Tyler,
The three pieces cited are all classified as editorials or opinion pieces; they may assert erroneous opinion, but opinion is protected speech; the counter to it is op-ed presentations.
I would note that the following two quotes, from Wolfgang Deerkop’s piece are well-said and profound statements that we would all do well to remember
In the same manner that Father Seromba does not exemplify the 1 billion adherents to the Catholic faith, Islamic clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr and those who follow them are not representative of every Muslim.
Generalizations of an entire faith because of fringe movements fracture what little religious tolerance is left in this world and make hypocrites of us all.
Persons are free to disagree with the religious tenets of a particular faith, to espouse that disagreement, and to explain the rationale behind his/her thought. That’s not an attack, whether it’s done by an adherent or a non-believer, provided that it’s not presented in an inflammatory manner and doesn’t rely on inaccurate or erroneous information to present its case.
Members of a faith who find its precepts to be repugnant and/or untenable are free to take appropriate action within their faith, whether by prayer, ecclesiastical legislation, or effecting changes in leadership to revise them. Alternatively, they are free to transfer their religious allegiance and adherence to another religious body which has an outlook more in concert with their own. Or, they disagree, but choose to live with it.
Unfortunately, Mr. Deerkoop fails to understand that political correctness is not a concept to which a religion is required to adhere in its “tenants” (
sic). Thus, Muslims are free to require that their women adherents wear veils and Catholics are free to deny ordination to its women adherents.
The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is not going to do you any good; this isn’t hate literature, its journalistic opinion of a sophmoric nature, typical of college newpapers. As I read the web site, the paper is an official school organ, but is primarily supported by advertising revenue. That makes its content more sacrosanct than if it were dependent entirely on public funding by a state school.
In summary, the solution to your issue is for YOU to take pen to paper - or fingers to keyboard. Volumes of correspondence by those not of the school’s community seldom mean anything to a publication which has that community as its constituency.
Many years,
Neil