The Battalion
OPINION
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1989
Mail Call
Religion...
EDITOR:
I think that Mr. Butler, in his letter of Jan. 23, probably misunderstood what is
wrong with professors discussing their Christianity in the classroom.
The problem is not with the belief itself —it is with the attitude about the belief.
You see, it’s okay when professors digress to discuss a speeding ticket, because
they present it as either a fact everyone agrees is true or as their opinion which
students can choose to agree or disagree with. But many Christians present their
religious beliefs in a way that denies that it is just their opinion —which it is. Their
basic attitude is that if a student chooses to disagree with them, that student will
forever be “wrong” in the profs eyes and will go to hell for an eternity of pain and
suffering!
It’s this attitude that offends people. Many Christians refuse to admit that
religion is just an opinion, and that people choose the religion that best expresses
the views and morals they already have. Mr. Butler himself is a good example, with
his statements like, . . what they (atheists and agnostics) have to say contains no
promise or hope for mankind.”
Is this the statement of someone who listens open-mindedly to what another
says?
Some people see religion as opinion, and some rightly see A&M as nothing but
an institution of learning where what is fact is shown to be fact, and what is theory
is properly labeled “theory.”
Yes, Christians have a right to express their religious beliefs in the classroom,
but as an opinion or a theory or a philosophy to a better life. No one has the right
to express theories and opinions disguised as facts or obvious truths and to expect
those of us who disagree to swallow them without a fight.
Would Mr. Butler feel it was an atheist professor’s right to tell his or her
mathematics class flat out “God id dead and Jesus was a joke.”?
Mike Freeman ’91
. and more religion
EDITOR:
The first point of Brian’s Jan. 23rd letter seems to be that we should not be
concerned if professors go around witnessing Christianity to their classes.
He certainly seems concerned if someone objects to it. I wonder how he would
feel if his professors started giving plugs for Buddhism, or Communism, or
abortion?
I realize that many Christians feel a burden to expose the world to Jesus. I
believe the old biblical adage is that he who doesn’t make the heathen aware of his
sin will share in the punishment.
So, Brian’s position is understandable. But perhaps we should be asking
whether it is appropriate for an agent of a (theoretically) secular state to be
endorsing a religion on the job. A salesman’s actions are representative of his
company. A religious salesman is no different. . .
I also want to address the other portion of Mr. Butler’s letter. Obviously, Brian
is neither an atheist nor an agnostic. So, how can he really know just what they are
compelled to do?
Several atheists I know are quite compelled to share their beliefs because, like
Brian, they think that they have something of great value to offer the world. Like
Christians, they have told me of their life-changing personal experiences. A friend
tells me he’s been “Born-Again”—again! How does Brian know Hope Warren isn’t
a Christian? Did it ever occur to him that some of us may hold to the faith, yet still
not want to listen to witnessing, especially from one of our professors?
For Brian, Hope, myself or an atheist to share his views in class is not wrong.
We are here to learn. It would be a pity to condemn the practice of sharing ideas
amonst the students. But please understand that for an agent of the state to preach
religion is a different matter.
I am not fully aware of the details of Hope’s incident. What was said might
actually not have been inappropriate. Brian may well be correct when he says that
witnessing does not force anyone to think about what’s being said. However, it is
rather effective at ingraining religious doctrines. (These two features are what
alarm a lot of people.)
Regardless of the case of Hope Warren, there is a principle I wish to make
clear here. Religious indoctrination should never be part of our curriculum. We
have churches for this purpose. If nothing else, it is my hope that this does cause
people to sit back and think.
Bud Cox ’90
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 letter must be signed and must include the
classification, address and telephone number of the writer.
By Kelly!
That’s the
radioactive
of a cripple
nuclear plant
The sunset's
this way!
Itaff writs
Life is a Hi
or liberal art
|i'ant to get Y
ninistration c
The reason
An opporu
motivated lib
Jail who want
lier than most
Dr. Dan R
MBA progra
largeted towr
per of libera
pursuing bat
Vho have at f
HOLTON
Robertson
jnust have a c
lure and be ]
particular go;
“First, the}
loward grad
lie said, “am
lave a predi
liess even the
pe in a non-bi
The idea <
brought to tl
lliree years a|
laniel Fallon
‘Burning’ promotes awareness
Te>
It embarrasses me to admit this, but I
think the movie “Mississippi Burning” is
a terrific movie.
The reason I’m embarrassed is that
many deep-thinking pundits say it’s a
terrible film. So do most civil rights ac
tivists.
They don’t like it because it doesn’t
present the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. And they’re
right; it doesn’t.
In case you haven’t been following
this controversy, the movie is loosely
based on the murder of three young
civil rights workers in Mississippi in
1964.
The young men — two white, one
black — were murdered by Klansmen
who didn’t think they should be encour
aging Mississippi blacks to register to
vote.
