November Mesday, November 7, 2001
BATTALION
Page 11
urth straight
utt'ielderJimfcJ
Is won his sec*
with Anaheim
Reese, who ij
team. First l
go’s J.T.
alker. w hocoi
n for the third fj
■ seen play the*
Is the NL carej
eal shortstop!
w'lings to the
,ue. Voting isi'-rj
TODD
3YC The Jehovah
itness defense
Ihovah’s Witnesses are defending the
Constitution. At their urging, the Supreme
Court has agreed to examine an ordinance
the village of Stratton, Ohio. This ordi
nance, passed three years ago
requires anyone soliciting door
to door, from political activists
to cookie-wielding Girl Scouts,
to religious zealots, to obtain a
permit from the mayor before
starting their door knocking.
On the surface, this require-
MACEK ment seems innocent enough.
However, on deeper reflection,
amification of allowing such a law to stand
fcoad-ranging.
ince its inception, no one has been denied a
it. The ordinance is meant to be a means of
cting the privacy of the homeowner. Most
ile do not relish the thought of being disturbed
me by peddlers of goods — especially not by
lers of religion — and therefore, no local
sition to the ordinance has emerged.
Riding with Stratton is easy. To the casual
rver, the ordinance poses no threat to the
stitution. The only ones threatened are the
le knocking door-to-door. At best, this law
unecessary. But the reality of it is that it
pies the First Amendment's guarantee of
speech and violates the concept of separa-
of church and state.
k problems with such a law begin with it
g unnecessary. When someone knocks on the
there is no law saying one must answer it. If
leone is giving a sales pitch about Kirby vacu-
or God’s everlasting love, and one does not
hile UT head ;'* 1110 close the door. It is that easy,
celli was name<W 0 § ovemmen, intervention is required. Instead
dividual citizens dealing with an ordinary
lem through ordinary means, this power has
relinquished by citizens and deposited in the
of the mayor. He now has the power to deter-
; who gets a permit. This is a substantial
aunt of power in one person’s hands, consider-
this is a society that embraces the free distribu-
of ideas. Say a person wants to go door-to-door
jndingup grass-roots support for a noble cam-
in, such as increasing mandatory minimum sen
es for drug offenders. Or perhaps they wish to
[her support for an ordinance requiring the mayor
earabunny suit to work three days a week.
Pick any hypothetical situation, crazy or not. If
[\c(lV Mmayoris opposed, there is no guarantee a per-
c ' be given. Now one man at the pinnacle of
^t.povjev decides What ideas come door to door.
one man has the power to limit the exposure
[people to ideas that might oppose his own.
pterin America ideally runs from the bottom
[Limiting the actions of grass-roots political
livists undermines this premise. Under the cur-
law, the mayor has the power to halt a petition
llie people before it even begins, thus stockpil-
Jpower at the top.
The other and more easily seen manner in
ichthis ordinance violates the constitution is
separation of church and state. Again, the
check out the
call 84?-^ if someone is giving a sales pitch
about Kirby vacuums or God's
everlasting love, and one does not
gii want to buy, close the door.
■ ■
ilso named to
Defender Srr
d midfielder A'i
th freshman
ie aH-newcomet
as’ first Big
championship
or ward
the Big 12 Rod
f the Year.
:he most first t
with five
lad three, A
lahoma had one
fence’s head coat
he teams after
egular season fe
Ski Glut
at
triction of ideas is the sticking point. The
nstitution ensures its citizens the right to prac-
: whatever religion they like, however socially
popular they might be. The ordinance allows for
crimination based on religious practice. If the
yor finds a particular religion unsavory, no per-
will be given. Permits also violate the right to
ictice religion anonymously. To obtain a permit,
must divulge his or her name. Divulging such
ormation to the government serves no purpose
benefits the public in no way.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are pursuing Supreme
iurt intervention for the purpose of preserving
irreligious practices. You may not like
ovah’s Witnesses on your doorstep, but they
e a right to knock. In pursuing such action, they
edone all Americans a favor. While not their
ial intent, they are defending the Constitution
all. For this, they deserve American support.
