■evivei
3ickii(
s best they can,”hesii
• deck was stacked
in April, when i
;d Donald J. Carty,«i
;d after his failure toji
jonus and pension pal
lior executives ledioi
/ee uproar,
er salvaging $1.8 bin
ml labor concessions-!
at Carty won then net
mid the perks flap-
and other leaders he!
)f late-night meetings!
d in a four-point ti
plan built on basicssi
ering costs and giv
ers what they want,
ilysts and union officii
Arpey for helping 1
retreat from the edgei
r in April, when comp
orneys were mint
iling bankruptcy pap;:
' York.
y moved to cut fligi
i the St. Louis hubs
seats that had bet
d from some planes in
bid to lure coach ce
with more legrtM
analysts, however, fat
r moving too slowly l
p the stodgy carrier,
•rican still ranks belt)
>f the major carriers i
: arrivals, mishanlt
e and consumer con
according to figuii
ic U.S. Department t
irtation.
JEWS IN BRIEF
looks for
* help from
in terror war
AFORE (AP) -
mt George W. Mi
d for more Asian h®
var on terror Tuesday |
g his appeal It
ore after winning :
from regionalleadeti
illicit weapons,
failed to win explci
ement by the 21
\sia-Pacific Econow
ation forum for a
I diplomatic
a yearlong nude
f with North Korea.
r seeks
ter help for
:ounties
Y v i
The Battalion
t / \ k • !
Page 11 • Wednesday, October 22, 2003
A Godless American governmei
^ould doom cowffry for failure
upreme Court s,
words
i
n February of
1954, President
Dwight D. Eisenhower
and members of the
Washington press attended a
sermon by the Rev. George
Dc xcherty on the pledge of
allegiance and the Soviets.
“Apart from the mention of
the phrase ‘the United States
of America,’ it could be the
pledge of any republic. In fact, 1 could hear lit
tle Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their
hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow,” Docherty
said. Later that year, the words “under God”
were added to the pledge of allegiance. This
was not a fickle or cosmetic change. It was at
the height of the Cold War against atheistic
communist forces that were overtaking and
oppressing the world. It took that war for
America to remember the critical role that God
plays in individual rights and American
democracy.
Now, nearly 50 years later, the U.S.
Supreme Court will decide whether the pledge
of allegiance is unconstitutional because of its
reference to God. Last year, the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in California ruled in the
case of a father of a 9-year-old girl who does
not want his child to hear “under God” during
classroom recitations of the pledge. Already,
students are not compelled by law to recite the
pledge. Ironically, the girl is a practicing
Christian and is not offended by the reference
to God. Regardless, the court will decide the
role of God in American life and government
for years to come. With the death of commu
nism history has proven that without God in
government, freedom cannot long survive. The
words “under God” should not be removed
from the pledge of allegiance.
The argument against the reference to God
rathe pledge of allegiance is flawed. The
words are not unconstitutional. Critics of the
pledge, of allegiance will say that it “violates
Ibeseparation of church and state” When con
fronted by one of these critics, ask him to cite
lhatphrase in the U.S. Constitution. These
words are not in the Constitution and only
appeared in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a
group called the Danbury Baptists. This is a
good start, but the critics will not stop there.
Another argument by critics is that the
establishment clause of the Constitution,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof,” bans the reference to
God. This is false, as there is no establishment
of a religion that takes place by including
“God” in the pledge. Not only does this not
Josh Darwin •THE BATTALION
establish a religion, but the refer
ence to God does not mention a
specific religion at all. The reason
for the establishment clause to
begin with was the fear held by
the Founding Fathers of a federal
religion such as the Church of
England. At the same time, the
founders respected the right of the
people to have God in their govern
ment. Proof of this is that at the
time of the passage of the Bill of
Rights, most of the colonies had
official taxpayer-supported religions.
John Adams, the second U.S. pres
ident said, “Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other.” Adams and
the other Founding Fathers built U.S.
democracy on the basis of natural
rights, or in other words, that people’s
rights come from God and not the gov
ernment. As soon as a government no
longer respects God, there is little rea
son not to trample the rights of its citi
zens. This is what justified their revolt
against the tyranny of English rule and
why the U.S. Constitution, the
Declaration of Independence and the
Oath of Office all invoke the name of
God. That is also why the Supreme Court
has a monument to the Ten
Commandments, why the Supreme Court and
Congress open in a prayer and why America’s
national motto is “In God We Trust.” Following
the 9th Circuit’s reasoning, even the
Constitution is unconstitutional.
Fundamentally, the reference to God in the
pledge is an acknowledgement and reminder
that the United States was settled and estab
lished by a religious people, and that
America’s form of government depends on
Divine Providence to survive. Without God,
there is no such thing as good and evil, and
freedom and tyranny cannot be recognized as
such. It took the American Revolution to win
the citizens of the United States their God-
given rights. It took the Cold War to remind
America of the threat that a Godless govern
ment poses on the world. Hopefully, it will not
take another war for America to preserve God
in our country and government.
