I am writing in response to Natalie Glover’s column in yesterday’s Kernel. She asserts that the lack of a father figure in life is trivial because indeed “God is our ever-present Heavenly Father,” whether we know it or not. Not only do I question her certainty on the matter, but I also ask: Who wants a father figure like the Judeo-Christian god of the bible anyway?

After reading the Old Testament, it is made clear that this is a father who encourages rape, incest, genocide, homophobia and revenge, all in His name. God the Father tells us to kill people who don’t listen to priests, women who are not virgins on their wedding night and those following other religions (Deuteronomy 13:7-22:21). This god is also responsible for the murder of thousands of newborn babies in Egypt in the story of Passover. How can we get a clear moral sense of right and wrong from a Heavenly Father who contradicts his own Ten Commandments?

If He does serve as humanity’s supreme father, then by our own American standards, He should be recognized as quite a bad father, to say the least. After all, he has fathered a human race that kills without mercy, enjoys the perversions of materialism and rejects its own “God-given” abilities of logic and reason in

exchange for blind faith and dogma.

For these reasons, I am proud not to call this Heavenly Father “dad.” My own earthly father has done a better job demonstrating what is right from wrong. He has shown me how to love, how to grow and how to appreciate the beauty that surrounds us here on Earth. My father has never told me what to think, but rather how to think, how to discern information for myself so that I can make my own conclusions, something religion fails to do. I have learned more from my own father than I ever will from the god of the bible.

We all must ask ourselves Nietzsche’s famous question: “Which is it, is man one of God’s blunders or is God one of man’s?”

Nate Kremer

Psychology sophomore

Columnist out of touch with Catholic Church

In Kathryn Hogg’s column appearing in Thursday’s Kernel, she asserted that “Vatican City is in control of an unspeakable amount of money — literally unspeakable.” On what does the columnist base this wild claim? Does she have some special access to Pope Benedict’s bank account? Far from being a secret, as the columnist asserts, the Vatican’s finances are available on the CIA World Fact Book online or in any encyclopedia.

The truth is, the Vatican is not “unspeakably rich” as Hogg purports. The Vatican’s economy is fueled almost entirely on tourism. With the exception of an annual contribution known as “Peter’s Pence,” the money Catholics put in the collection plate on Sundays and Holy Days remains in their own local dioceses.

Hogg then goes on to criticize the Vatican’s collection of fine art when people are starving. What does she propose? Should we shut down every art gallery? Ms. Hogg blames the Church for the fact that people are starving; but, in fact, the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet. When was the last time Ms. Hogg donated money to a Catholic charity?  Has she taken a vow of poverty? Does she wear shoes?

Ms. Hogg mentioned several times that the Pope wears Prada shoes. One almost gets the impression that Hogg harbors a deep-seated jealousy and resentment of those who can afford Prada. The underlying sentiment behind Hogg’s statements is the opinion that good people shouldn’t own nice things. But the fact is, the Pope’s shoes aren’t even Prada. As the Wall Street Journal reported in 2006, his shoes were made by his personal cobbler. And he didn’t pay for them — they were given as a gift.

Ms. Hogg herself said that she was a “bad student of Catholicism” — that much is true. To argue against something, one must demonstrate one knows at least a little about what one is talking about. Quite frankly, Ms. Hogg’s credentials are lacking.

Douglas Poindexter

History junior