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\