Matt Maddox is a senior
management major.
(■P!
MIKE
WALTERS
1C:
fiyw mhe
pledge
of alle
giance has changed
quite a bit since its
first inception by the
Rev. Francis
Bellamy in 1892.
Minor word changes
were made in 1923
and 1924. It wasn’t
until 1942 that Congress officially recog
nized and added it to the U.S. Flag Code,
although it changed its salute to placing
your hand over your heart from the origi
nal version that bore resemblance to the
Nazi salute. Finally, the phrase “under
God” was added in 1954 by President
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Though that was
almost 50 years ago, the pledge may soon
see yet another adjustment — this time to
undo the last one.
In 2000, Michael Newdow sued a
California school district, claiming that the
teacher-led pledge of allegiance containing
the phrase “under God” constituted “daily
indoctrination” with “religious dogma.” Last
week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to
consider whether Newdow has the legal right
to challenge this policy. He maintains that it
is a violation of the First Amendment’s estab
lishment clause. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals agreed, and if the Supreme Court
correctly looks at the facts, it will too.
“Leading schoolchildren in a pledge that
says the United States is ‘one nation under God’
is as objectionable as making them say we are a
nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a
nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’
because none of these professions can be neutral
with respect to religion,” U.S. Circuit Judge
Alfred T. Goodwin wrote.
Many religious and conservative groups are
crying about a “moral decay” infecting the
country, but this isn’t true. Recent Supreme
Court rulings striking down sodomy laws, the
Ten Commandments in a courtroom and now
references to God have nothing to do with
slacking morals. In fact, it shows the govern
ment taking steps to apply greater integrity in
its structure in ruling by objective laws appli
cable to all rather than yielding to the beliefs
held by some. Those who further complain
that the founders never intended church and
state to be completely separate are also erro
neous: The term “wall of separation” began
with Thomas Jefferson.
It’s true that students are not required to
recite the pledge, thanks to a Supreme Court
ruling meant to protect religions that regarded
Id exclude
to everyone
■ the pledge as flag-worship immoral by
their standards. This ruling, however, does
not apply to teachers, who must lead the class in
recitation regardless of possible objections.
Whether the government forces citizens to
recite the pledge or not, it doesn’t change the
fact that including the phrase “under God” gives
the ceremony a spiritual aspect by including a
subjective statement not all parents and students
may agree with. “Students are effectively forced
to be part of a religious observance and they are
expected to stay while it is going on,” said the
Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for
Separation of Church and State. Regardless of
one’s personal beliefs, it is wrong to force them
onto others who may become uncomfortable as
a result. And the originator of that force should
never be the government.
Congress added “under God” at the height of
the Cold War due to the urging of the Knights
of Columbus and religious leaders who wanted
to distinguish the United States from what they
regarded as godless communism. When
Eisenhower signed the legislation, he declared
that “millions of our schoolchildren will daily
proclaim in every city and town, every village
and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our
nation and our people to the Almighty.”
Eisenhower’s statement was wildly presumptu
ous to believe that every American at the time
and today would feel the need to assert “dedica
tion to the Almighty.” The fact he used govern
ment power to enforce his personal religious
beliefs on the rest of the country made the
action inappropriate and outside of his authority.
If the government wanted to distinguish itself
further from communism, there are much better
ways to do so. Throwing out socialist regulation
of private businesses would have been a better
assertion of capitalism rather than demanding
that American schoolchildren publicly endorse
mysticism. Though we cannot change the past,
the Supreme Court does have the opportunity to
correct it now.
Justice Antonin Scalia has removed himself
to the sidelines in this issue because of his
inability to be impartial. Should the remaining
eight justices deadlock 4-4, the lower court’s
ban on the phrase will stand, affecting nine
western states and Guam. However, it is only
proper for the Supreme Court to apply the lower
court’s ruling to the entire country, out of
respect for constitutional principle that keeps
the government from making any law that push
es religious beliefs on the entire country. Let’s
hope it does the right thing.
Mike Walters is a senior
psychology major.
N (AP) - Gov. Rif
juested a federal disas
ration on Wednesday! 1 :
is counties because) 1
tin and flooding ini
de Valley.
wrote Preside)
N. Bush seeking fed)
stance for Brooks
i, Hidalgo, Starr a))
counties, which lias
ains from Sept. 1i
Dot 20.
presidential disaslf
on is granted, I
could receive fedefs
housing assistants
/ment assistance a!
jnseling.
ilso alerted the Texas
ent of Housing ai«
lity Affairs and I
f Rural Commuiii
iat Brooks, Camerof
and Star counties a)
or disaster relief pit
d grants administer^
sach agency
testimony
>n proposed
on literature
(AP) — As mandat
exas Legislature, I
partment of HealtM
brochure that Texas
ext year will be legal
o offer women at lea)
before performing^
, former abort!
religious groups ai»
ty activists offeft ;
lues of a propos!
the health depai;
sday, the last day !
stimony before
nt prepares a P
time to meetaDea
MAIL CALL
Drinking memories
disgrace student
In response to Bart Shirley’s Oct.