That part of the movie, the murders,
is reasonably accurate. So is the por
trayal of the killers and their red-necked
sympathizers as a bunch of ignorant, sa
distic, racist terrorists. And so are the
church-bombings, the beatings and
other violent acts that were an almost
daily event in the South during those
times. t
So what’s the gripe?
Basically, it’s because the movie’s
heroes are two dedicated FBI agents
who eventually solve the crime, using a
combination of “Dirty Harry” muscle
and “The Sting” trickery.
The critics say the movie is dishonest,
even immoral, because everybody
knows that J. Edgar Hoover, the head of
the FBI, was a racist himself and loathed
the civil rights movement.
And they say it’s wrong to make
heroes out of fictional FBI agents.
There are other complaints. But they
boil down to the fact that the movie is
not a factual documentary. Instead, it is
an action thriller that exploits a genuine
tragedy and monumental period in
American history.
No, the movie isn’t a documentary.
Yes, it weaves fiction with fact. And J.
Edgar was a louse.
But the movie’s violence, terror, big
otry and ignorance are realistic. The
beady-eyed boobs had seized control of
a big part of this country. They were
America’s version of the beer-hall thugs
who followed Hitler in Germany. De
cent Southerners, and there were many,
feared speaking out. Those who did
could be clobbered, and many were.
How do I know? I was in the South
during the great voting rights drive. Not
in Mississippi, but in Alabama. And the
same breed of clods were killing civil
rights workers there, too.
What puzzles me most about the com-
plainers is their demand that a moviel
an accurate recitation of the facts at
only the facts.
If they want facts, here’s one. It
fact that making movies is a businen
And documentaries are not good buj
ness.
But if they insist on facts only on
screen, they should get together wi
some investors, come up with about}?!
million, make such a documentaryat:j
put it in the theaters.
Then they should get their lawyaj
and file for bankruptcy when the mow
bombs at the box office.
You don’t go in a movie theater til
pecting to see and hear facts. The
you can hope for is a sense of realitil
And that’s what “Mississippi BurnM
provided.
Actually, it’s a bit ironic that son
civil rights activists are panning
movie for bending facts.
As I recall, Jesse Jackson didn’t mil
mixing fiction with reality when
showed up on TV in that blood-staina
shirt the day after Dr. Martin Luthf
King Jr. was murdered.
So, it didn’t happen exactly as Jess
described it. He wasn’t the last person!
talk to Dr. King. Dr. King didn’t anoii
him.
But, what the heck, it could have hap
pened that way. And if there’s even
movie about Jesse, I’m sure it will.
Copyright 1989, Tribune Media Services, h.
WASH IN
la trans-Atla
Ibeef, but it i
|will steer the
[the Europea
While the
[Europe’s bai
beef, Texai
Hightower 1
vide the EFj
I Lone Star St
Europe c<
[growing cat
United State
The U.S.
| patently ade
Hightower’s
free beef in
procedure tl
munity of th
Despite mistakes, Reagan was successful president
I remember the 1988 presidential
election — or at least parts of it.
Mainly, I remember seeing George
Bush massacre the Democrat, Michael
What’s-his-name, in the election. This
was due in large part to the successes of
his predecessor, Ronald Reagan. Rea
gan was recently attacked on these
pages, so in the interest of fairness, and
to present both sides of Reagan’s presi
dency, I undertake to defend him.
Few critics are brave enough to crit
icize the Grenada invasion, Reagan’s
most visible foreign policy action. But it
was criticized. The Grenada invasion
was needed in order to protect the
Americans on Grenade and back here at
home. We don’t need another Commu
nist outpost in this hemisphere; we al
ready have two (Cuba and Nicaragua).
The Grenada engagement also helped
to prove to the Soviets that Reagan was
not being flip with Moscow about “get
ting tough.”
'JNiT
fMpip
Timothy F.
Doolen
Columnist
Reagan was the most popular presi
dent of this half-century, and certainly
one of the most popular peace-time
presidents ever. He was by no means a
perfect person, nor a perfect president,
but Ronald Reagan gave to this country
something it had searched for through
out the past two decades: a sense of
good feeling about our nation. In my es
timation, Ronald Reagan’s most impor
tant achievement was making America
feel good about itself again, bringing a
new patriotism to our country.
Could we have tried to negotiate?
With whom? Certainly not the persons
that, with the help of Castro’s Cuba,
were about to establish a regime that
was allied with the Soviet Union.
Should we have gone to the United
Nations? It’s bad enough we pay for the
United Nations, we shouldn’t have to
pay attention to it. In the same year as
the Grenada invasion, the U.N. refused
to condemn the Soviet Union for shoot
ing down a Korean airliner.
