The Battalion
•OPINION.
Thursday, November 8, 1990
Opinion Page Editor Ellen Hobbs
845-:
Thursdc
Fundamentalist religion: Its time has gone
Fundamentalist forms of religion are
on the rise in the world today — from
Isreal to India, from the United States
to the Middle East. Whether we are
talking about Shi’ites, Orthodox Jews or
Southern Baptists, we see on every side
a rising tide of emotion, activism, and
even violence as adherents of these
faiths promote their causes. The issue of
religion appears in the most intractible
of political, social and ethnic conflicts.
Religion has always been a part of
human culture; every group of people
that we know of has had that composite
of world view, moral code and
ceremony that we call “religion.” It
serves us in many ways: as an arbiter of
our existence, a standard for our
behavior, a collection of song, story, and
ritual for our esthetic imagination and a
comfort in the face of death. It is a
symbolic system that holds a society
together and adds meaning to life, work
of civilized life.
The more fundamentalist forms tend
instead to cling to outmoded beliefs,
rigid morality and cultural exclusivity.
Offering a feeling of certainty in an
uncertain world, they appeal to people
suffering from cultural change and
breakneck scientific and technological
advance.
and play. It can bring people together to
a common purpose. These are aspects
of religious experience in every culture
and time.
Today religion confronts science,
technology, environmental devastation
and the global village.
The more “liberal” forms continue to
value esthetics, ceremony, comfort and
community, while accommodating (or
perhaps confronting) the realities of
science and the changing circumstances
First, these groups are dangerous
because they encourage people to
believe literally things which simply are
not true. The world was not created
6,000 years ago as indicated in the
writings of all three Abrahamic
religions. “Be fruitful and multiply” is
no longer an appropriate command.
Biology tells us that the human species is
one; beliefs that one ethnic group,
language, or culture represent “the
chosen ones” contradict reality. It is
extremely unlikely that some higher
force intends that men should not have
long hair, women should not drive cars,
or that a temple should occupy some
specific site on which a mosque now
stands (Hindus and Moslems are killing
each other over this issue now).
Second, by blessing the individual
prejudices and practices of certain
groups, these religions enshrine ethnic-
intolerance, encourage violence and
precipitate incredible human suffering.
The most evil of torturers and dictators
are those who claim the most righteous
causes. Too often these fundamentalist
groups find themselves defending (or
even espousing) racism, oppression and
the status quo in opposition to anything
(or anyone) new or different.
Third, by teaching (and sometimes
enforcing) a narrow and unbending
view of morality, these religions foster
an attitude of prideful and
uncompromising rigidity in their
adherence which makes them
unsuitable for life in the globalvilla|i
How do the fundamentalist Christiat
Moslem, or Jew live in the same mod;
city as the Hindu, atheist, or Taoist'j
well, if they believe that their deityU
blessed their group and no others,
heed the prayers of their groupamh;
others, will aid and comfort theirgrse
and no others.
Make no mistake, I have noproblei
with those who believe in God or
practice a religion, on that basis. Wli
see as problematic is the tendency of |
some religions to “baptize” and
encourage the bigotry and violencec
which we are all so capable.
The fundamentalists are a throwfe
to an earlier age that has truly gone I
they cannot bring themleves to live it i
the modern world, then we willall
suffer for it.
Jeff Farmer is a graduate student n
mathematics.
Republican party must keep
best candidates on the ballot
Like most other Republi
cans in Texas, I spent most of
yesterday cussing and dis
cussing the statewide election
results, in particular Ann
Richards’ win over Clayton
Williams.
It is, of course, patently ob
vious that it was Claytie’s elec
tion to win, and that he liter
ally talked himself out of a
job. What is more perplexing,
however, is the Republican
party’s inability to offer a vi
able field of candidates for the
down-ballot offices like lieu
tenant governor and attorney
general.
It was encouraging to see
Kay Bailey Hutchison and
Rick Perry win their respec
tive races on Tuesday. Perry’s
win was particularly impres
sive against a Democratic
party stalwart whose re-
election was thought to be all
but assured.
Conversely, it was disap
pointing to see the ease with
which Dan Morales and Bob
Bullock won election to their
offices. The Republican Party
has spent most of the last de
cade talking about the birth of
a two-party statewide electo
rate in Texas. That day has
not arrived and will not until
the Republican Party deals
with two phenomena which
stand in the way of that aspi
ration: the power-hungry Re
publican and the yellow-dog
Democrat.
The power-hungry Repub
lican phenomena is partic
ularly crippling because of the
lack of a well-developed party
infrastructure in most locales
around the state. In order for
a Republican to win a
statewide office, he or she
must either be an extremely
appealing candidate, far and
away the best qualified, or
running against a real loser on
the Democratic side.