20 article:
I am disgusted and disappointed
with the article written on the tragic
death of Levi Windle. When some
one dies, they should be remem
bered with fond thoughts and mem
ories, not incidents involving the
humiliation of fellow classmates or
standing on a table at a bar half
naked. It was written with complete
disrespect and disregard to the
deceased’s family and friends.
While I did not know Levi Windle
personally, I am sure that there are
more positive things to remember
about his life and personality then
his drinking habits and ability to
“mortify” friends in public.
I sincerely hope that in the future
the writers at The Battalion take into
consideration the thoughts and feel
ings of other people before writing
such off-color material.
Daphne Ruoff
Texas A&M employee
Schools must find
abstinence alternative
In response to an Oct. 20 mail call:
It is not a question of teenagers
being capable, or responsible,
enough to make so called “adult
decisions.” The fact is that they are
making these decisions, and they
are making them with very little, if
any, education. Sexual responsibility
cannot be taught in class; however,
we can inform teenagers about sex
so that they are able to make edu
cated decisions. Let’s take a look at
how well this method of not educat
ing has worked on so many of the
adults in our society. We keep
spending so much money on proba
tion, incarceration and rehabilitation,
but why aren’t we spending more
money on education? Why not try
stopping the problem before it
becomes a problem?
Anybody that has ever attended a
good sexual education class should
know that there is a lot of discussion
about the many consequences of
having sex. It is a common teaching
method that condoms can break,
and your life can be altered in one
instance. In some ideal societies,
people may abstain from sex until
they are married; however, it is
absurd to think that every person in
this society is going stay a virgin
until they are married. I think that it
is time to stop being so narrow
minded, and think of other options.
William Brown
Class of 2004
In response to an Oct. 21 mail call:
Many Christians do try to use the
Bible to justify their holier than thou
attitude and some try to justify “bash
ing” gays, and that is wrong. We are
to love others more than ourselves. I
also have to agree that scripture
does state that we are not to judge
people, it simply isn’t our place. What
we must understand is that the Bible
does tell us right and wrong. There
are no gray areas. If you want to
argue the validity of scripture so you
can sleep better at night, then that is
your right. Although we are not to
judge people, we are to judge
whether or not their actions are right
or wrong, and it is clearly spelled out,
regardless of whether you believe it
or not. Life all comes down to a
choice. We can choose God and the
sacrifice of his son for our wrong
choices or we can choose to reject
the Bible.
Joshua Clay Jacobson
Class of 2004
Absence of Bonfire
ruins traditions
In Ms. Lenchner’s article, Beth
Weisinger is labeled as a crew chief.
The title crew chief refers to the
male leaders out at Bonfire. Female
leaders have a similar position but
are called co-chairs.
Either title refers to a position that
has been earned through the pass
down system. The pass down sys
tem is and always has been a time
honored tradition to pick the leaders
of the group that show loyalty and
dedication not just to Bonfire but to
everything the group stands for. The
pass down is from the current lead
ers to those they feel show the
greatest potential for the upcoming
year. These leaders have gained the
respect of those they work around
and those that work under them. A
co-chair must have someone older
than her to recognize her knowledge
and leadership skills, and others
affiliated with the group who are will
ing to recognize their authority and
work underneath them.
It offends those who have earned
the title that some will claim it with
out working to distinguish them
selves. This is yet another example
of how the rich traditions of this uni
versity are dwindling without Bonfire
on campus to preserve what so
many former Aggies know and love.
Mary Bridges and Jessica Miller
Classes of 2006 and 2005
Free speech issues
brought wrong point
In response to an Oct. 16 article:
RHA was discussing whether to
publicly state an opinion about
grode yells. During the debate I stat
ed that I do not believe people
should be able to yell whatever they
want in public when it infringes on
other people’s right not to hear it.
That statement did not correctly
bring across my point. I believe it
goes both ways. People have a right
to free speech but l realize people
can say what they want in public (as
long as it is not illegal), but people
can also ask you to stop. They have
that right. I think a lot of times that is
forgotten, and maturity flies out the
window. As far as the issue with
grode yells, l think a specific yell
was targeted but we need to keep in
mind that it is an issue that affects
us all. Could you walk up to a mob of
people and ask them to stop yelling
something that scares, belittles or
degrades you?
Amanda Karlik
Briggs Hall President.
The Battalion encourages letters to the edi
tor. 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 77843-1 111. Fax: (979)
845-2647 Email: mailcall@thebattalion.net
People should not
judge other's actions