Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 17, 2003)
)ctober 17,2003 mderstand how (hat mane. Is a homicide lane? dividual that per i malicious act to endure the same pain that they I upon theii If you want to cal ion inhumane, com j Sparky" or hang- not lethal injections. ■ if the inmates do ind of pain, ssuming that most vould almost enjoy omeone who mun oved one to experi- ess "pleasant final 3o, if anything is , it is only what the fid to end up on and not the actual f lethal injection. Lindsey Rodgers Class of 2005 r :tory ecostal Church Wednesday 7:00 p.m. H Brothers • C.S. Wal-Mart) 1-4180 ition Korean ian Church ^rarie Rd., CS >-0403 ihip - 2:00p.m. ibyterian Churcli Prairie Road 594-7700 Steele - Pastor Service: 11 a.m. r School: i a.m. i Welcome presbyterian.org fertise this i call ittalion ay! >696 Opinion The Battalion Page 7 • Friday, October 17, 2003 Flawed approach U.S. insistence on abstinence-only sexual education leaves teenagers at risk C ompared to most indus trialized nations, the United States is losing when it comes to teen preg nancy and sexually transmitted disease. A study conducted by members of Advocates for Youth Linda Berne and Barbara Huberman compared the United States to Germany, the Netherlands and France in CHRIS LIVELY a number of areas. It was discovered that U.S. teens are the youngest to engage in sexual behavior. In addition, U.S. teens report signifi cantly less frequent use of contraceptives other than condoms. Their rates of birth, abortion and STDs are also much higher than that of European countries. European approaches to sexuality are much different than American ones. They are more open about the topic, encourage safe sex prac tices earlier and more frequently, use numer ous mass media campaigns and value the deci sions of their youth. America does not have to undergo a radical cultural change to improve the way its youth are treated. However, it should start by eradicating useless and outdat ed policies regarding sexual education in pub lic schools. In 1996, $250 million was appropriated by the federal government supporting abstinence- until-marriage programs. Over the past few years, the Bush administration has contributed nearly $100 million to sponsor the same pro grams, according to a report by Rep. Henry A. Waxman, a ranking member of the Committee of Government Reform. The primary goal of these programs is to portray sex as an activity intended only for married adults. These pro grams deny their intended targets information regarding contraception and other preventative measures necessary for safe sex. The United States is an extremely sexually- oriented society. Children and teenagers are exposed to enormous amounts of sex ual content and images every day by doing anything from watching tele vision to turning on the radio. The pres sures to have sex are more than evident. If teens decide to go down this — what abstinence-only programs would call, horrific and destruc tive path — they are often ill-equipped and unmotivated to make healthy and rational deci sions about sex. But that is exactly the ideological intention. The latent mes sage being delivered by these programs is this: “Do not have sex until you are married and if you choose to, then you'll be sorry.” Abstinence-only education preaches the notion of “just say no” and leaves no other option. In contrast to other comprehensive education programs, this outdated, head-in-the-sand approach is essentially inflicting punishment on teens that can sometimes be a lifelong sentence. On behalf of the Bush administration, for mer White House spokesman Ari Fleischer maintained in a June 2001 press con ference that “abstinence is more , than a sound science, it’s a sound practice... Abstinence has a proven track record of working.” That statement illustrates precisely what is inherently wrong with the conservative view. Abstinence works, of course, but it is not being practiced. Abstinence should be stressed but only in the presence of thorough and descriptive infor mation educating students about all aspects of sexuality. Further, it is ideology rather than scientific evidence that dictates what is being taught. There is no scientific evidence indicating that absti nence-only programs are effective. The Bush administra tion has measured the effects of these programs by evaluating everything but pregnancy and STD rates. The administration thinks that because children understand the emo tional, social and other Ivan Flores • THE BATTALION possible health gains from abstaining from premarital sexual activity that the programs are effective, according to Waxman’s report. This is clearly a flawed and unreasonable measure. In contrast, situations like those in Europe illustrate the more desirable conditions that can be obtained by using more comprehensive and sex-positive approaches guided by research. Teens need to be able to receive information, discover their own values and learn healthy rela tionship skills that will enable them to