With that scenario in mind,
it is ludicrous that the Repub
licans keep putting all of their
eggs in one basket, so to
speak, and running their most
qualified candidates against
each other in the gubernato
rial primary. Why do the
cream of the crop choose to
bash heads with each other
and send a survivor to do bat
tle with the Democratic candi
date? Power. More succinctly,
power and ego.
Imagine the potential for a
matched contest had Jack
Rains run for lieutenant gov
ernor and Tom Luce for at
torney general, instead of
both of these immensely qual
ified candidates being elimi
nated from the ballot before
the general election was even
held.
Both of these men have
something important to offer
to the people of our state —
leadership and experience.
The fact that they chose to
run against each other is more
of a commentary on their
hunger for the spotlight than
on their quest for Republican
dominance and influence in
Austin.
Some of the other races
were an even bigger farce.
Warren G. Harding for Com
ptroller? I’m afraid it will take
the state Republican Party
longer to field a full slate of
qualified candidates than it
will take the Fox Network to-
expand to seven nights of
quality programming. The
state leadership must assert it
self in order to insure that the
most qualified candidates are
on the ballot when the No
vember election rolls around.
Survival of the fittest tends to
perpetuate candidates who
aren’t fit to be on the ballot.
A second major stumbling
block to statewide Republican
parity is the specter of the yel
low-dog Democrat. How can a
party compete when they field
a candidate who mirrors the
views of a majority of his or
her constituents and loses
anyway because of political
tradition? It boggles my mind
to have someone tell me, “Yes,
I voted for her even though I
can’t stand her, but you’ve
gotta understand. Grandpa
was a Democrat just like his
Dad and that’s just the way I
was raised.”
Texas Republicans have
made some headway into this
enclave of partisan voters in
the last three presidential
elections, but have faced a
much tougher time in
statewide and county races.
We may be heading toward a
two party system in Texas, but
until then a vast majority of
the state’s residents will elect
their county’s elected officials
in the Democratic primary.
Ann Richards’ electoral domi
nance in conservative East
and South Texas is evidence
that the yellow dog voter is al
ive and well in our state and
finally able to vote their con
science.
I’m not saying that Rob
Mosbacher, Buster Brown, or
any of the other statewide
candidates weren’t qualified.
To the contrary, most were
immensely qualified, much
more so than their opponents.
In order to work out of the
hole from which Republicans
running for statewide office
must start, however, the abso
lute best available candidates
must be on the ballot. If that
means a “rigged” primary in
which hand picked candidates
run unopposed, so be it. Giv
ing the yellow dogs an excuse
to pull the Republican lever
just once will embolden them
to do so again.
Until that day, we all have
to live with the choices which
the people have made for the
next four years. Remember
that only those people who ac
tually cast ballots are enfran
chised to bitch about who got
elected. And only those who
were on the ballot got elected.
Too bad.
Larry Cox is a graduate stu
dent in range science.
Program provides food, classes,
health care for mothers, infants
Let’s just call them Jack and
Dianne. Let’s call my best friend
Jack rather than his real name,
and let’s call his wife Dianne.
Jack is a poor African-
American man from a poor
single-parent family. Dianne is a
poor Mexican-American woman.
Jack told me several months
ago that Dianne was going to
have a baby. They had
considered having an abortion,
he said, but they decided to have
the baby. I told him that I was
happy for him, but I secretly
worried about the health of the
baby.
I worried more as I learned
more about the situation of
America’s babies. The infant
mortality rate in the United
States is-worse than in some
Third World nations (NY Times
Mag 9/9/90). The infant
mortality rate in our nation’s
capital (23 deaths for every 1,000
live births) is worse than in Cuba,
Jamaica and Costa Rica.
Every day, more than 100
American babies die before their
first birthdays. That’s over
36,500 infant deaths every year.
The mortality rates of African-
American and Mexican-
American babies are much worse
than the rate of the overall
population. The mortality rate
of babies born to poor families is
also much worse than the
mortality rate of babies born to
families of higher income.
The statistics did not bade well
for Jack and Dianne. Low
income families often cannot
afford proper prenatal care. As a
result, 250,000 babies are born
seriously underweight every year
in America. These babies are two
to three times more likely to be
blind, deaf, or mentally
handicapped. Underweight
babies are much more likely to
die in the first year or suffer
future physical and mental
problems. Malnutrition and lack
of affordable health care also
contibute to infant deaths.
As Jack worked 60, 70, 80
hours a week at his two jobs, and
Dianne continued to work at her
job, I wondered how much extra
money they were making to
ensure a healthy pregnancy.
At near-minimum wage, the
meeting of ends is a luxury.
Being able to afford a healthy
pregnancy is far from automatic.