Turning to criticism of the bombing
of Libya: Gadhafi should have known
better than to support and instigate in
ternational terrorism. Libya paid the
price for its actions. A few innocent Li
byans might have died, but how many
innocent lives were saved by the curb of
terrorism that followed the bombing.
people. Reagan came to office on a
landslide, and left as a more popular
figure than he had been when he ar
rived. If Reagan’s staunchest critics are
correct, saying that Reagan was virtually
unfit to rule, then that is an indictment
of the American people. If Reagan was
really as awful a President as the critics
say, then the critics are saying the mil
lions of voters who elected Reagan were
either fooled by his charm, or were just
stupid.
gan was our hero. He was shot,
vived, and told his wife, “Honey, Hoi
got to duck.” He fought off cancer ami
Democrats, and he successfully survive
Bittburg and the Iran-Contra hearing
Reagan has gone from the White Hon!
and so also goes the charisma 1
brought to the presidency.
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Becky Weisenfels, Editor
Leslie Guy, Managing Editor
Dean Sueltenfuss, Opinion Page Editor
Anthony Wilson, City Editor
Scot Walker, Wire Editor
Drew Leder, News Editor
Doug Walker, Sports Editor
Jay Janner, Art Director
Mary-Lynne Rice, Entertainment Edi
tor
Editorial Policy
The battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspa
per operated as a community service to Texas A&M and
Brvan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion arc those of the
editorial hoard or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, fac
ulty or t he Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper
for .students in reporting, editing and photography,
classes within the Department of Journalism.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except for holiday
and examination periods.
Mail subscriptions arc $17.44 per semester, $34.62
per school year and $36.44 per full year. Advertising
rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Recti McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station. TX 77843-1 111.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX
77843.
I’OSTM ASTF.R: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station TX 77843-4 111.
As for criticism on Reagan’s handling
of the economy, while Reagan was in of
fice, he lowered the inflation rate from
13% to 4% annually, brought unem
ployment to new lows, created millions
of jobs, and lowered taxes. I’ll agree
with his critics that he did do quite a bit
of deficit spending, more than his pre
decessors, and only the future can tell
what problems that may create.
In 1984, well after Grenada, James
Watt, and during the economic recov
ery, Ronald Reagan won 48 more states
than Walter Mondale. Drat. His critics
might say that the American people
were not only foolish enough to elect
the guy once in 1980, but four years and
several mistakes later, they accidentally
did it again, giving Reagan 40 times
more electoral votes than his opponent.
When history can objectively
back on Reagan, it will not rememte
him as one of the “great” presidents,
took accidents of circumstance couplfi
with strong personal character to el
evate men like Washington, Lincoln
Wilson, and the Roosevelts to thatsd
tus. Yet Reagan will be at the top of tin
“next best” list — an extremely success 1
ful peacetime president.
A large part of Reagan’s budget, the
money spent on “tanks, missiles and jet
planes,” did more good than anyone
could have imagined. It brought a So
viet leader, Gorbachev, to the bargain
ing table and ultimately resulted in a
treaty that reduced nuclear arms for the
first time in our history. Odd, I don’t re
member any criticism of the treaty by
Reagan’s critics on the left.
Anyone will admit that Reagan made
some mistakes in his eight years as presi
dent, but I’d bargain that he made a lot
less errors than anyone else who would
have been President during the same
time. No president or his administration
is perfect and there is always room for
criticism. But when we take Reagan’s ca
reer as a whole, and look at the good
things he did along with his mistakes, we
see he was overall a successful president.
With over a 60 percent approval rating
as he left office, Reagan left on a higher
wave of popularity than when he en
tered office (he was elected by 50.7 per
cent of the electorate in 1980.)
That is the estimate of George Will,
written in the best summary of Reagai
years that I have read, “How Reagai
Changed America” (Newseek). Willcot
eludes his brilliant yet surprisingly
jective essay with this passage: “[Amt
rica] needed reassurance. It neededC
recover confidence in its health art
goodness. It needed to recover whatirf
lost in the 1960s and 1970s, the seifi
that it has a competence commensurai
with its nobility and responsibilitid
Reagan has been a great reassurer,
steadying captain who calmed the pi
sengers and, to some extent the sea."
Yes, Ronald Reagan, we miss you.
Of all the criticism I have heard of
Reagan, I have almost never heard a
strong word of criticism directed to
wards his supporters — the American
As good a president as he promises to
be, George Bush will never be able to
equal Reagan on a personal level. Rea-
Timm Doolen is a sophomore col
puter science major and a column^
for The Battalion.
1
Where t
w
B
Syi
On Monda
men in Busin
top women e:
ing “Secrets
“Conflicts in
in Business-'
topics will be
the Executive
include Ka O
Staubach Coi
the Associati
Services; Val
Inc.; Suzanm
tics Inc.; and
chison, Boyh
cussion will
the day in Blc
At 11:30an
ton in which
“Women Tod
son has eame
lion from the
as national
Women’s Ce
Glamour Ma
Working Wc
chosen One
Women in T<
Texas politic
of the Texas
lican precinc
/College Stal
vited to atten,
Tickets fo
Thursday, Ja
be $7 for stuc
The symp.
man through
women from
will be discu
For more in
Student Cou
Zimmermani
at 696-9367.
•John A
tional: O
•Din
•Jan
•Adr
•Ticl