Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 17, 1999)
urse ie Battalion O PINION Page 13 •Wednesday, November 17, 1999 Virgini E at 16 mph ed winds: 100 mpt jsts 120 mph ne Lenny Blown out of proportion ntemet chats with politicians now popular, but little more than cyber-hype tic Ocean 7 iiy Thus S ■k eurocrats Puerto anguiui || claim the RICO ground took Nov. 8 JA i "Vi A het Bill Clin- HAITI A ® n became the n. EST BAf; - st president sday plrticipate in -v live Internet 70 6; lat. The De- MARIANO CASTILLO ,, ocrats, as well as the media, ive embraced the event as a 8 u ^ a ’ storic foundation for the future i, kubiiikhin politics in cyberspace. bSete™! Bu . t al,hou 8 h "; e cha ' m ‘ i y . ivsitlenlssi >t been a sma " ste P f ° r P o1 '- C'eou’os' !l :s > 1118 a hu § e ste P backward h killed 283pr ,rAmerican voters - i Republic and" Until the number of voters ti. ith access to the Internet be- Hes greater than the number # 1 I f voters with access to a televi- itlmfllg 1 01 ia dio, chats such as w linton’s will have a negative iStrip, Saebf fleet on democracy in the Unit- d. d States. arecedentfor: iranklin Roosevelt’s “Fireside Iks, that them hats” and John F. Kennedy’s Palestinians; ?levision press conferences it,” Erekat > relight politics within the reach th President f the masses with, of course, bleshooter, Dt ie exception of those without lank town of. 1 , divisions or radios. ' inet in theeve: ©Currently, out of a population MinisterEhudktf 150 million, there are 215 mil- ughwasappa ion televisions and 540 million ' came to then adios in the United States, in theso-callei |} Such large coverage means began last w*hat those who want to hear a ' entangledintt iebate or meeting can. Even if a aolitical event is not covered by ast every two j standard channel, it will surely 'Iks and repo 3e 0 n C-SPAN. MJnfortunately, the Internet still is not developed enough to be used for town hall meetings like Clinton’s. It has a far-too- limited audience and is techno logically incapable of reaching the masses the way the “boob- tube” can. The Internet is growing at an astounding pace, but only a frac tion of the American population has access to it. By streaming political agenda exclusively on the World Wide Web, the audience is limited to a small sampling of mostly affluent businessmen and suburbanites. Also, there are limitations on the number of people who can participate in live chats. President Clinton’s chat, on excite@home, was limited to 50,000 people. Fortunately, Clinton seemed to take the Internet experience as a novelty and did not discuss anything too serious. The New York Times reported that Clinton even joked about some of the chat names of the participants, including Sissy Bill and T-Love. Had he taken the stunt, er, chat seriously, the only ones able to react and ask questions would be the first 50,000 surfers that logged in. It is too early to use live chats over the Internet as a public fo rum. Television and radio work. And like Forrest’s momma said, “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.” Even if technology could make real-time interactive holo grams of the president, it would still be isolating the majority be cause of the limited access. It is ironic that Clinton’s chat was publicized as a town hall meeting — where anyone can at tend — when only those with a computer and Internet access could tune in. Also, the privileged few who got the chance to partake of this meeting thought they might actu ally get to ask President Clinton the questions they wanted to. But all of the questions were ROBERT HYNECEK/The Battalion screened, and Clinton’s stage manager was given the power to choose the ones he liked. While this is a standard prac tice in radio and other call-in shows, it is much easier to mess with information on the Inter net, increasing the chances of manipulated questions. It is the definition of hypocrisy when the president of the United States and his sup porters can talk proudly about what a huge step for democracy the event was, when he screened all of the questions. At press conferences, the pub lic can see when a reporter’s questions nail a soft spot on a politician by his reaction or his lame excuse for not answering it. With live chat, the politicians can pick the questions they want to answer and toss the rest aside, along with their ethics. America is simply not ready for political Web chats. However, the Internet does not have to be free of politics. It can and does serve useful political services. It provides email access to members of Congress and has various research advantages, such as biographies, archives, transcripts and records. The difference between these uses and chat is that the re search tools are an addition to what can be found elsewhere. A live chat exclusively on the Web takes away the audience. Possibly, in the future, when Internet access is as available as television, the live Web chat can become an integral part of poli tics. But for now, politicians should stick with what works. Mariano Castillo is a sophomore journalism major. vscrc Push’s grasp of world affairs not distressing i ■ I ini at the University of O \ but was stoppt in, whc\ forced I )in. The soldier i shot her three ti: le killing, shot] Mt!” were heard Trich was packed! 