OCR Text |
Show DAILY THE THE CHRONICLE'S Se. VVmh VIEW Open Dialogue Necessary In Diverse Community Burke, one of the Edmund political thinkers century England, wrote, "Nothing is so fatal to religion as indifference." Burke's writing translates across time and continents, and it especially hits home in Utah. Salt Lake City, in particular, is growing more and more religiously detail, we opened the door for more campus discussion. "Spirituality Week" gave readers a glimpse into the lives of individuals right here at the U from a professor in the department of internal medicine who practices Buddhism to Pax an agnostic U student feature section titled "Spirituality Week." In these features, we created an educational mosaic of religions, often writing about religions that arc unfamiliar to the University of Utah community. Though wc could not compre- hensively write about every religion, every tenant and every to you. Share your story, and help us start a conversion. The lines of communication are open. The U community has always been divided, and beginning a dialogue does not guarantee that the crevasse will become smaller. However, is an excellent start. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editorial columns and letters to the editor are strictly the opinions of the author. The forum created on the Opinion Page is one based on vigorous debate, while at the same time demanding tolerance and respect. Material defamatory to an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, gender, appearance or sexual ori- edited or GT MM TV-A- -- Tvat'&. Tvavlel thinv TUT LETTeEL OFF'CE Amtatax "pestec LOA -- OTtte I'M AAOLM (WCP Ilil wr! T TP IMTO-TAN- so HI! -j- A1b.-Hat-.- p-sDf, T Tschle J pica- - ... studying biology. We explored the origins and concepts of the Unitarians, the Christian Scientists, humanists, Confucianists and Daotsts. We also asked many Chronicle employees to write columns about their own spiritual beliefs,, where they originated and what their views are currently. It wasn't easy, but we did it. Now it's your turn. Write us a letter. Tell us about your beliefsnot why they're better than another system of beliefs, but why they are valuable will be "That "Ejw rr Ras-musse- n, diverse. However, understanding in a diverse community is dependent upon dialogue a dialogue in which all participating parties come to the table, not with the goal of proselytizing, but with the goal of expressing their spiritual views and articulating the source of their beliefs. Over the past week, The Daily Ut3h Chronicle has tried to facilitate a campus dialogue. From Oct. 15 to Oct. 19, The Chronicle has published a special entation CHRONICLE UTAH will not be published. T"T" LETTER TO THE EDITOR Yet to Witness Lennon's Atheist Dream Editor: As I read the last few sentences of Chris Yeates' Oct. 13 column on atheism, all I could do was chuckle. I kept having this vision of John Lennon with chirping technicol-orc- d birds flying around him, singing about all the people living life in peace in a perfect little atheist world. I began pondering all the attempts to create a Godless yet moral society, and again I laughed as I realized what total flops they truly were. I will concede the point that Yeates made in his article, that religious people can be bigoted, warmongering and intolerant. However, I don't see that atheists have shown themselves to be a whole lot better. Could it be that the problem is not in religion, but in human nature? I spent time as a missionary in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Seventy percent of the population of the Czech Republic has declared itself to be atheist. However, it was paradoxically in this environment that I realized that atheism rarely, if ever, truly exists. atheist. "Do you believe in God?" "No. Well, there's probably something out there, but I just don't care." Answers invariably came like this. These people weren't atheists, they were agnostic. I finally understood. For most of these people, it's not that they don't believe in God. It's just that they can't understand him. Religion is an attempt to change people's view of themselves and the world around them. Admittedly it has led to abuses. On the same token, I don't think we can say that atheism has been devoid of problems. In the end, whatever we think will save us and make us happy becomes our god, be it Jesus, or Allah, or philosophy. You see, atheism is a religion too. As for me, my belief in God is the only thing giving me hope for this planet, because, as believers and in God, we haven't been doing that great of a job so far. CHRIS RICH Freshman, History Frequently I would speak to a ed non-believe- cience Cant Me Resvonsible jot Savin a the World Facial recognition isn't a terrible idea, as long as the system isn't abused for racial profiling or to make life miserable for everyone who's had a ASHLEY PIMGREE " Pi our Chronicle Opinion Columnist lives, wc are running We arc at war, terror has corrupted sense of normalcy, and we have an unnatural fear of white powder. The singular goal in our collective mind is to find a way to thwart terrorism in all its forms. We ask ourselves qucstions- "How can we root out A terrorists before attack?" they And "How can wc make ourselves safe if they do attack?" Many Americans have been listening to their inner engineer and turning to science