Monday, June 4, 2001
o PINION
Page 5
THE BATTALION
es
55
- it
son
bur
ates
116
d so
ac-
sath
like
rash
, but
:aa
am
bers
ithe
•ner,
ome
icci-
lay’s
s we
oing
said,
ways
nak-
had
alder
e ac-
n to
turn
spast
want
iters,
seen
•airie
still
med,
it it a
iian-
aown
•d 80
ween
d on
East
ibout
when
: ath-
istant
re on
m in-
ddle-
r, was
n did
i. on a
[owed
led to
right,
ditch,
inside
as did
ernon
1 later
ingin
crash,
urned
le did
k was
wn on
1 then
r Jack-
1 alive
No ambiguity
Decision is needed on
Ten Commandments c
T he dis
play of
m the Ten
Command
ments in
schools,
courtrooms
and other
public places
has long been a point of dis
agreement between religious
rights groups and advocates of
the separation of church and
state. Therefore,'it is surprising
that the U.S. Supreme Court
declined to hear a case deciding
Conflicting
decisions will con
tinue to be mode,
and
thousands of court
hours
wasted, until the
Supreme Court sets
federal
guidelines.
whether the display of the Ten
Commandments on public
property violates the principle of
separation of church and state.
The case was based on the
placement of a granite marker,
bearing the commandments,
jthat stands on the lawn of an
Elkhart, Ind. city office building.
I Two residents, aided by the
American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU), sued to have the
marker removed. The lower
court ruled the marker does vio
late the copstitutional separation
of church and state. Since the
Supreme Court refused to hear
city officials’ appeal, the ruling
will stand, and the marker will
be removed.
The Supreme Court’s dechne
of the case is disappointing. The
justices have turned down simi
lar cases in the past, leaving low
er courts divided and no wiser
than before. It is time for the
high court to decide whether the
display of the Ten Command
ments on public property is a vi
olation of the separation of
church and state, or “a historical
and cultural monument that re
flects one of the earHest codes of
human conduct,” as the Elkhart •.
City Council argued.
Initially, one might think that
by turning away the case, the
Supreme Court was upholding
the lower court’s ruling. Howev
er, in 1996, the court declined a
constitutional challenge to a
similar monument in a park near
the Colorado state capital, ac
cording to The New York Times.
In this case, the monument was
allowed to stay. Conflicting deci
sions will continue to be made,
and thousands of court hours
wasted, until the Supreme Court
sets federal guidelines.
Church and state separatists
have gained short-tetm ground
with this decision, but have not
won a long-term victory, as
some people seem to believe.
“Today’s announcement should
help bring the religious right’s
Ten Commandments crusade to
a screeching halt,” said Rev. Bar
ry Lynn, executive director of
Americans United for Separa
tion of Church and State, in a
New York Times interview. How
ever, although the decision
might have slowed the crusade
in Elkhart, it will have little af
fect on the thousands of other
towns in America. Until an all-
encompassing ruling is made,
the ACLU might as well resign
itself to countless lawsuits in
small religious towns across the
nation.
Jessica Crutchei' is a
junior journalism major.
WM ^
Arafat should renounce terrorist attacks or suffer
O ver the weekend, a
Palestinian suicide
bomber attacked a
disco in Tel Aviv, killing 19
civilians and injuring dozens
more. Palestinian Authority
President Yasser Arafat, in a
rare moment of courage,
condemned the attack and
called for a unilateral Palestinian cease-fire in
the ongoing slaughter between Israelis and
Palestinians.
Many people believe that Arafat took this
stance because the Israelis were about to invade
Palestinian controlled areas and arrest Arafat
and his allies. If Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime
Minister, and the Israelis were indeed contem
plating such action, they would be entitled to ^
take it. For the past several years, the blame for
much of the death and destruction in Israel
could be equally distributed between the two
nations. Credit for the carnage of recent
months belongs exclusively to Arafat, and the
world should not be surprised if the Israelis re
spond in force.
Palestinians are attempting to claim that
Sharon and his hard-line stances are to blame for
the killing. Unfortunately for them, the timeline
of events does not aid their argument. The in
crease in terrorism emanating from Palestinian
controlled territory was one of the reasons Ehud
Barak lost to Sharon in the last election.