I thought about the
conservatives’ axiom that poor
people get what they deserve. Do
their babies deserve to be
unhealthy, as well? I thought
about Bush’s veto of the parental
leave bill. The parental leave bill
would have allowed Dianne to
leave her job during pregnancy
and not be fired.
I thought about proper
prenatal care for Dianne and her
baby. Where would the money
come from to pay for visits to the
doctor, nutrition classes, and
nutritious food?
But then fruit juice started
popping up in their home, and
Jack began telling me about
some pregnancy classes he was
attending with Dianne. They
even went to see the doctor.
How could they afford all
this? The answer was WIG. Jack
told me it is a Special
Supplemental Food Program for
Women, Infants, and Children,
a government social program.
WIG provides women with
vouchers to buy infant formula,
cheese, fruit juice, cereals, milk,
and other foods. It also offers
nutrition classes and medical
childhoods which leads to
criminal behavior. And those
who believe in a good educatio:
should know that malnutrition
a young age causes learning
disabilities.
And yet pro-life and strong
pro-defense politicians suchas
Joe Barton and Phil Gramm
tend to be the first to wanttoci
or cancel social programs suchi
WIG that promote life andwoi|
for the defense of the people
and their children.
Perhaps these hypocritical
politicians should realize than
WIG program actually saves
money for government. The
food vouchers given to pregnaJ
mothers cost only $30 a montlt
and help to prevent $2,500ad:
treat nun (Tor extremely
underweight babies. In fact,
every dollar spent bn the
prenatal care program saves
between $1.77 to $3.13 in
Medicaid costs. The monetary
savings made from WIG's
prevention of crime, further
health problems, and learning
disabilities are incalculable. WK
is also an investment in hurm
capita); healthy childhoodsleac;
to healthy economic productior
for society.
Colleg
down <
on Thr
care.
WIG is a social welfare
program that saves the lives of
babies. It should receive the
support of “pro-lifers” and “pro-
choicers” alike; a mother w ho
chooses to have her baby can
have a living, healthy one. Those
who believe in a strong defense
should surely support WIG; it
defends our babies from disease
and ill-health.
Those who want to beat down
crime should support this
program; it prevents babies from
falling into bad health and
parents from falling into deep
frustration. Ill health and parent
frustration lead to bad
But it is embarrassing that I
must, for some people, layout
the economic benefits; health;
babies are reward enough. Ani
yet government funding of Wll
is only enough to provide 59
percent of eligible mothers witkj
WIG benefits. Only 19 states
contribute their own fundstollf
federal program. Texas state
senator Hugh Parmer pushed
for partial state funding forthf
Texas WIG program. Perhaps
Governor Ann Richards willall
realize or has already realized
the merits of the WIG prograffi
and will increase support fortli|
money-saving and life-saving
program.
And perhaps, after reading
this, voters will realize that soo
programs often save both lives
and money in the long run.
Final note: Three days ago,
Jack and Dianne had a healths
eight-pound baby with a
beautiful head of hair.
Irwin Tang is a junior politic
science major.
Does
□ Mis:
□ Hes
□ Not
□ Guz
□ Stal
□ Die;
□ Mah
□ Nee
The Battalion
(USPS 045 360)
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Cindy McMillian,
Editor
Timm Doolen, Managing Editor
Ellen Hobbs, Opinion Page Editor
Holly Becka, City Editor
Kathy Cox,
Kristin North,
News Editors
Nadja Sabawala,
Sports Editor
Eric Roalson, Art Director
Lisa Ann Robertson,
Lifestyles Editor
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-sup
porting newspaper operated as a commu
nity service to Texas A&M and Bryan-
College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion
are those of the editorial board or the au
thor, and do not necessarily represent the
opinions of Texas A&M administrators,
faculty or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published Monday
through Friday during Texas A&M regu
lar semesters, except for holiday and ex
amination periods. Newsroom: 845-3313.
Mail subscriptions are $20 per semes
ter, $40 per school year and $50 per full
year: 845-2611. Advertising rates fur
nished on request: 845-2696.
Our address: The Battalion, 230 Reed
McDonald, Texas A&M University, Col
lege Station, TX 77843-1111.
Second class postage paid at College
Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes
to The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald,
Texas A&M University, College Station
TX 77843-4111.
Adventures In Cartooning
by Don Atkinson Jt
vSD 'AGGfes fl&mr '
RR£ AcntfUjy GOfUG ID
SHOW OP AT 'bOMRRe
WIU P/zotesr 3/GNS?
T QrVffrs lUGUt^
W.£LL, WMT&lteR
Knee 7d vemtsr
bOHFiRe thrm rt
we ftcrupL emr?
-
is sir making vporesrM
WHstopol of our
Resources too?_
[loltiol
fi&se TZees
{rfeMsaves foam
n mobts cm":
A
a
&
ft.
i