mw
iE BATTalio
Opinion
•tape
P ts from a vide;
bin Laden'si
the 19 Sept.!!
1 not been kt
U.S.-led bombi:;
n last October,'
<J one of its corr..
w ith two top*
)rrespond withi
1 attacks. Sltor.,
'uneed one ofti
Pakistan,
died the netwat
war on terron?
• S. Mideastp*
they strive totii
Arab and Musfc
ngered Arabs:
' Washington.
Ily funded bya
operations i
ly independeniii
ow n official sa
iew.
m fire,
erate
SAUDi ARABIA
OVA
Mina a!-
^ Dabah
MM
a 1
French oil
tanker caught
fire Sunday
IRAN
" i ^Khark
ASt^V v -
01 Oma^
YEMEN j
• ,n a '' s
„t ni^' J |
,ited Press ESRI A' [
ieni ports. Tit \
i Ministry said tit r
carrying 25 cit» |
some crew mem- [
ito the water ani f
while others trift!
ire until it becairc |
:s were no long® |
now'ledge, then |
jaths,” the Freri I
ry said.
ic minister, Je*
, told reporterst |
to comment « I
■ blast.
rror in judgmei 11
the court.
I and faces abo 1
n sentenced!*
The Battalion
Page 11 • Monday, October 7, 2002
The wrong tool for the job
The Bible is too complicated to be used effectively in secular arguments
A bortion, capital punishment,
child discipline, homosexu
ality - no matter the topic,
it is likely that Bible scripture is
used to argue both sides of the
issue. Unfortunately, the Bible does
not prove to be the final answer in these problems due to its com
plexity. Whether writing speeches, debating among friends or dis
cussing public policy, using biblical quotes does little to support
a secular thesis.
Because the Bible provides moral messages through the telling
of stories, its words can be easily misinterpreted. An even greater
difficulty is the existence of apparent contradictions within the
texts. Dr. Henry Morris, author of “Many Infallible Proofs;
Evidences for the Christian Faith ” says the Bible contains many
alleged complications that present difficulties for the reader.
For example, in the New International Version of the Bible,
Exodus 21:12 says “anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall
surely be put to death.” However. Romans 12:17 and Matthew
5:39 say one evil should not be repaid with another. It could be
argued that these verses mean one should not enact vengeance,
but should allow the community to do so. However, as the com
munity comprises individuals, it is difficult to understand where
the line is drawn. A juror who gives a verdict in favor of the
death penalty would still be violating Romans 12:17 and
Matthew 5:39 while following the guidance of Exodus 21:12.
Morris points to another example in which the Bible was used
to unjustly execute Galileo, who was executed for his belief that
the Earth revolved around the sun. In convicting Galileo of
heresy, the Church pointed to I Chronicles 16:30, which says
“the world is firmly established; it cannot be moved,” and Psalms
104:5, which says, “He set the Earth on its foundations, it can
RICHARD BRAY
never be moved.” In context, these words might mean
that the ways of the world cannot be changed. However,
when taken literally, this text can prove very difficult to
understand.
Difficulties such as these make the Bible a poor
choice to substantiate secular arguments such as capital
punishment and abortion. Both sides can use the same
collection of texts to support vastly different, and often
times opposing, views. These difficulties in understand
ing the Bible’s meaning explain why some scholars
donate so much of their time to studying the Bible.
Perhaps part of the trouble with the Bible is the
numerous translations the book has undergone. “The
Alpha and the Omega” by Jim Cornwell lists 11 different
versions of the Bible which have been translated into
English and alludes to there being others of lesser signif
icance. Morris says these translations can also cause con
tusion. In his book, he points to seven different varia
tions between the King James Version of the Bible and
the New International Version which change the mean
ings ot the verses and can create confusion for the reader.
To overcome these challenges, individuals who use the
Bible to support their views on the world’s myriad trou
bles must be well-versed in biblical scripture to fully
understand the Bible’s message. This is not to say that
the Bible does not contain important messages, or that it
is not a work that deserves our close critique. But when
trying to convince others on a secular issue, citing the
Bible only opens a debate about biblical interpretation
that does little to convince opponents.
Richard Bray is a senior
journalism major.
JEFF SMITH • THE BATTALION
Company should not edit films for content
TXean Flicks provides family-friendly films but infringes on filmmakers’ rights
C lean Flicks, a Utah-based
corporation, has taken up
the role of janitor in the
movie industry - it takes R-rated,
PC-13 rated and even PG rated
movies and edit them until they
are clean enough for a five-year-old to watch. The theme is
catching on: 64 locations have sprung up virtually overnight in
15 states. There seems to be a growing market for the film-
editing services Clean Flicks offers, and yet there also seems
lobe something inherently wrong with what Clean Flicks and
its affiliates do to these movies.
