Monday • July 20,1998
The Battalion
PINION
IJnder the sun
H$2iJ
$16 mil
hiiyAk
lin ch officials carrying weapons are asking for trouble that will lead to death
ibles belong in church.
Hymnals belong in church.
Guns,
)wever, do
‘ : jtielong
ffiurch.
Earlier
is tnonth,
■xiiigton,
y., passed a
Kllow-
Hainis-
Knd el-
;rs to carry
jns inside
Duses of
April
Towery
opinion editor
i re not._
lishlT: 0rShi P'
Pastor Willie Ramsey argued
L ni iat churches are seen as sources
reeter ;money. Therefore, carrying a
eaj on is protecting the church
id its money.
j^fcunds like all these people
istlell off the turnip truck,
^fconer or later someone is go-
tglo get shot, and it probably
ill iv an innocent little altar boy
| ho iust happens to be standing
® e wrong place at the wrong
| me
ertlr.Ben-year-oId Sarah Dobbins
atafiillington, Tenn., bragged in
cor imp Magazine about the .410
iryckBgun she got for Christmas
ii. istk^ear.
[thmrHhisis ridiculous. Gun privi-
l’ l!K Jges are being abused. People
icutc;Bi to have forgotten guns kill
| ou c eople. Ten-year-olds are not al-
r'P ; owed to play with plastic bags
ecanse they might suffocate
^ Bnselves. But they are getting
guns under the Christmas tree
next to their Cabbage Patch kids
and Barbie dreamhouses.
Charlton Heston, president of
the National Rifle Association,
babbled in the same issue of Time
about the importance of owning
guns.
"I find my blood pressure ris
ing when Clinton's cultural
shock troops participate in ho
mosexual rights fundraisers, and
then claim it's time to place ho
mosexual men in tents with boy
scouts and suggest that sperm-
donor babies born into lesbian re
lationships are somehow being
served."
Calm down, Moses — no one,
including Charlton Heston, can
justifiably compare homosexuali
ty and gun control. It is illogical.
It is like comparing apples and
oranges.Thirty-one states have
approved issuing concealed-
weapon permits to any citizen
without a criminal record. This
approval doesn't screen out those
who are about to embark on
criminal records once the gun is
in possession. This approval does
not screen out those who do not
know how to aim or shoot a gun.
A gun is not a toy, a hobby or
a source of entertainment. A gun
is a weapon, a deadly one. And
the last place one should make
an appearance is in the church.
If someone is crazy enough to
go into a church for the sole pur
pose of stealing its money, then
maybe that person needs a little
love and acceptance. Maybe that
person needs to hear a good ser
mon and be greeted with wel
coming smiles as opposed to be
ing greeted by deacons with
pistols.
It is too dangerous to make ex
cuses for something like this.
People cannot justify carrying a
deadly weapon in order to pro
tect their money while they sing
praises to Jesus Christ. Love is
the key to opening up a church
family to non-members.
Guns will only turn people
away from a church, regardless
of the denomination. It is scary,
and it is unnecessary for leaders
of a church to carry guns.
The only time anyone should
have a weapon in hand is for self
defense purposes. Let's think
about this. If someone comes into a
church to steal the tithes out of the
offering plate, he or she probably
intends to do it without anyone's
knowledge. It is very likely that an
offering-plate thief wouldn't even
carry a weapon. It's not like he or
she is going to be assaulted by
someone in church.
The Kentucky law is com
pletely illogical. It is an excuse
for church officials to have a
power trip. It is an excuse to
abuse authority. It is stupid and
irrational. And the consequences
have the potential to be deadly.
April Towery is a senior
journalism major.
WMEREMOU
OOIN' WITH „
THE C(\? KEVS?!
ring ft
Id nr
r
liannn
—
imp!
Board fails
enefits of
lor 1 ■
eard the joke about the Aggie law school gradu
ate? Unfortunately, the recent decision by the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board just
away the punch line.
|i!-B^ ast I hursday, the Coordinat-
hei ’mr° ard vo * ec ^ 15-2 to formally
er i 'H, CtA& ‘ v1 ' s request to add a
'and legal studies program to
furnculum. The vote was a di-
nesponse to the partnership
parent A&M signed with of-
r 8 from the South Texas Col-
e of Law earlier this year. Yet
overwhelming focus on the
'orship agreement complete-
jVershadows the real issue: es-
1 shing a i avv anc j j e g a i studies
^am at A&M.
Steven
Gyeszly
columnist
rjdoubtably, the financial aspects of creating a law
l( *J are daunting. Yet in their decision, the Coordinating
rd s main financial concern was that with the A&M-
rh Texas College partnership, public money would
^ to a private institution. Clearly, if there was no avail-
Tto *° g e 8 in with, the Coordinating Board would
I be concerned about where the funding for a law school
!d uld end up. Indeed, with state officials wondering what
o with a recent multi-billion dollar surplus, lack of
drng does not seem to be an issue.
l^ 611 w 'th minimal funding from the state, A&M
certainly finance a sizable portion of the cost associ-
'y \ ' v Th establishing a law school. A&M has one of the
Permanent Endowment Funds nationwide and is
owned for its fundraising ability. A brief tour of cam
’s proof that alumni can, and will, support projects
benefit the Uni versity.
'ffiother concern of the Coordinating Board regarding
s request to establish a law and legal studies pro-
was creating another law school when there were
te " V S 1 evera ' functioning. In fact, during public hear-
L ° n fue subject, the biggest opponents of A&M's re
vere officials from the Uni versity of Houston,
to consider
law school
whose law school is only a few miles from the campus of
the South Texas College of Law and the law program at
Texas Southern University.
