| OCR Text |
Show 1 hs Signpost Friday, January 30, ZuuT Page 4 Ecteooal BdShtoir iiim Oriidf :: Wtmvfry lLewiKwidl Phone; 626-7121 VIEWPOINT Pledge of Affegfance controversy A growing debate has started in the United States over the Pledge of Allegiance. The concern comes over the inclusion of the words "under God" in a government-endorsed saying. The atheist father of a young Californian girl felt that reciting the Pledge to start school every day had harmed his daughter. The man filed a lawsuit against the local school board and the state and federal government. In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by a three-judge panel and a 2-1 vote, the decision was made that the phrase "under God" as used in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has received the case and will hear it March 24. The California ruling was not unanimous. Judge Ferdinand Fernandez gave a dissenting opinion that explained that, while the pledge does make reference to deity, it does not seek to establish religion. He said, "My reading of the stelliscript suggests that upon Newdow's (the girl's father) theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings." The daughter was raised a Christian by her mother and the girl has said that she will continue to recite the Pledge with the words "under God" included. The United States was founded on the idea that the majority rules while protecting the rights of the minority. Negating minority rights would be to tell the citizens that do not believe in God that they must say the Pledge of Allegiance because it is supported by the government. However, the government has never done this. American citizens should be able to decide whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance remains as it currently is. This one should not be left to the courts; If the Pledge of Allegiance is to be changed, it should be done by the voice of the people and not by the complaint of one individual. Mentioning God in society should not be forbidden because the minority does not want it. When the minority becomes the majority, then it should be changed. If the majority does not want it the way it is, change it. Travis Clemens, sports editor -pq oThe n Editor in Chief Wendy Leonard 626-7121 Managing Editor Paul Garcia 626-7614 News Editor Natalie Cutler 626-7655 Sports Editor Travis Clemens 626-7983 Sports Editor Danielie Blaisdell 626-7983 Copy Editor William Hampton 626-7659 Features Editor Colleen Coleman 626-7621 Entertainment Editor Kendra Alfred 626-7105 Business Editor Beth Payne-Rhoades 626-7624 Graphics Editor Amanda Pace 626-7661 Photo Editor Jennifer Larson 626-6358 Advertising Manager Devon Crus 626-6359 Online Editor David Adams 626-6358 Distribution William Hampton 626-7974 Office Manager Georgia Edwards 626-7974 Advisor Allison Hess 626-7499 Publisher Dr. Randy Scott 626-6464 Signpost Fax 626-7401 The Signpost is published every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday during the semester. Subscription is $9 a semester. The first copy of The Signpost is free, each additional copy is S .50. ' The Signpost is a student publication, written, edited and drafted by Weber State University students. Student fees partially fund the printing of this publication. Opinions or positions voiced are not necessarily endorsed by the university. The Signpost welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must include name, address, telephone number and the writer's signature. Anonymous letters will not be printed. The Signpost reserves the right to edit letters for reasons of space and libel and also reserves the right to refuse to print any letter. Letters should not exceed 350 words. Bring letters to the editorial office in SUB 267, man to: The Signpost, Weber State University. Ogden, Utah 84408-2110. Attn: Editor in Chief, e-mail: 'hesignpostweber.edu CittffifflCfWOT ftp' I NSssV 1 '1 : If Iffl l-W.i 81 M kM k ii 1 Mnt - It : I O If M. (A 3 Ul f to isf m m m, vk nr: Almost all wrong together i s By Schaun Wheeler - - columnist Dr. David Kay, who resigned last week as America's chief weapon's inspector in Iraq, said Tuesday that in all likelihood Saddam Hussein got rid of his banned weapons before the U.S. invasion ever took place. "We were almost all wrong," Kay concluded, "and I certainly include myself here." This turn of events will make for an interesting election year, especially since the Democrat who currently leads in the race for his party's nomination, Sen. John Kerry, voted to authorize military action against Hussein's regime. Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction could become a sticky issue for both sides, because it begs the question: If we went to Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction, and there aren't any, why are we there now? President Bush's answer to this question is similar to what it has always been, except he now leaves out the part about having certain evidence of banned weapons. He recently remarked, "There is just no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering threat to America and the world. There is just no doubt in my mind. And I say that based upon intelligence that I saw prior to the decision to go into Iraq, and I say that based upon what I know today." In other words, our troops are in Iraq because Saddam was a danger. Senator Kerry has chosen a different rationale for this war, one that many people have asserted should have been our reasoning in the first place. He asserts that the administration convinced him to approve the war resolution by emphasizing the need to eliminate Hussein's military threat, rather than the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq. The implication is that our troops are in Iraq in order to support the growth of democracy in the Middle East. They're both right. Sort of. Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States and to the world in general. But he was only a threat because his authoritarian style of government contributed to a definite lack of democracy in the Middle East, which in turn led to large amounts of dissatisfaction and anger in much of the population there. That dissatisfaction and anger fueled the hard-core extremist movements that really did pose a threat both to us and to the world. In this upcoming election, President Bush and Sen. Kerry need each other; or, at least, they need each other's ideas. The Saddam-was-a-threat rationale and thedemocracy-in-the-Middle East rationale can't stand alone. By themselves, they're almost all wrong. President Bush is going to find it hard to convince Americans that Saddam was a real danger unless he can make the connection in each American's mind that lack of democracy in the Middle East breeds terrorists. This idea has been hinted at several times by the administration, but never explicitly stated. By the same token, Sen. Kerry, or whoever the Democratic candidate might be, will be hard-pressed to justify the loss and disruption of so many lives if he bills this war simply in terms of bringing democracy to Iraq. That's a noble cause, but is it worth a war? The U.S. has soldiers in Iraq right now because we need to create an open, democratic society; we need to do this because terrorism can't flourish in that kind of environment. Our ability to create and maintain such an environment will depend on whether our leaders bring themselves to engage in a little bipartisan exchange of ideas. |