Indeed, families may want to watch Saving Private Ryan
without the extreme violence, and that is understandable.
Parents may want their kids to enjoy Titanic without seeing
more of Kate Winslet than necessary, and that is reasonable.
Situations such as these point to a hole in the home video mar
ket that needs to be filled. They do not, however, call for indi
viduals to come running with the moral mop. Clean Flicks vio
lates artistic integrity and, arguably, the law while making a
killing in the family movie market.
Clean Flicks and its affiliates make money off other peo
ple s artwork after it has been molded into a form that the
artist did not intend. Such tampering betrays the artist’s origi
nal vision of the film. LA Confidential director Curtis Hanson
likens these actions to high crime. In an interview, he told
CNBC News that “to alter these (productions) and then put
them out with our names still on the product is not only fraud,
but it’s artistic rape.”
Hanson’s stance may be somewhat extreme, but it highlights
the emotion involved between directors and their works of art.
Ernest Hemingway once said to his editor that no changes, not
even a word, were to be made to his writing without his
expressed written consent, because “the stories are written so
tight and so hard that the alteration of a word can throw an
entire story out of key.” In the same way, it is possible to
throw an entire film out of key by the removal of one part,
even if that part is objectionable to some.
Artistic integrity is one reason Clean Flicks should not be
allowed to continue shining up the Hollywood movie scene.
The more concrete reason, however, is a legal one. In late
August, Clean Flicks filed a pre-emptive lawsuit asking permis
sion from the courts to continue its practice. The Director’s
Guild of America (DGA) is expected to file a countersuit.
When it does file suit, Findlaw.com’s Julie Hilden says the
DGA has grounds for legal action on three fronts. A court
could find that Clean Flicks violates copyright law by over
stepping its bounds for using the material by editing it before
renting it. The DGA could also argue that Clean Flicks’
actions violate trademark laws because it advertises the origi
nal studio affiliations and catch phrases for the films, even
though the original film is not being sold. A weaker case
could be made for false advertising, though the DGA would
need to prove that Clean Flicks changed the film so much that
it could not be identified as the product it once was.
Some would claim, though, that all these things have already
been done. Studios tailor their movies for specific audiences,
according to a September article in the Christian Science
Monitor. Some movies are edited for television and some are
tamed to be used as in-flight movies for airlines. For sensitive
overseas markets, films are edited to fit the local tastes. Studios
edit some violence for European markets and get rid of the sex
scenes and nudity for Islamic nations. The key difference in
these situations, however, is that editing for TV, the airlines,
and sensitive overseas areas is done with pennission from the
studio that produced the movie. In doing so, these changes
become just as high a crime as anything else Clean Flicks might
do to a movie.
Clean Flicks may be committing “artistic rape,” but at least
its showing family-friendly programming. There is a real
market ready and willing to consume these edited Hollywood
products, even if the companies who offer them aren't artisti
cally sensitive. The sheer fact that this type of film editing is a
problem in the first place is evidence that at least some people
want cleaner movies and are willing to take action to get them.
Hollywood directors and producers are missing out on a grow
ing market, while Clean Flicks violates the artistic integrity of
their films — they’re losing on both fronts. Hollywood directors
would do well to edit their movies on their own. By firing the
janitor, they could make a little money and clean up the mar
ketplace at the same time.
Chris Jackson is a junior information
and operations management major.
CHRIS JACKSON
:ewski admits
ure renewal oil
hristiesaidflioff
6
i 10-3
Week.
glnesJ
u win*
MAIL CALL
Administrator salaries should
r eflect demands of the position
,n res P°nse to Jennifer Lozano's Oct. 4 column:
' ‘. s tru e that top A&M administrators are
erpaid, they should be fired and replaced. If
cuty or staff members are overpaid, they
Quid be fired and replaced.