decide for themselves when they are ready for sex. Essentially, they should be given the right to live an American life without a neglectful and judg mental reaction from their, what should be, sup portive leaders. Abstinence-only approaches deny teens this right. The conservative motive for these programs is to attempt to control sexual behavior. With fully comprehensive, unbiased and truthful educational programs, teens feel more obligat ed to protect themselves and each other and, in many cases, commence sexual activity later. Abstinence-only education policies are hin dering U.S. advancement toward a healthier environment for adolescents. It is time for politicians to be realistic and practical. The actual situation is that many kids are having sex and those who have had no comprehensive sex-ed are incapable of making mature deci sions. If current conservative policies regard ing sexual education remain intact, the United States will always be at the top of the list of Western nations with sexual health problems. Chris Lively is a senior sociology major. North Korea trying to force action on nuclear weapons N orth Korea, the international pariah, is back at it again trying to call the United States’ bluff on nuclear weapons. By claiming that they have begun to assemble nuclear weapons and refusing to continue negotiations with the Japanese, the North Koreans are trying to spook the South into kowtowing before their demands and break apart the U.S. coalition trying to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. North Korea claims it has begun to assem ble nuclear weapons using the plutonium it recovered from 8,000 used fuel rods, according to the International Herald Tribune. Although Secretary of State Colin Powell downplayed the threat as empty in the same article, another article from the British Broadcasting Company indicates that the United States may not really know if the threats are empty. According to the BBC, the United States knows little that it can be certain about of what’s happening in the North Korean nuclear program. Most of what is known, such as the number of fuel rods the North possesses, was known before the first nuclear crisis on the peninsula in 1994. The United States knows the fuel rods have been moved to a processing facility, but does not know how much of the plutoni um they contain has been reprocessed. According to the article, Krypton 85 gas emitted during the process is hard to conceal. The United States may have detected the gas, but has made no confirmation of the fact. The United States also has only a rough idea of how much weapons-grade plutonium the North had already processed or has been processing. But this intelli gence shortage is not the only problem facing American and South Korean policy makers. The North has also told the Japanese they are no longer welcome at the multilateral talks meant to resolve the crisis. According to the BBC, the North told the Japanese that they were “no longer a trusty dialogue partner.” The sudden dismissal of the Japanese from the talks stems from Japan’s desire to discuss the abduction of its citizens by Northern forces during the Cold War, and the desire of the North to nego tiate directly with the United States and the United States alone. This comes in the face of a recent agreement by the Japanese, South Koreans and Chinese to work to resolve the crisis peacefully. The Japanese are resist ing the North’s action, claiming the North cannot throw them out of the talks. Taken separately, the North’s actions may seem to be the threats of a tot tering Stalinist regime looking for the spotlight. But on a larger scale, these actions are a concert ed effort by the North to fracture the legitimate alliance built by the United States to curb the North’s nuclear ambitions. Its efforts to remove the Japanese from the talks are clearly meant to remove an ally of the United States who also fears the North’s nuclear weapons. The Japanese have no love lost with the Koreans, but leaving the talks could leave the United States alone in its staunch opposition to the North’s possession of nuclear weapons. The Japanese commitment to remain involved is a heartening sign of solidarity with the United States. The other part of the North’s plan is to rat tle its nuclear saber at the South in an effort to scare the country away from a solid line with the United States. The North also plans to increase the policy gulf between the countries over the hardness of the line to be presented to the North. But the strategy may be backfiring. According to the BBC, the public Korean Broadcasting Commission 1 channel accused the North of “duplicity” in its apparent desire for nuclear weapons when asking the United States for accommodations. In the past. Southern public opinion was in favor of appeas ing the North. But now it seems that the North’s brinkmanship has worn thin. The United States needs to realize that the North’s claims must either be dismissed or substantiated by intelligence. Either