saying. How lucky are we to live in such a country that offers health security to those in need. I wonder if he has ever received a government grant to help pay for his education. I wonder if he has ever used the various 1098 forms on his taxes to get a refund from the government for his tuition expenses. I wonder if he has any children he can claim to reduce his taxes. Is he saying that I have "denied the faith" because I take advantage of such opportunities? Are those who go to their bishops for financial aid "worse than infidels?" He might as well change the name of the "ward welfare meeting" to the "ward infidel meeting."

If you don't have the finances for school there are government grants and loans to help. President Hinckley did say that an education is one exception to the no debt rule. In publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called "One for the Money," Elder Marvin J. Ashton advises us to invest in an education even if we go into debt. In regards to heath insurance, Elder Ashton says that "it is important to have sufficient medical insurance" as these costs can be a financial burden for many years to families without insurance. Any BYU student would be foolish to not take part in the government aid offered to all in need.

It is sad to see someone look down on those in need and call them infidels. We are all taxpayers. We all help each other. Tithing, fast offerings, and charitable contributions are all ways we help others in need. Acceptance of a donation does not make someone a denier of the faith or an infidel. Try being a little more understanding.

Richard Adams

Ephrata, Wash.

I disagree with "Don't use Medicaid" (Feb. 21).

First, the author writes, "I know several fathers who work two jobs and go to school," suggesting that it is possible and preferable for any married man to pay for school and living expenses with multiple jobs. This is a fallacy. Simply because he knows some men who can support a family and attend BYU doesn't mean all others can.

Second, he quotes Ezra Taft Benson, who gave a devotional talk at BYU in 1977 entitled "A Vision and a Hope for the Youth of Zion."

Here President Benson, then Elder Benson, speaks about the law of consecration, communism and socialism. He denounces socialism and government aid to BYU students as a form of it. Because he was speaking about a very specific issue, we can't assume the circumstances surrounding his address are similar enough to those current to be completely applicable. To illustrate my point, I compare Elder Benson's words to those of Elder Faust, from a 1992 talk entitled "A New Civil Religion." Here Elder Faust describes government aid as a "laudatory public purpose," disagreeing with Elder Benson. I don't believe we can choose which apostle is correct here; both talks are rather simply matters of opinion.

Finally, I disagree with the author's overall tone. Whether a family is actually in need of government aid is not for us (especially singles without children) to determine; it is a private matter for that family.

Bryant Pulsipher

Fort Collins, Colo.

This is in response to the gentlemen who argued that it is wrong for BYU couples to seek out Medicaid:

First of all, have you ever had to provide for someone other than yourself?

It is more challenging then you think. Students who work more than one job and go to school also find it hard to spend time with family, which is something we are encouraged to do by living prophets. You might not have ever felt the sick feeling of despair as you realize that no matter how many hours you spend working, that there still will not be enough money to provide for your family. Most jobs in Provo are not aimed at providing for couples, but instead for a single budget. You might say I could try for scholarships or grants to provide, but it may be a little harder than you think when all of your free time is spent working to provide for your family. The government has provided opportunities for young families to go to school and provide. Medicaid has a rigorous entry process and is also short term. So it isn't like welfare, where once you're on you stay on till you want to get off. The last point I would like to make would be to point out that we are here to help each other, and if you are too worried about supporting a program that helps low-income families get an education and live, then I suggest you try reading Mosiah chapter 4 again. Thank you

Christopher Ross

Rochester, Minn.

I was disappointed to read the letter about BYU students taking advantage of Medicaid. Perhaps the author is unaware of the costs associated with having a child, especially if there are complications in the pregnancy or birth. To call a father and mother who have come to the end of their rope "infidels" for making good use of a government program is clearly an exaggeration of scripture. I am a father of a seven-month-old baby boy and struggle to make school and three jobs pay for the bills. I don't know anywhere else to make it better, aside from graduating. While I am not on Medicaid, I wholeheartedly feel that any BYU student father, who is in my position or worse, or anyone in significant medical situations for that matter, ought to enjoy the benefits the program has to offer without any chastisement. Who else do you want Medicaid to benefit if not those of our university who struggle mightily to provide for their families? Where else do you want them to turn? To tithing funds instead of taxes? Or would you deny those in legitimate need?

David Golding

Murrieta, Calif.

As a letter Feb. 21 so kindly pointed out, "if any provide not for his own, and specifically for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than the infidel." The author is right, there are plenty of people who work very hard to provide for themselves and their families without seeking any outside assistance. However, I wonder how far the author's independence extends. Should BYU stop participating in Pell Grant programs, since Pell Grants are government handouts? Should Stafford Loans be discontinued since the government subsidizes the interest? Since the author is literally interpreting this passage, it would also extend to the welfare missions of the church. Are all our fast offerings going to people that are worse than infidels?

