)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