I enext time you open your door to find a door-
|||g|M door evangelist, thank them for standing up
UllH linst an ill-though-out law that would cost all a
of freedom. Then if someone is not interested
ying the message being sold, politely shut the
r. No government intervention required.
Todd Macek is a senior
history major.
Keep prayer private
Gov. Perry should not reinstate prayer in public schools
T wo weeks ago, Texas
Gov. Rick Perry decided
that because he does not
“understand the logic” of the
1963 Supreme
Court ruling
that bans
organized
. school prayer,
he should have
the power to
ignore it com
pletely. Perhaps
he was sick the
day that his government profes
sor taught the lesson that state
governors are not endowed with
the power to overturn Supreme
Court decisions.
Evidently, Perry failed to
recognize that he blatantly dis
regarded the law in front of
hundreds of students when he
brought a Protestant minister to
lead a prayer at Palestine
Middle School.
While Perry might not see
the logic in the principle of sep
aration of church and state, the
Supreme Court is clear. Taking
advantage of the nation’s need
for consolation. Perry has been
championing the cause of
prayer in schools, and he drove
the point home with a prayer at
an official, mandatory school
assembly.
Defending the prayer, which
ended with the phrase, “in Jesus’
name we pray,” Perry expressed
concern that the majority of stu
dents are ultimately being
ignored because of a “small
minority” of students who do not
believe in the same God.
While it has not been estab
lished how small of a minority
all the Jewish, Muslim,
Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic and
atheist students in America actu
ally are. Perry has decided that
their numbers are few enough to
consider their opinions a bother.
In a time of national crisis,
students who wish to pray should
feel free to do so. That is why
there are independently spon
sored organizations such as
Young Life that meet voluntarily
and advertise on school property.
In addition to sponsored
organizations, some students
actually know how to pray by
themselves, during school, with
out microphones and without an
adult present.
Opponents of separation of
church and state rarely imagine
how they would feel if their reli
gion were not the majority. No one
can be sure Christianity will
always be a majority religion in
America. Perry should choose his
words, more carefully, considering
that, one day, his grandchildren
could be forced to pull out prayer
mats and bow to Muslim prayer
tapes at an official school function.
Even generic prayers that do
not mention Jesus or Allah violate
the Supreme Court ruling.
This country was founded on
the principle that everyone
should have equal freedom to
exercise their beliefs, so long as
they are within the law. Until the
day comes that there are school
administrators monitoring stu
dents to make sure they do not
bow their heads or meet after
school to pray, the argument that
praying students are being perse
cuted holds little merit.
Schools today are rightfully
free of religious doctrine. Some
see this as a bad thing because
they think students should not be
trusted to decide for themselves
what they will and will not
believe. It is not the job of public
schools, however to instruct stu
dents in any kind of religion.
The purpose of public school is
to educate students in the arts and
sciences and help them learn how
to function in society. Many public
schools attempt to teach proven,
modern scientific findings, even if
they contradict religious beliefs.
Parents who want religion fed to
their children have several options.
They can pray with their children at
home, go to church as a family or
send them to private schools.
These are not such radical solu
tions — plenty of people choose to
do all of these things. Yet many
ADRIAN CALCANEO • THE BATTALION
argue, that private schools are too
expensive. Perhaps these people
fail to notice that church is free.
Regardless of what route par
ents choose to take, no realistic
solution involves politicians. Even
World magazine, a conservative
Christian publication, featured an
article this year regarding separa
tion of church and state that asked
the question, “How many souls
has Congress ever saved?”
Despite this, the governor likely
sees a chance to score religious
brownie points for his upcoming
election campaign. Hopefully, he
has weighed the long-term impli
cations of the words he speaks
while exploiting the nation’s time
of crisis.
Christy Ruth is a sophomore
journalism major.