Government programs exist to help people that the nation as a whole has defined as in need. Programs can be abused, but when a struggling young family humbly seeks the assistance of such programs as WIC and Medicaid to help them through a few tough times, I see nothing wrong. That is why we live in a society. I worry more about the arrogant pride of people who condemn other hard working people for accepting a little help.

Katherine Winters

Queen Creek, Ariz.

Brief Lesson on Time Management

This is addressed to all of those who complain about beards, parking and short skirts, but most of all it applies to the whiners of the new BYU home page. So the page changed, quit whining. There's got to be something better to do with our time than complain about silly things like a new Web page.

It's important to remember that change happens. Trends come and go, interests shift and technology advances. Those of us who don't stay up to date with these get left behind crying like babies in fits of aggravation. (And often they feel it's their solemn responsibility to let the whole campus know how upset they are.) If President Hinckley can stay up to date at the age of 96, why can't we do the same?

Sure it's a different layout and of course there are new pictures, but it wouldn't take more than 15 minutes to become familiar with everything you need to on the site. Couldn't time spent whining to the editor of a newspaper about how hard life is be better spent on familiarizing oneself with the Web page? Am I the only one tired of seeing people waste time freely sharing their complaints about silly things like how they can't figure out a new Web page?

Dave Roderick

Joshua, Texas

Bureaucracy and Inefficiency

Allow me to raise my voice in harmony with the remarks of "Less-efficient Web site," (Feb. 21). The recent unnecessary changes to the BYU Web site are just one more example of how wasteful and useless BYU's bureaucracy has become. With the rise of BYU's bureaucracy, BYUSA in particular, the life has been sucked out of just about everything on campus, as "BYUSA faux pas," (Feb. 21) so insightfully pointed out within the same readers' forum.

It's high time for BYU students to stop whining about liberal conspiracies, beard cards and Mormons who receive Medicaid. It's time we start focusing on the problems happening around us on campus. Since the Bateman era, the bureaucracy has grown and grown into the monster it now is. Let's work together on making this campus more efficient. Perhaps we should start by changing the BYUSA Presidency from a stepping-stone for wannabe politicians to something that actually serves students on campus.

What makes this even more upsetting is the coming tuition increase.

Daniel Evensen

South Jordan

Did BYU Read Student Feedback First?

I would like to stand up with the author of "New Web site confusing" (Feb. 21), and all my other friends who are exasperated by the recent "improvement" to BYU's home page. Like many other technical inefficiencies at BYU, I am willing to bet the Office of Information Technology is to blame. They probably received CNA (Capital Needs Assessment) funds to improve the site, and thought, "since we have the money lets change the homepage."

About two months ago, I accepted the invitation to review the home page, but I never received any reply or response that indicated they actually looked at my review. Was this invitation for public participation only a hoax? Perhaps they should have asked for my advice before they had already redesigned the whole page.

I admit there may be many valid reasons to make changes to BYU's home page. Professional web-analysts are paid big money to help e-commerce sites like amazon.com make more sales. However, these changes are usually made after carefully reviewing metrics such as "click-through rates," and "conversion rates."

If BYU were trying to increase the effectiveness of their site, they would be thinking foremost about site navigation. Are students, employees and visitors able to quickly identify what they are looking for? Do they really think of the homepage as a product that serves us, the customer?

I challenge BYU's design team to present their analytics at a public forum. What metrics can they show to prove that the home page needed to be improved in the first place?

Nathan Armstrong

Baltimore, MD

International Cinema Breaks New Ground

For all those who complain about BYU's super-conservative policies, I would like to highlight the screening of "The Saviour" at International Cinema on Tuesday as evidence to the contrary. The Academy award nominated Australian short film is about a Mormon-looking missionary named Elder Malcolm who has an affair with a female "prospect" that he "visits" alone frequently. *Warning: Spoiler alert* This "prospect's" husband is amazed as his wife miraculously becomes pregnant when he has been infertile for many years.

Elder Malcolm's frequent one-on-one teaching sessions somehow contributed to this miracle, which opens the man's heart to the Gospel. The movie was very funny, but I'm not sure if it was a fair and accurate representation of an LDS mission. Nonetheless, BYU's willingness to show such a potentially controversial film was very interesting; unfortunately, I was the only student at the theatre to witness this liberal triumph. Maybe next month International Cinema will surprise us with "The Last Temptation of Christ." I would like to suggest however, that International Cinema put "The Saviour" on the ballot (with the other short films shown) handed out after the screening so students can possibly vote for it; otherwise it looks like it was a mistake that it was shown in the first place.

James Littlejohn

Alamo, Calif.

Copyright Brigham Young University 23 Feb 2007