way, the United States has an opportunity to further unite the coalition of countries that wish to stop the North Korean nuclear program. Although Iraq is important, this is an opportunity that should not be missed. David Shoemaker is a junior management major. DAVID SHOEMAKER a The Japanese have no love lost with the Koreans, but leaving the talks could leave the United States alone in its staunch opposition to the North’s posses sion of nuclear weapons. MAIL CALL Students and faculty must stop intolerance In response to an Oct. 16 mail call: As Dr. Hogg wrote, it isn’t a “choice” people make to be gay. I doubt any one in his right mind would “choose” to endure the discrimination, hatred and belittling typically associated with being gay if he wasn’t gay to begin with. What difference does it make if someone is gay? Being gay may not be consistent with some religious beliefs, but where do these religions say it is OK to hate or judge? Like Dr. Hogg, supportive students and faculty members need to let the entire staff and student body know that they do not support hostility towards those who lead lifestyles not parallel with their own. Too often I hear dis criminatory slurs used right in front of a professor or staff member who simply laughs then does nothing to educate the user. Take a stand! Being a mem ber of “Aggie ALLIES” is a great way to show support but is not visible enough in the classrooms and lecture halls. Let your voices be heard loudly above the intolerant. A J Chier Class of 2007 Church debate column contained errors In response to Lauren Esposito’s Oct. 16 column: Ms. Esposito’s article contained errors. First, to point out that a group is a minority does not necessitate that group is incorrect. Second, “minority” is a questionable designa tion. Within the world Anglican com munity, the U.S. Episcopal Church makes up a mere 2.3 million mem bers. Archbishop Akinola’s Nigerian Anglican Church has more than 17 million. It would seem that the Americans are the minority then. Third, this dread minority that Ms. Esposito seems to find problematic does have in its favor a long tradi tion of church teaching, and not only within the Anglican tradition, but also the Catholic and most Protestant traditions. A minority with church tradition on its side is noth ing to be sneezed at. Fourth, bish op-elect Robinson left a wife and two small children when entering into his homosexual relations — the homosexual issue is bad enough, but also now add adultery. Would Esposito have been as willing to support Robinson had he ditched his family for a woman? After all, if we are all created by God, why can’t an adulterer administer the teach ings of the Lord? Phillip W. Gray Graduate Student Homosexuality is a sin in the Bible The 18th chapter of the book of Leviticus is dedicated to the exhor tation of unlawful sexual relations. It is interesting that we in our modern society still consider all of these sexual relations (within the family, with animals, adultery) to be immoral except for one; Verse 22 explicitly states that a man should not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. God calls this detestable. Since he is speaking to Moses, a man, we logically conclude that God is speaking about homosexuality. It is, therefore, a sin and has no place in the church. I realize that I am not perfect and have no authority to judge a fellow man, but I also follow scriptures where Jesus calls us to repent. As such, I cannot condone homosexu ality. Sin is divisive in the church as a whole, which is why Paul spends so much of his letters in the New Testament encouraging the church es to purify themselves. I present this statement as a possibility: it is not the opinion of the minority that is divisive, it the sin itself. Carlee Bordeno Class of 2004 Members of church doing right thing The “conservative faction” of the Episcopalian Church is not exhibit ing bigotry toward homosexuals. They are simply recognizing that there are certain Biblical require ments bishops must meet. This is not hatred. There is also much debate over whether homosexuality is right or wrong. But it was never about right versus wrong. The original sin was when mankind chose knowing right from wrong against knowing life from death. Sin is spiritual death — separation from God and the way He created things to be. Genesis 2:24 says that “a man should be joined to his wife.” There is no men tion of “alternative lifestyles” because that was never in the design. It’s not right or wrong; it’s life or death. Homosexuality separates from the designed plan of God and brings death. And why is everyone so concerned about not “splitting the unity of the church?” Since when was that Jesus’ policy? He put highly respect ed religious leaders in their places throughout the Gospels and con stantly split the unity of the church. We need more men and women of conviction willing to stand up for truth instead of bending over backwards to avoid “rocking the boat.” Amber King Class of 2005