Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 19, 1986)
Page 2/The: Battalion/Wednesday, February 19, 1986 An honest gesture The makers of Tylenol announced Monday they would dis continue production of all capsule products because they can’t guarantee protection from tampering. Johnson 8c Johnson’s concern for customers ahead of capital gain is a welcome senti ment. The cancellation is the result of potassium cyanide-laced Ex tra-Strength Tylenol capsules, which killed a 23-year-old woman in the New York City area. Another bottle of the contaminated medicine was found in a store less than two blocks from where the first fatal dose was purchased. In 1982, seven people were killed in a similar poisoning inci dent in Chicago. The company introduced “tamper-proof” con tainers for its products after the Chicago tragedy, but, if the will is twisted enough, a way can be found around any precaution. In this case, it has. The pain killer’s removal will cost Johnson & Johnson about $200 million in sales. Despite its misfortune, Johnson &: Johnson has accepted re sponsibility for the disaster. Although it may not be to blame, the company is taking action to ensure customers are protected from harm. In this day of dog-eat-dog commercialism, it’s comforting to see one company swallow its pride and put people before prof its. The Battalion Editorial Board Opinion 'exas ihlme ol tioual st Bed the ucationa llonsibl' ■ Head ■it to igran start a B ■ars a} CHUSr hoi Cor Health ( ■ But n ■ve pf i student j she mvs, ■“We’i ■in kini IjVe’re dnnkinj jMcRr foi start more st awareik sored b\ ■She s, shelli sti policies, ■inkiin Bte pla I" 1 ld Bins at Fundamentalist view breeds religious intolerance^, I am not a reli gious person. I ac cept few things on faith — why do you think they call it religious “faith” and not religious “proof?” I am not ignorant of the subject. I have taken various courses dealing Glenn Murtha Fundamentalism is a strict, literal in terpretation of religious scripture, pri marily Biblical scripture. Inevitably, conflict between science and fundamen talism, fact and faith, will occur. Battle lines are drawn and those who adhere to the fundamentalist line often will reject scientific evidence in favor of their faith. If they choose to do this, that’s fine. But when they try to erase evidence from others’ sight, they’ve gone too far. with the Bible and religion in general and have made personal conclusions based upon knowledge. Religion is fine when used properly in a nonjudgmental fashion. When taken to the extremes of fundamentalism, however, religion moves into the realm of harmful and dangerous. A new organization, Fundamentalist Anonymous, was recently formed in New York to help people stop funda mentalism from ruining their lives or the lives of others. A few years ago I did a research pa per dealing with the subject of scientific creationism. I tried to argue the cre ationist side. I am not, nor ever was, a creationist. The point of the paper was to argue for a particular viewpoint. I found masses of support for evolu tion — vehement and comprehensive support from knowledgeable people from the scientific community, experts in their field. I searched and searched for any support for scientific creatio nism. About all I could find was one book written from a Christian perspec tive which distorted and overlooked evi dence in a desperate attempt to give cre dence to scientific creationism. For example, the religious right wants to remove evolution from biology textbooks and replace it with “scientific” creationism. They have been successful in watering down evolution in many of the newer texts. California took a stand last year and voted to accept no text book for use in the public schools which does not adequately cover evolution. Most fundamentalist Christians real ize that in our empirical world little is accepted from a non-scientific basis. Moving creationism into the scientific realm could give more validity to the Biblical story of creation. beliefs (it’s called cognitive dissonance in psychology). They believe that the Bible is the source of absolute truth and that anything which contradicts their inter pretation of the Bible is false. Evolution and Biblicial creationism can co-exist. One letter printed in “Sa turday Forum” effectively eliminated the problem by making the point that God created evolution. If fundamentalists continue to take such a hard line on this and other issues, they will only succeed in damaging their cause. A few weeks ago, the Houston Chronicle did a “Saturday Forum” de voted the nature of human existence — specifically creation versus evolution. “Saturday Forum” invites readers to ex press their views on a particular topic. I was amazed at the number of pro-cre ation and anti-evolution responses. These people are blinded by their re ligious faith. They refuse to accept any evidence which places doubt on their ing for themselves, analyzing proWi with the help of available evideiK reach * conclusion, fundamentalEBFOR provide answers. Nincyl apidly changing and ™' l ' lln In world where wrong can be II dipl Bad right can be wrong dependingupi saving individual or a particular lime f come e; stability anil ■The tough 1 stk king ha-' lea Maintaining a faith is one thing, ig noring the evidence is quite another. Sadly enough, it is this hard line that tends to attract followers. Fundamenta lism is not limited to evolution versus creation. For many people, fundamen talism offers absolute standards of right and wrong for virtually all issues — abortion is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, birth control is wrong, homosex uality is wrong, gambling is wrong, etc., etc. For people who have trouble think- fundamentalism offer: curity. Little room exists for tolerating^ native views when a particularreLlhings i belief offers a doctrine of absoluti fkagan and wrong — religious intoleranceiB^g result. I™ ■ovitk “Believe what 1 believe or spendlfor p e < nity burning in HELL!” gjroblei Fear can also attract followers. I If you know anyone close to you® has fallen into the fundamentalist or yon yourself are caught in the® and want to escape, contact Fundat® talist Anonymous. It may help. Glenn Murtha is a senior politiolf ence major and a columnist for Mr Battalion. U.S. kicked by Reagan’s knee Picture Ronald Reagan. Okay, now picture him as a giant knee. Now here comes a doctor’s rubber- tipped hammer shaped like the Philippines. The hammer hits, the knee jerks and the president immedi ately comes down on the side ot author ity. The president is the genuine article. He really is a knee-jerk conservative. Since Reagan’s initial statements about the Philippine elections, there has been some backing and filling, some hemming and hawing and the required dispatch of Philip Habib, the winged messenger of futility, on