Repeatedly, Arafat has said one thing and
done another. After this latest attack, Arafat .
said, “We will now exert our utmost efforts to
stop the bloodshed of our people and the Israeli
people and do all that is needed to achieve an
immediate and unconditional ... cease-fire.”
The Israelis did not appear to be impressed
by such rhetoric. A member of Sharon’s cabinet
said “Quite frankly, we are tired and sick of
hearing these things from [Arafat].”
While the Israelis have often left themselves
open to criticism for their lack of restraint and
tendency towards violence against the Palestini
ans, they should be commended in this case.
With some exceptions, the Israelis under both
Barak and Sharon have held their fire against an
increasing number of terrorist acts.
Arafat was the head of the Palestine Libera
tion Organization (PLO) when it was universal
ly accepted as a terrorist organization. He be
came a statesman only after Ife and the Israelis
were willing to talk reasonably about peace.
Since peace has not come entirely on Arafat’s
terms, old PLO methods have been used as a
form of political blackmail.
Now that Arafat is a statesman, he must un
derstand that his fate is inexorably linked to the
Israelis. There most be a concrete peace, or at
least steps in that direction. The struggling
Palestinian economy will not receive the help it
desperately needs from Europe or the United
States if Arafat continues to wink at terrorists
operating from his territory.
The world has urged the Israelis to exercise
still more restraint in dealing with the Palestini
ans. So far, this message has been heeded, as Is
raeli Transportation Minister told CNN, “No,
we are not going to retaliate right now.”
If the Israelis did, it would not be difficult to
see why. They have trusted Arafat and his
cronies to control terrorists and to work to
wards a peaceful solution to their conflict. In
stead, he has repeatedly thrown up roadblocks
and subtly encouraged the cowardly killings of
Israeli civilians, which in turn has cost the lives
of his own people.
Arafat must understand that he needs the Is
raelis as much as they need him. If he does not
work with them, his usefulness to them is at an
end, and they are in a position to do something
about it. Arafat may have heard that talk is
cheap, but if this his only answer to terrorism,
the Israelis might exact a far greater toll.
Mark Passwaters is a senior
electrical engineering major.
every-
t there
” Ed
it how
; until
:main-
s is us,
1 said,
They
) >>
ot ex-
reatin
nesday
with a
third-
ln Fri
ge be
rry and
2 legs,
good
ed the
mates.
CARTOON OF THE DAY
oM A TRUE SToRT
SHEU- STRTloNl, CAUW6U. TEXA^
Movies made for profit,
not historicai accuracy
In response to Mark Passwaters'
May 30 column.
In 1 962, Toho Pictures released two ver
sions of King Kong versus Godzilla. While
both versions ended somewhat ambigu
ously, Japanese audiences saw a version
suggesting that Godzilla had triumphed
over the mighty Kong, while Americans
were treated to a version that suggested
the opposite result. The endings were a
conscious concession to marketing realities
facing the film's distributors.
When Mark Passwaters suggests that
the editing of Pearl Harbor for Japanese
and German audiences is a result of politi
cal correctness, he is wrong on almost
every count.
First, he traces the etymology of 'politi
cal correctness' to the Bolsheviks, suggest-
Mail Call
ing an ominous connection that is nonex
istent, as the term actually emerged as a
joking reference to zealousness among the
academic left, not as a paean to Linin.
Second, he suggests that the ending of
Pearl Harbor has been radically altered, but
never says how. That is because his claim
is untrue. The only changes made have
been the deletion of the Beckinsdale
speech and the removal of a comment by
Alec Baldwin that civilians should be tar
geted in kamikaze style attacks on Japan.
Passwaters is correct in citing the litany
of atrocities committed during the war,
but fails to cite the film's ignorance of per
haps its greatest atrocity.
Very real evidence suggests that Presi
dent Roosevelt knew about the attack on
Pearl Harbor before it happened and al
lowed it to occur so that Americans would
support United States entry into WWII.
Never once does the Disney release
mention that fact, which does more to ef
fect the movie's historical accuracy than
the deletion of a scene featuring a fictional
character and another that would turn off
a significant portion of the international
audience.
Marketing is marketing, and the movie
industry has always placed profit above
accuracy. Was Kong's victory over Godzilla
political correctness run amok?
Nick Rangel
Graduate Student
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters
must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name,
class and phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for
length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in per
son at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Letters
may also be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
014 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 111.1
Fax: (979) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com