for the answers to their questions. First, how do wc identify terrorists before they attack? Well, Visionics Corporation would say that the answer is their facial recognition technology. It feeds video from regular security cameras to a computer that reduces each individual face to a set of biomctric data as personalized as a fingerprint. This data is then compared to an archive containing thousands of faces, all presumably belonging to people wanted by the government. Individuals can install the system anywhere from airports to federal buildings to shopping centers. In post-Sep- t. 11 SDCiGncs r Atej?Jiijii - minor shoplifting offense. Of course, such a system would have been useless in preventing the attacks on Sept. n, because none of the hijackers were known to be terrorists and, thus, would not have been in any database. Also, there's that pesky issue of the right to privacy, but bear with me, I'm not there yet. Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, recently suggested another potential application of science to the war on terrorism. He is advocating the use of a technology known as "brain fingerprinting" to provide security at airports. Essentially, an officer would attach a few electrodes to your head and show you a series of images that would only have special meaning to a terrorist (the inside of a training camp, the cover of a secret terrorist manual, etc.). The electrodes send information to a computer that monitors your brainwaves and is able to tell whether you have a special response to any of the images. The technology is incredibly accurate and is admissible as evidence in U.S. courts. However, many people would object to having their thoughts monitored. What if someone trained as a terrorist then had a change of heart and decided to give up the lifestyle? Brain fingerprinting would identify him as a terrorist, even though he had never committed a crime and didn't plan to do so in the future. He would probably refuse the brain scan, or else fail it, and then officials would deny him certain liberties reserved for people who pass the scan (for CHRONICLE OPINION EDITOR example, the ability to travel on a special "safe" flight containing only people who volunteer for and pass a brain scan). This would amount to a scary form of discrimination that would limit the rights of innocent people. This would also be the first step in creatand the ing a world where privacy is thought-polic- e control our daily lives. Such a world would defy everything the United States stands for, and science should not be abused to create it. On to the next question "How can we protect ourselves when terrorists attack?" After Sept. 11, people .criticized the World Trade Center for not being able to withstand a plane crash. Engineers claimed that a skyscraper with more internal support, thicker walls and fewer windows might not have collapsed. Theoretically, individuals can make any building plane-cras- h resistant, as long as cost is not an issue. But then, cost is always an issue. Another concern is the safety of nuclear power plants. First off, a nuclear plant is much smaller and lower to the ground than a skyscraper, thus presenting a more difficult target for an airplane. Secondly, the walls surrounding a reactor core are thick, reinforced concrete that some engineers think could actually withstand a plane crash. My question is, so what if they couldn't? Science can do amazing things, but in this case, I don't think it should. If we design skyscrapers and power plants to last till the end of the world, they will cost 10 times as much, and people will stop building skyscrapers and power plants. Also, our efforts to stop terrorism should be in equilibrium with the efforts made by terrorists non-existe- nt LAURA B. WEISS LETTERSCHRONICLE.UTAH.EDU rs themselves. If we require billions of dollars worth of engineering to thwart a few fanatics, then which side is smarter? Last question: What about the current anthrax attacks? Science has successfully provided a cure with the antibiotic Cipro, but at what cost? People who take Cipro preventively even though they've had no exposure to Anthrax are only accelerating the development of antibiotic-resistastrains of bacteria. This does not have much impact on our (I hope) temporary battle with Anthrax, but it does mean that someday you could get strep throat or a urinary tract infection, and it won't be treatable by drugs that arc available today. Once again, a misapplication of science to a problem will bear results worse than the problem itself. Science is supposed to stimulate progress, not reverse it. A country wherein civil liberties are absent leaves people scared to take advantage of beneficial technologies, and medicine is not available to treat common illnesses This is a d country that would resemble UnitAfghanistan more than the freedom-lovin- g ed States. An abuse of science can only worsen the problem. What we really need is a bit more common sense (locks on cockpit doors try it!) and a lot of diplomacy. Next time you hang the flag in your window or a tattoo), remem(or on your car, or a ber why you love living in the United States, and think hard before you advocate irrational means to defend it. Ashky welcomes feedback at: ;ipingrec(dchron-icle.utah.ed- u or srnd letters to the editor to: r,tit;ih rdu. nt Taliban-controlle- rt, 581-704- 1 |