Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (April 7, 2004)
Opinion The Battalion Page 9 ♦ Wednesday, April 7, 200 One nation under God? Teaching theology in schools is answer to debate over 'under God' in U.S. pledge THEM ass said I at (» all well’ lice sopki ikkiaM in vied ate!)?' i )13M ■M i ‘JO U.-i lice is bundtj ie breii[ ght i M sthir :h M t(the[< overt I.” W(^ he question of who, or what, is God is a difficult one to answer. Different cultures have different ideas and conceptions of God. Thus, in regards to the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, “God” cannot and should not be defined for every citizen. In 2002, when the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declared the phrase “under God” uncon stitutional, Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, speaking for the majority, wrote, “A profession that we are a nation ’under God’ is identical, for Istablishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a ation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' r a nation 'under no god, because none of these professions can e neutral with respect to religion.” The issue, however, is current- / up before the U.S. Supreme Court. The problem with Goodwin’s assertions and the thing that those :eking to banish “under God” from the pledge need to realize is lat “God” is not the specific name of any particular god. Yes, it lay most often be used to refer to the Judeo-Christian God, but ie proper name for that God is “Yahweh.” Thus, the phrase under God” does not, and must not, refer to a specific deity, but is idividually defined. A question arises about whether the rights of atheists and gnostics are violated by the inclusion of the phrase “under God.” kistian opponents to altering the pledge often assert that the funding Fathers believed in the Judeo-Christian God and this is eflected in the Declaration of Independence. A few days after the Lpeals court’s ruling, Robert Tracinski, proponent to changing the iledge, correctly stated that, “The Declaration of Independence [[tributes our rights, not just to God but to ‘the laws of Nature and sil if Nature's god.’” For most of the Founding Fathers, “God” was, jlitmost, a creator who no longer actively interacted with man, but Jhey were still subject to the laws of nature he created. In this sense, the Founding Fathers were “under God,” that is to lay, “under the laws of Nature and of Nature’s god.” Although this snot the idea of god that those who originally altered the pledge lad in mind, there is nothing wrong in interpreting the phrase in Ms manner today. With most politicians professing Christian creeds, it is easy to ;ee why the words “under God” can be mistaken for an endorse- entof Christianity. Little, if anything, has been done to turn this ito a general, non-biased statement. In March, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that although things such as mandated prayer should not be allowed in public schools, religion should be taught to students. Given the 'unvnt debate over the pledge, there are several reasons why this tuld be done. First and most obvious is that it is crucial to help one under- ndhis own beliefs, why they are believed, and if the religion to hich he or she belongs is the most theologically sound. These ourses would teach not only a religion’s core beliefs but also its listory, the teachings of its leaders and many things that are corn- only left out of classes taught at churches. There is a legitimate concern that some instructors might attempt to force their religion and system of beliefs up upon their students. This is something that has been done in the past at col leges and universities, and still continues today, though to a lesser extent. The best way to prevent this from happening is first to emphasize to the instructor that, if he truly believes the creed he professes, it will triumph on its own merit, and not through nefari ous persuasion tactics. Then, if necessary, an outside person can monitor the instructor. Second, the more one understands religion, the more one can understand history, literature, science and culture. Religion is deeply entrenched in all of these disciplines; to leave it out of the discussion would be a grave injustice. Finally, the more one understands religion, the more one is able to manage contemporary issues. This goes far beyond the contro versies surrounding abortion and homosexuality, and reaches into welfare, biotechnology and terrorism, among others. It is impossi ble to understand al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, and other con flicts in the Middle East without having a basic and accurate understanding of Islam, which has its roots in Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism. The Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal organization that helped get the phrase “under God” into the pledge, stated in a friend-of-the-court brief that the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, “challenges the American principle that fun damental rights are inalienable by the state because they exist prior to the State.” Religious freedom is an inalienable right; that is not being debated. But Americans should not look upon “under God” as restricting their rights. Instead it should be taken as an opportunity for greater knowledge and freedom. Cody Sain is a junior philosophy major. Graphic by Grade Arenas ntidepressant warning abels are long overdue MAIL CALL Battalion coverage of VIP is 'on the path to Aggie death deplorable race-based admissions' offb series. 