Establishing a law school in College Station would al
leviate part of the geographic problem by being one of the
only Texas law schools outside of a major metropolitan
area. Even more importantly, establishing a new A&M
law school in College Station would create competition
between the various law schools in Texas, forcing schools
to either improve or lose students to a better academic in
stitution.
Competition among universities is not a new concept.
Higher education is just like any other business. Compa
nies, in this case, universities, are established to fulfill the
needs and demands of the consumer (students), and if
those needs are not being met, students will go to the in
stitution where they will be.
In the past, establishing a professional school in Col
lege Station has proven successful. In the early '70s, the
Texas Legislature authorized the establishment of a med
ical school at A&M. Many of the arguments used 20
years ago about establishing another professional school
made a repeat performance in Austin last week.
At the time, critics charged the cost was prohibitive
and pointed out that there were already seven other med
ical schools in Texas. Yet the first class graduated in 1981,
and since then the A&M Medical School has gone on to
gain a nationwide reputation for excellence, culminating
in a faculty member's election to the presidency of the
American Medical Association.
If the Coordinating Board does not think a partnership
between A&M and the private South Texas College of
Law is in the best interest for the citizens of Texas, that is
its prerogative. However, the Coordinating Board should
reconsider its decision and grant A&M a law and legal
studies program in College Station.
After all, A&M is the chosen home of a former United
States President and several Nobel Prize recipients. Does
the Coordinating Board have higher standards?
Homosexuals should be given
equal treatment in workforce
Alison
Lackey
columnist
Steven Gyeszly is a junior finance major.
M ultiple attacks on homo
sexuals are directly affect
ing the presence and voice
of gays and lesbians in the federal
work force.
Presently,
Senate Major
ity Leader
Trent Lott is
blocking the
vote on the
nomination of
openly gay
philan
thropist
James
Hormel to be
the United
States Ambas
sador to Luxembourg.
Susan Irby, Lott's spokesperson,
told the Associated Press that the
main stumbling block is the Senate
simply does not have time to de
bate the nomination. Perhaps this
is an excuse Lott concocted because
of his personal beliefs that con
demn homosexual lifestyles.
One should not force his or her
religious and moral beliefs on oth
ers. On the same token, an individ
ual's sexual orientation does not af
fect his or her ability to represent
the country as a member of the fed
eral work force.
Lott's well-known anti-gay
rhetoric and comparison of gays to
kleptomaniacs and alcoholics has
caused other senators and gay
rights' groups to think otherwise
about the delay in voting on
Hormel's nomination. They see
Lott's actions as a conspiracy
against federal workers who are
homosexuals.
"On a personal level, I am em
barrassed that our Republican Par
ty, the party of Lincoln, is the force
behind this injustice," Sen. Alfonse
D'mato said. "James Hormel is be
ing obstructed for one reason and
one reason only: the fact he is gay."
Numerous GOP senators urged
the vote to go forward; however,
no one has confronted Lott. In fact,
the Associated Press reported the
senate already has the 60 votes re
quired to confirm Hormel's nomi
nation — but only if Lott will allow
the vote onto the floor.
Several anti-gay comments have
been circulating throughout the
news, perhaps offering the flawed
reasoning behind the debate.
For example, "My father had a
problem with alcoholism," Lott
said. "Other people have sex addic
tion. Other people are kleptomani
acs. I mean, there are all kinds of
problems and addictions and diffi
culties and experiences of this kind
that are wrong. But you should try
to work with that person to learn to
control that problem ."
First of all, homosexuality is not
a problem. It is not a pestering
habit. Also, it is a lifestyle that just
happens to be different than the
mainstream heterosexual society.
According to USA Today, one
Texas politician associates gays
with pedophiles, cross dressers and
the Klu Klux Klan.
Also, Rep. Sen. Don Nickles said
he thinks that a homosexual is not
fit to represent our country as an
ambassador because it encourages
"immoral behavior."
The word immoral has different
connotations for every individual.
Some may think gays and lesbians
are immoral, some may not. Indi
viduals have unique beliefs that are
not always consistent with others.
Regardless, it is not the duty of
legislators to push their personal
beliefs onto others, but rather to act
in the interests of the people he or
she is representing.
These senseless and ignorant
comments have run rampant
throughout the media during June |
and July.
"This is an unprecedented wave
of anti-gay attacks," Winnie
Stachelberg, political director of the
Human Rights Campaign, a gay-
rights' lobbying group, said.
In addition, last week, in an ef
fort to begin a paper war, conserva
tive Christian groups launched a
media campaign defending Lott
and First Amendment rights to
speak out against gays.
Full-page ads in national news
papers featured Reggie White as
well as Ann Paulk, a 35- year old
former lesbian who, as USA Today
reports, related how she reverted to
heterosexuality because of her
Christian beliefs. She ensured the
public "people have come out of
homosexuality."
To counter the Christian groups,
a report from the Human Rights
campaign, found on the Lesbian Bi
sexual Transgender News Wire
site, announced plans to take out a
full-page ad in USA Today on July
22 featuring a Republican family
from Minneapolis with a lesbian
daughter. All of these actions stem
from the idea of free speech under
the First Amendment. Indeed, it is
an individual's right to speak out;
however, gay-bashing rhetoric is
evidence of extreme hatred.
Specifically, religious beliefs and
morals are tampering with federal
and governmental decisions. This
is "a mockery of democracy," HRC .
communications director and se
nior strategist David M. Smith said.
This is a free country, and federal
workers who disagree with
lifestyles different from their own j
should not browbeat.
Alison Lackey is a senior
English major.