yet another dumb mission. But at the critical, almost Rorschach moment, the president looked at the ink blot of the Philippine archipelago and saw the Berkeley cam pus of yore — protest and pandemo nium. As the kids say, he freaked. Of course, Reagan could hardly men tion Berkeley. After all, he was not artic ulating a thought, but an emotion — what in Washington passes for ideology. That strongly felt emotion prompted the nonsense that leaped from Reagan’s lips when the issue of the Philippines was raised at his recent press confer ence: There was no proof of vote fraud and, besides, both sides had used vio lence. The average American, lacking a Ha bib but havirfg a television set, knew the president was wrong. The bodies bled on camera and the fraud was palpable. Richard Lugar, a conservative senator from Indiana and once a favorite of Richard Nixon’s, had certified it. Ferdi nand Marcos was a cheat. Notice that Reagan’s statements re garding the Philippine elections were not all that different from those he made regarding South Africa. There, too, he said that there was violence on both sides. It seemed not to matter to him that one side was the government, with all its guns, and the other side, while numerous, was powerless. It also seemed not to matter that the govern ment was protecting privilege, racism and the raw abuse of power. What mat tered was that it was the government — authority. It had to be right. For Reagan, this is a theme. At the same press conference at which he inar ticulately articulated his position on the Philippines’ election, he defended his record on civil rights: “I was doing things about civil fights before there was (a government) program.” Maybe he was. But when the individual efforts of countless individual blacks converged into an often rambunctious civil-rights movement, Reagan recoiled and op posed civil-rights legislation. It was as if the leper of Bolshevism was about to touch him. The rabble was at the gates. Beginning with the classic study, Richard Cohen jerk conservativisB “The Authoritarian Personality” by Theodore Adorno, social scientists have tried to determine what makes one per son liberal and another conservative. In the case of President Reagan, the cause is less important than the consequence. The results have been damaging and mar what some already are claiming to be a great presidency. Reagan’s civil-rights posture, his statements on South Africa and, now, the reflexive kick he gave the vast Mar cos opposition, are more than personal utterances. They are official pro nouncements, the face the United States turns to the world. Black South Africans and anti-Marcos Filipinos, engaged as they are in the often-messy struggle for freedom, must think they have seen the man’s heart and found it cold. Reagan’s instincts, so acclaimed in Washington, are precisely where the underprivileged find him wanting. It is why, totally with out evidence and to his evident dismay, so many American blacks say Reagan’s a racist. In the end, facts and realitys® times overpower Reagan’s consent 1 instincts and, almost imperceptI things change. U.S. policy tow 1 ® South Africa is not what it once ft® although to many blacks there itli ®; matters. When it comes to thef® ippines, something similar will hap w In due course, Reagan will inch'1 from his initial rhetoric and polio’■ dutifully follow. Trouble is, Ui hardly matter. The irony is that at the age of’-’B eryone seems to know this part ofB aid Reagan but Reagan himself, h® with a challenge to authority, hesB lows his reflexive conservatismWiB the better of him. In following stincts rather than his head, heilff j country a disservice. It may be his J jerk reaction. But it’s us who ; kicked. Richard Cohen is a columnist f j Washington Post Writers Group' | Mail Call Sorry for the switch EDITOR: This letter is written in response to last week’s dis satisfied Lee Greenwood concert goer. On behalf of MSC Town Hall, I would like to apol ogize for any inconvenience due to a last minute change of location for the concert. The concert was moved to Rudder Auditorium be cause this facility was better suited to the size of the au dience in addition to having better staging, accoustics and environment. Town Hall works hard to promote its productions through various media such as radio, newspapers, fliers, banners, posters and buttons. In regard to the location change, radios and newspapers were notified as soon as the change was made. Seating was closely monitored to ensure that G. Rollie White patrons received equivalent or better seating in Rudder. General admission patrons were seated in the balcony. Wendy Cochrane ’86 MSC Town Hall Chairman Lack of creativity EDITOR: Though I personally don’t wear an earring, I felt compelled to respond to Chuck Gill and Russell Fish- beck’s letter about males who wear earrings. I realize no sarcasm was intended, but they could have been a little more creative with their question. For instance, if I were wondering why some people wear cowboy boots and blue jeans, I might have asked: 1) What posesses you to wear them; an incredible sense of conformity? 2) What would your parents think if you decided to wear surf shorts and an O.P. shirt? Would they tell your grandparents or keep it a secret? 3) Do you think girls find your clothes sexy? Please answer openly and honestly. It seems like you went to a lot of effort for some simple answers. Wouldn’t it have been easier and quicker to just ask some guy why he wears an earring — that is, if no sarcasm was intended? Mike Sullivan ’87 Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each let ter must be signed and must include the address and telephone number of the writer. The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Associalion Southwest Journalism Conference The Battalion Editorial Board Michelle Powe, Editor Kay Mallett, Managing Editor Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor Jerry Oslin, City Editor Cathie Anderson, News Editor Travis Tingle, Sports Editor Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supportinf^ , per operated as a community service to Texas A Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in T he Battalion are IW**. Editorial Board or the author and do not /i««k 1 resent the opinions of Texas A&M administraloO " or the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory tie»s^r' students in reporting, editing and photograph"' within the Department of Communications. The Battalion is published Monday ifaWfU during Texas A&M regular semesters, except ‘ . and examination periods. Mail subscriptions ay- per semester, $33.25 per school year andSSs^ year. Advertising rates furnished on request Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed Building, Texas A&M University, College $»- 77843. , J Second class postage paid at College Station, T\