Varies are not designed for the person hold-
anH 6 0 ^'. ce ' k ut ^ or office itself. The salary
Dr P erc l u ' s ' tes f° r the office, for the office of
anHtrf 11 *' P rovos tr of vice president for this
and ^ at ' °* C0 " e S e dean, of department head,
*[, , so on ' ar e established to compensate for
Th demands of the position,
are 656 are not hve-day, 40-hour jobs; they
hold SeVen ~ day ' 24 ~ Eour j°hs, requiring office-
j n I e , rs to he on call around the clock every day,
Stat U Eo ^days, and throughout the United
bevn S J^° re0Ver ' tEe demands of those jobs are
avlr t * 1e a hility, even the imagination, of the
av ® r age person.
in does not want the average person
son th ^ 0 ^ s ' Texas A&M wants the superior per-
beca 6 person wit h the highest qualifications
Uoh/ersrty^ 056 arG V ' ta * tQ t ^ ,e uture t ^ e
do * arnent The salary of top officeholders;
best 3t y0U can to Ee *P ensure That or dy The
Don'f 0 ^ 6 are hired to fill those jobs.
C om n i ■ COm Pl a in that someone is overpaid;
v^nt f m .^T You are underpaid. You don't
Want * ° - ecrease someone else's salary; you
K eep 0 a‘|| C th aSe y ° Ur salary '
interv' TniS ln m ' n d when you go on a job
,ew ar, d you are asked what salary you
want. You don't know, really, but what you want
is no less than what the job pays.
Douglas Perret Starr
Professor of Journalism
Professor Bonilla-Silva's book
applied to A&M's diversity issue
In response to Matthew Maddox's Oct. 2 column:
I agree whole-heartedly with Matthew
Maddox. Vision 2020 and its plan to increase
diversity is the epitome of prejudice.
It gives preferential treatment to students
based solely on the color of their skin. Certain
departments, if not all of them, tell their advis
ers and staff to go the extra mile for non-white
students, especially for recruitment, and have a
whole list of criteria and protocol they have to
go through that goes far and above and beyond
that which white students receive.
This is one of many Vision 2020 policies to
increase diversity. It can be painted with the
many colors of the word "diversity," but it's still
ugly racism. What if it were not whites getting
looked over? What if it where blacks or hispanics
or any other race?
This place would be targeted by every civil
rights group under the sun. There would be law
suits and protest galore, and rightly so. They
would have every right to protest and scream
racism and demand justice for all - and so do we
under the present set of circumstances.
Shane Zercher
Class of 2001
It seems Maddox's idea of solving the diversi
ty problem at Texas A&M is to ignore it. It's
absurd to think the problem will fix itself.
Maddox quoted Bonilla-Silva as saying "whites
develop a set of social practices and an ideolo
gy to maintain the advantages that they receive."
Bonilla-Silva is referring to the fact that intricate
laws to keep whites in power have replaced bla
tant racism of the past. There are countless
examples of this. If you aren't familiar with the
idea you should take care to further your edu
cation on the subject.
The advantage whites hold is possession of
the most money, the best education and more
rights than anyone. They know this power can't
be taken away. Minorities are not afforded such
a luxury. And so long as this is a public institu
tion, it is the responsibility of the school to
maintain that the minority is protected.
If you truly believe A&M should do nothing to
diversify itself, then would you trade places with
a black person and walk a mile in his shoes?
You don't have to "think about racism too
much" because you live in a white world.
Cabe McNatt
Class of 2003
Dr. Bonilla-Silva, in essence, argues that to be
white is to be automatically guilty. Guilty of
something you couldn't control. Guilty of
crimes you never committed. In what must be
his attempt to right numerous past wrongs, he
argues that white people should be brought
down in order to lift non-whites up. The
University has decided to undertake an affirma
tive action policy under the name of Vision 2020
by actively pursuing non-white students.
Maddox, though, argues that we should turn a
blind eye to a person's skin color. He asserts
that it doesn't matter what shade of skin a per
son has; it only matters if that person is quali
fied to be a student or to do his or her job.
Unfortunately, both stances are wrong.
Bonilla-Silva makes the classic mistake of tear
ing one group down to build another group up.
It just doesn't work that way and we all know it.
Affirmative action and such policies focus on the
color of skin and not the content of character. It
makes diversity trump ability.
I can without a doubt tell you that my brown
skin has nothing to do with how well I do on a
test or how well I do my job. My color doesn't
affect my mind. Yet, to totally ignore race is to
turn a blind eye to history. That cannot be done.
The injustices of the past carry on to affect the
mindset of today. To ignore a person's ethnicity
shown in skin color is to ignore events that could
possibly shape that person's worldview. I'm
Hispanic. I'm proud of that. Yet, I don't want
people only to think of me as Hispanic. I want
people to look beneath my skin to see who I am.
Creg Paul
Class of 2003
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters
must be 200 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 person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid
student ID. Letters also may be mailed to: 014 Reed
McDonald, MS 1111, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843-1111. Fax: (979) 845-2647 Email:
mailcall@thebatt.coni. Attachments will not be accepted.