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.