1 osep igfoti] orysaii inceto'j k joesn't mfor people constantly ignore 'warnings on cigarettes, alcohol and even para- fchutes, accepting the potential Banger of death associated with itsing such products in return lor certain benefits. Not to Include these warnings on the pasis that they might scare fomeone away from use would irresponsible and dangerous. While antidepressants may seem to fall in a different category because |hey are not something used recre ational ly, the U. S. Food and Drug yministration has rightly decided bat these drugs, too, warrant a dan- ker-of-death warning. To ignore their potential for exacerbating suicide ten- Bencies would be as careless as with- polding the fact that smoking causes Jung cancer. The warnings should not be read ban indictment against the selective potonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs), such as Prozac, Luvox, Zoloft and Paxil, among six other Antidepressants that would be affect- [dby the warnings, as the Atlanta fournal-Constitution urged readers. Instead, the warnings should be taken as a call for closer supervision py doctors and family members of [hose taking the drugs. The decision to increase warnings Is, in part, a reaction to a jury’s recent decision in Cheyenne to award $6.4 aillion in damages to the remaining family of a man who murdered his vife, daughter and granddaughter and then committed suicide in 1998. He vas taking Paxil at the time, accord ing to The Associated Press. While a warning may not have deterred the man from taking the drug or from taking lives, it may have alert- fed his family to watch for signs of rouble or prompted him to seek closer psychiatric monitoring. “The problem with this drug is that it’s prescribed by a lot of people who are not physicians with psychi atric training,” Cheyenne attorney Jim Fitzgerald told the AP about Paxil. The solution to success ful and safe treatment with antidepressants is to make patients aware of the inherent risks, but to also remind them that the risks are dwarfed by the benefits. Awareness, coupled with therapy and close contact with a therapist are the best safeguards against suicide and violence. Many people across the nation, including some doctors, have protest ed the FDA decision because they fear it will frighten already-depressed patients away from the taking the medicine, perpetuating the depression and leading to the suicide that the warning was designed to prevent, according to The New York Times. However, doctors should be able to ease patients’ fears about the drugs by encouraging responsible use, meaning that doctor and patient keep in close contact when a new medicine is start ed or dose changed, and that patients never stop taking the drugs when they decide they are no longer needed and without the doctor’s consent. If patients are afraid, they should be reminded that the suicide rate has decreased since the introduction of SSRIs 15 years ago, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Furthermore, people already taking the drugs are not likely to suddenly develop suicidal tendencies, though the risk is higher when first starting the drugs or when dosage changes. Opponents also complain that the warnings are unfounded. “The thing that’s so striking about this FDA action is the lack of science behind it,” Dr. Harold Koplewicz, director of the Child Study Center at New York University, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. This is just not true. While the “passionate testimonies from parents” may have “stimulated these warn ings,” as Koplewicz suggests, they were not without scientific backing. In 2003, the British government issued an advisory that paroxetine, known as Paxil in the United States, should not be taken by anyone under the age of 18. A study that confirmed increased suicidal thoughts among teenagers taking paroxetine provided the impetus for the British advisory, but until now has been largely ignored in the United States, as reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Furthermore, one of the killers in the Columbine High School massacre, Dylan Klebold, was taking the antide pressant Luvox at the time. While it may be hard to differenti ate in these cases whether the mental illness or drug is at fault, scientific evidence does point to increased sui cidal thoughts as a result of taking SSRIs, and a warning could only make patients and their families more attuned to safely monitoring drug usage. As Cheyenne psychiatrist Angelina Montoya told the AP, the warnings will likely encourage doc tors to see patients more often, and “If that keeps people safe, and people feel more comfortable, that’s what we need to do.” In response to an April 6 mail call: I would like to reiterate Mark Fargason's comments. This man spent four years in the Corps of Cadets sup porting this University. He was a great Aggie and a great American. He gave his life protecting us from terrorism and protecting the Iraqi citizens who could not defend themselves. He did this willingly, knowing it could cost him his life and he did not hesitate once. Dolye was always willing to help others. He has left behind a wife who is eight months pregnant with their first child, a daughter. It should not be too much to ask for a little recognition of sacrifice he made for his country and fellow Aggies. Maybe it is appropriate that associate professor Randall Sumpter wants to revamp the journalism department at A&M. It is deplorable that a story of this importance has gone unnoticed since last Thursday by such an "award-win ning" newspaper. Michael Seely Class of 2004 In response to an April 5 mail call: If it is not practical to give every stu dent the opportunity of the VIP pro gram, then the VIP program should not be in use. If certain students are given special benefits that assist them in being admitted into A&M over other students, is that fair? I thought we decided it was not fair when Dr. Gates did away with the legacy program. There is a double standard being set with the VIP program with the mes sage that special programs that assist applicants in being admitted are only okay if the applicant is not white. By making it a priority to admit minorities over other prospects we take the chance of rejecting more qualified applicants just because of their skin color. Now, what does that sound like? Mr. Maddox and Mr. Fisher both do understand the VIP program, and that is why they are so angry that it is being implemented. If you serious ly think that Dr. Gates has not put us on the path to race-based admissions, you are sadly uninformed. Ashley Roberson Class of 2007 Lindsay Orman is a senior English major.
