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.