MAIL CALL
TV1£
Tech students offer
apologies
The football game last Saturday
proved to be exciting and truly an
experience for all those in atten
dance. I am proud of both football
teams and of their growing abilities.
One thing that I am not proud of is
the after-game activities that includ
ed vandalism and disrespect on
both sides of the Texas stands. As
major universities, both A&M and
Texas Tech must encourage better
ways of showing school spirit and
sportsmanship. I am confident that
Texas Tech will make the changes
necessary to ensure greater success
in these areas while not doing any
thing to harm the pride we feel for our
Red Raiders. On a personal level, it is
my hope that those injured on both
sides of the altercation recover quick
ly and that those responsible for the
brawl see the error in their ways.
Indeed, both Texas Tech and Texas
A&M are schools dedicated to tradi
tion, pride and spirit. It would be a
shame for those few misguided indi
viduals on both sides to tarnish the
image of our schools. I know that we
can reach a positive solution and
work toward another truly fantastic
game next season.
John D. Steinmetz
Student Body President
Texas Tech University
On behalf of the Texas Tech stu
dent body, I would like to send my
deepest apologies to the Aggies that
traveled to Lubbock this past week
end only to receive a dose of “West-
Texas Hospitality.”
The behavior displayed by those
who stormed the field after the
game was totally inappropriate.
These “fans” (at A&M they would be
called Two-Percenters because they
are the first ones to give up and
leave when we fall behind) acted
without an ounce of dignity or class.
I assure you that the actions of this
minority do not accurately represent
the feelings of the majority of the
Texas Tech student body.
We are as appalled by their actions
as you are. An investigation is already
under way to find and punish those
responsible for these inappropriate
acts. Hopefully those students who
embarrassed Texas Tech will learn
what real school spirit and true
sportsmanship is so that when you
travel to Lubbock in 2003, you will
receive a much more friendly wel
come and will be treated with the
respect you deserve.
Chris Carr
Texas Tech University
Class of 2004
Discrimination is
reason to ban ROTC
In response to Jonathan Jones’ Nov.
6 column:
Harvard and other Ivy League uni
versities are right to protest the U.S.
military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell" pol
icy by banning ROTC programs from
their campuses. Jones calls the
move “ungrateful” and “intolerant,”
but what is truly ungrateful and
intolerant is the way the military and
the United States treat homosexu
als. Homosexuals participate in
every facet of our society and
helped found this country.
Homosexuals have been loyal
American citizens since day one, and
have certainly done their best for
“duty, honor and country.”
Despite these facts, homosexuals
are still treated, in many ways, like
second-class citizens — not permit
ted to have legal recognition of their
romantic partnerships nor given the
right to serve their country in the
armed forces.
This is intolerance; this is ungrate
fulness. Universities such as
Harvard have a policy stating that
they do not allow organizations that
discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation to operate on campus.
The simple fact is that ROTC does
discriminate on these grounds.
Harvard obviously feels it can do
more good by throwing its institu
tional weight behind homosexual
rights than by allowing as handful of
preppy Ivy Leaguers to run around
playing soldier once a week.
Josh Lee
Class of 2002
SBP should speak
for students
In response to The Battalion's edito
rial on Nov. 1:
Thank you for holding the elected
student leaders to their responsibili
ties and for holding the administra
tors to their commitments. Schuyler
Houser’s silence on the Bonfire
issue has left many students won
dering about her commitment to a
successful Bonfire.
As student body president, she
has a responsibility to inform the
students on her stances and actions
regarding issues that affect us all.
After all, she said in The Battalion
on March 22, “As a student, I am
making a commitment to fellow stu
dents in running for office that I will
not lose that commitment, nor my
relationship to the student body, as
SBP.” Thank you for your editorial
stating the need for immediate
action to save Bonfire.
It is unacceptable that certain stu
dent leaders do not engage with
their constituents, find out their
views, and express those views to
the administration. They are not per
forming their jobs.
Tyler Dunman
Class of 2003
Accompanied by 75 signatures