Send us your letters
Send us your letters
When love isn’t enough
I appreciated your article on what TCU’s psychology department is doing for adopted children and their families in the Winter issue cover article, “When Love is Not Enough.”
However, I observed that the paragraph that discusses sensory integration disorder seems to imply that children diagnosed with this disorder develop SID as a direct or indirect result of emotional neglect. This should be clarified.
SID can result from other causes besides the ones mentioned in the article, which discusses mainly continuous emotional neglect from birth. Premature birth, birth trauma and even heredity can play a role in whether or not a child develops SID.
I know this because my full-term, drug-free birthed, breastfed, family-bedded, sling-worn baby was recently diagnosed with SID. His father and I are with him and meet his needs consistently and gently. We are glad that now there are things we can do for him to help him even more. It would be a shame for the parents of those children with SID who have yet to be diagnosed to be misled about the nature of SID.
As society becomes more aware of sensory integration issues, more families will get the help that they need, which does a great service for our children.
Leigh Anne Munoz
Los Angeles California
Lost and found
Technology is wonderful when it works, but it can sometimes do inexplicable things that work against us.
We experienced such a mishap with the 1999 Donor Report, which was mailed out with the Winter issue. Whether the Y2K bug had a hand in this or some other technological mischief was at work, the report failed to include 33 donors from the “Alumni Donors” section.
We are embarrassed and sorry to have dropped the names of these wonderful alumni who chose to support alma mater last year. Each one of them has been contacted personally by letter, but we wanted the TCU community to be aware of their generosity.
Bronson C. Davis
Vice Chancellor for University Advancement
Class of 1998
Michele Denise Peoples
Curba Bonar Piehl
Donald Lanier Plunkett, Jr.
Christopher Dailey Poland
Molly Regal Kristin
Teresa Ann Richardson
Keri Lyn Reiger
Dana Michele Robertson
Susan Elizabeth Robideaux
Michael Anthony Roche
Susan Elizabeth Rolander
Class of 1958
Dorothy Eugenia Wofford Corbin
Richard Cotton Paul L. Coulter
Jack L. Crabtree
Nancy Lee White Crouch
Vernon Dale Crues James Cruze
Jerry S. Daniel
Barbara Garland Davis
Gail Lynette Woltman DeMoss
Class of 1946
Betty Mae Davis Harrelson
Hannah Adelle Groginski Harris
Norman N. Hoffman Joy Holder
Bettye Jean Brown Huddle
Max M. Humphreys
Eugene L. James
Richard E. Jay
Sue Cotham Jones
Thou shalt not publish
I certainly agree with student writer Tara Pope ’00 (“Burning issues,” Winter) that an appropriate forum for student appeal could be useful.
In addition, I commend her and the TCU Daily Skiff for exercising good judgment in interpreting university guidelines for good taste and decency by declining to publish a column advocating a nude TCU coed photo op.
I’m concerned, however, that relying simply on “normal standards of decency and respect…” could result in a regrettable choice.
Therefore, considering the word, “Christian,” which continues to be included in the name of the University, I believe that in such situations it would be wise to ask, “What would Jesus do?”
Maybe Tara did.
Jay R. Hackleman ’64
Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan
The Christian in TCU
Since attending TCU, I have noticed it has been watering down the “Christian” part of its name and what it should stand for. This is understandable since the institution is competing for consumer dollars in the secular marketplace.
But TCU is, or should be, different. It calls itself a Christian university and by doing so should have a sense of obligation to promote the Gospel of Christ as its main priority. Otherwise, if it is trying to join the crowd of other large schools to reach higher “tiers” as its main priority, with the goal of higher student enrollment and more prestigious faculty, and higher endowments, it would do so more ably if it dropped the Christian label, which is a liability in our modern worldly society.