'omen, many off- it their children,rdm the Daily man in a hurrao/s. ig quickly tow# ots pushing her (U-WIRE) CHAMPAIGN, III. — George tend of her, said:/. Bush committed a major gaffe in ime a womantelre critics’ eyes, nted to see.” When asked by a Boston reporter if aariat had ann' e ’knew the names of the leaders of on on Monday )ur world hot spots — Chechnya, Tai- 'an, India and Pakistan — Bush could arely muster a “Lee” for Taiwan’s ■"hader, Lee Teng-hui. This puts his credibility on foreign ol'icy into question. Should it? No. a Qt)/ What’s infinitely more important is Someone who has a clear vision and fo ils on America’s role in the world, not omeone who can necessarily regurgi- ate Trivial Pursuit answers. What’s more important in a leader is M 'hether he or she can say, “I don’t f now, but I will find out.” Someone applying to be the Universi- fs athletic director might be asked to ame four other football coaches at Big sn schools. If they can only come up with, say, enn State coach Joe Paterno’s first raur purchase a r®’ that 5 0K ; ; What s more important in a leader is mber 18-21 omeone who will surround themselves MWM^dth experts and academics, such as hose who do know the names of the Jaders of India, Pakistan, Chechnya ^nd Taiwan. (Atal Behari Vajpayee, Gen. Pervez lusharraf, Aslan Maskhadov, and Lee Teng-hui, respectively.) So it’s only been front-page news for /eeks. So what? Bush asked the reporter if he could ame the foreign minister of Mexico, a ountry whose state borders Texas. The reporter said he could not, but nat he wasn’t running for president. Granted, Bush is running for presi- ent, the highest office in our country md the chief of our nation’s military. But he’s got a whole year to learn the iames of the leaders of Chechnya, Tai- /an. India and Pakistan. The reporter is also not the governor of exas. Bush is still governor of Texas, and d fulfill that role he must focus on Texas. Does Chechnya have anything to do /ith cattle ranching? Do India and Pakistan play a major ole in explaining why Houston is Ameri- a’s most polluted city? Probably not. The trials and tribula- ions of India, Pakistan, Chechnya and aiwan are simply not in Bush’s per- pective. People can only think of so many hings at once. EDITORIAL ROUNDUP from U-Wire editorial reports AN te dy elf ter. 20 atre :e & Office) Supreme Court should not hear prayer case From the Brown Daily Herald at Brown University. (U-WIRE) PROVIDENCE, R.l. — The U.S. Supreme Court has elected to em broil itself once more in the debate re garding the separation of church and state. Specifically, the court agreed on Monday to grapple with the role of school prayer, after a Galveston County, Texas, school board appealed a lower- court ruling. Galveston County would like to per petuate a practice that can only be viewed as Constitutionally questionable — allowing students to broadcast prayer over stadium public address sys tems prior to public high school foot ball games. The separation of church and state as it relates to public schools has been delineated time and again, but the Court must now remind the nation of its clear stance on this issue. Due to Court rulings, students are no longer required to partake in formalized prayer of any fashion. Proponents for the Galveston cause will argue that because students, not teachers, are leading the prayer at the football games, then the prayer is ac ceptable. The prayer, they say, comes not from faculty initiative or from any formal dic tate, and thus the statements of reli giosity impinge in no way on the secu lar freedoms upon which the nation was built. But by projecting prayer across a loudspeaker, the school district violates the dictates of separation. Members of the crowd, given no op tion but to sit through the prayer, must listen to it as attentively as if they were in their classrooms. These students cannot and should not have to cover their ears or leave their seats to avoid religious messages they may not wish to receive. If students wish to engage in prayer prior to kickoff, it is completely within their right to do so — as long as they establish purely elective groups that do not force others to listen or participate, even passively. The Supreme Court should uphold the lower-court ruling and maintain the strict separation between church and state. If it doesn’t, Americans may find themselves on a dangerous course, overturning Constitutional precedent and common sense. Religious unity not worth compromises on doctrine Do you have opinions about Bonfire and want to be heard? The Battalion is currently accept ing short opinion letters regarding Bonfire for a special section in Mon day’s issue. Comments may be fa vorable or critical, but they must be limited to 100 words to be consid ered for publication. Because the editor anticipates re ceiving far more letters than can be printed, only a representative sample of the letters will be published. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accuracy. Letters may be sub mitted in person at 013 Reed Mc Donald with a valid student ID. Let ters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 845-2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com (Please put “Bonfire Section” in the subject line of e-mail submissions.) T he push for unity among world re ligions is a grow ing issue, as interfaith groups increasingly seek common spiritual ground. Although such efforts may seem bene ficial on the surface, at tempts to unify reli gions could prove seriously detrimental in the end. Recently, Pope John Paul II held two interfaith ceremonies, one in St. Louis and one in India. Leaders of several faiths, including Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism, attend ed the ceremonies to reconcile different religious beliefs and strengthen interfaith cooperation for the coming millennium. Fortunately, the pope’s motives for the meetings did not appear to be a melding of religions but a call to cease religious persecution. The day before his meeting in India, for example, he urged Catholic leaders to continue proclaiming Jesus as the only means of salvation. Some religious leaders, however, see the pope’s interfaith meetings as an open door to pursuing a stronger unity of be liefs among religions. They say such a unity would alleviate suffering, promote peace and end religious intolerance. Interfaith Ministries for Greater Hous ton urges this goal. “If [interfaith] relationships are fos tered, shared religious values are discov ered — all keys to harmony, apprecia tion and respect for each other,” it says on its Website. These goals sound good enough. The benefits appear not only harmless, but overwhelmingly appealing. But appearances can be dangerously deceiving. The immediate benefits of seeking religious unity disguise the dam age such attempts would cause. First, religions by their very natures can never be in complete unity. Some inter faith groups claim religions have the same spiritual themes of love, forgiveness, and peace. These similarities, they say, make all religions basically the same. But this argument is lacking. The movies Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and The Matrix both revolve around the search for a chosen one to alleviate the struggle between good and evil. The similar themes, however, do not make the two movies “basically the same.” Muslims, Christians and Jews do not believe in the same basic things. Muslims believe Allah is the only God, and Mo hammed was his greatest prophet. Jews believe a Messiah is coming, but Jesus was not him. Christians say Mohammed was a false prophet, and Jesus is the only way to heaven. A Muslim, a Christian and a Jew could get along, but their beliefs cannot be melded. The religions by their very na tures are incompatible. Second, unifying religious beliefs is dangerous because absolute truth can be lost. Attempting to bring about a “warm and fuzzy” peace is not worth the sacri ficing truth, especially when such truth could hold the key to knowing God and life after death. Seeking to unify religious beliefs is dangerous. If people can water down religious be liefs by simply picking and choosing the most compatible elements, they can, in essence, create their own truths. But cre ating truth is impossible. If people do not have the ability to cre ate their own truth concerning the laws of science, why should they be capable of creating truths concerning God? For example, Galileo knew the Earth revolved around the sun. Yet people in his time believed the Earth was the cen ter of the universe. Their personal beliefs did not change the absolute truth. If Galileo had been willing to water down his knowledge for the sake of uni ty, truth would have been lost. The same holds true for absolute truth about God. Suppose Christianity is the absolute truth. If the religion is watered down so it is compatible with other world religions, then the teachings of Je sus would be lost. Jesus’ statements that he is the only means of salvation are in compatible with other religions. Such statements would have to be ignored for the sake of religious unity. If the statements are true, then the means of knowing God and entering eter nal life would be lost in the push to rec oncile them with other faiths. Unity among religions is not worth the cost of sacrificing truth, even for the sake of greater peace and tolerance. The stakes are too high. Stephanie Dube is a journalism graduate student.