The label of Christianity should not be used as a ploy or tool for material gain and prestige by individuals. It can lead to confusion where I can see some would identify TCU with the church and regard support of either to be one and the same. Your magazine is a vanity publication for praising and honoring financial donors and their relatives proportionately — publicly and explicitly. Yet, Christ taught that we should give in secret as God knows and recognizes what we do.
But I question the purpose of identifying donors’ religions. By being overzealous to be tolerant, it is a de facto selling out of the Christian beliefs on which TCU was founded. There is nothing wrong with having a “Jewish” stadium or a “Moslem” student center, but by calling attention to religion, race, gender, national origin and anything else you can publicize, it is promoting bias through use of labels.
TCU offers nondenominational education and does not hold its students and faculty to rigorous standards of personal behavior. If you visit the campus of TCU, how is it “noticeably” different from the state-run schools that make no pretense of being Christian? The danger of showing excessive tolerance for non-Christian and even anti-Christian beliefs leads to passive endorsement and naive promotion of what the Christian church has battled since its inception, and faces toward today’s sophisticated humanistic learned circles who turn their backs on God. I seldom read anything about Brite, but your pages are crammed about the technical fields and TCU’s fight to assert itself there. Theology has been called the mother of sciences.
Has TCU forgotten God? After all, the most exhaustive studies in any field eventually must end with God.
You can tolerate and respect beliefs of others, but you don’t have to endorse them or join them to prove your goodness out of your fear of the world’s opinion of you. No one ever said the Christian lifestyle brings popularity and material gain. Look at Christ Himself and the martyrs since. TCU should not try to join the mad race for higher tiers of recognition at the cost of giving up the values on which it was founded.
Let us remember that Christians should seek the praise of God, not men. It would be well for all students, faculty and alumni to bear this in mind. Where are you headed? Where is TCU headed? Will you have room for Christ in the new millennium?
Thayer K. Miller, Brite ’54
From the Book of Walsch
In response to Harold DeHart’s letter from the Winter issue, I suggest he read Conversations with God by Neale Donald Walsch.
There is no reason one cannot believe in creationism and evolution simultaneously; they are not mutually exclusive. As Einstein showed, time is relative. God may have created all life in an instant (Big Bang), but God’s instant may be billions of years in human perspective.
Evolution, which is supported by tons of evidence, may be God’s way of completing His creation. Like the silly juvenile posturing of Republicans versus Democrats, supporters of both theories need to get off their close-minded high horses and realize there is middle ground.
Mr. DeHart will also find some other wonderful ideas in Conversations, such as: There is no Hell, no original sin, no judgment day, and we all go to Heaven. We are part of God, and our purpose is to experience what He can only conceptualize.
And the path to God does not have to go through Jesus.
Thom Haynes ’81
Bible 101, part two
It’s always disconcerting yet reaffirming to discover that some with college degrees from TCU (DeHart ’60) missed out understanding some of the most relevant parts of their required courses (Survey of the Bible).
As one who taught that course, I am clearly aware of the course content, required readings, etc. To understand Genesis requires an understanding of mythology (and the Old Testament is Jewish mythology).
It is further important to remember that similar (almost duplicated in their entirety) creation stories are found in all other cultures and that they predate the priestly writings of the Pentateuch.
That Old Testament God was everything but a God of Love. In it you find a tribal God, a mountain God, an agricultural God, a patriarchal God, a vengeful and sadistic God, a war God, a God of the temple and a God of the Ark, among others.
Genesis has at least two creation myths and is not even monotheistic (“Let us make man …”) What a disaster we create when we seek to convert mythological descriptions into literal truth. What a mistake to confuse geology and biology with theology. The former is objective, verifiable realities.
Theology is a subjective reality simply based on personal belief. If you accept creationism, you continue to live on a flat earth around which all of the galaxies, and our sun, revolve.
Isn’t it time to get serious, into the 21st century and update one’s theology consistent with what we know about this vast mysterious universe and stop attempting to fit our world and our God concept into the flat earth cosmology of the ancient priests?
Walter Kania, PhD, MDiv ’61