OCR Text |
Show OPINION THURSDAY 25 PAG I 11 Daily Utah Chronicle THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW C Iraq intelligence probe sounds suspect chief weapons David Kay recently that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destructionthis in contrast to the decisive claim made by the Bush administration as justification for a war on Iraq. Democrats have challenged the White House on the credibility of its Iraq intelligence investigation. Bush has promised a fair, neutral investigation into what has become the most controversial issue of his Former pre-empti- ve presidency. And that is what we, the American people, deserve. But the proposed investigation already sounds suspect, and in a matter of such great import as a war with the loss of hundreds of American lives and likely more to come the probe must be done the right way and by the right people. Bush announced that he will select the investigative team. Clearly this presents a conflict of interest. Even though the team will be bipartisan and independent, according to Bush spokesman Scott McClellan, Bush is still likely to select members who are partial to his cause. What's more, Bush said that, in spite of Democrats' demands, he will not announce the names of the commission until the report is nine-memb- er complete. In American society, it is important to have an open government, especially when its citizens have become so emotionally and physically involved with the war and the rebuilding of Iraq. Bush also announced that the results of the investigation will not be publicly released until 2005. This appears to be nothing more than a political move in an important election year. It is crucial that the Bush administration be held accountable for trusting misleading intelligence. Admittedly, it may have appeared to be valid. The administration may have actually believed that Iraq possessed the weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein refused to disclose to weapons inspectors. It is one thing to act upon intelligence from a trusted source. But when it involves war, when thousands of lives are on the line, it had better be certain that the intelligence is completely trustworthy. The Bush administration did not sufficiently do its homework before it sent American men and women into harm's way. That is why the American people deserve to know what went wrong from the beginning. And the sooner, the better. I'M Loihn' LETTERS it) TO fr SSouhiMie! THE EDITOR Gay marriage should not be allowed Editor: Regarding The Chronicle's View in the Feb. 4 edition of The Daily Utah Chronicle ("Open discourse crucial in gay rights debate"), I would like to add my 2 cents and simplify the "open discourse" myth in the gay rights debate. As a special treat, you'll understand why the Federal Marriage Amendment is so important. First, the gay and lesbian community's version of open discourse is one that bows to its demands and allows no opposition. As an opponent of gay marriage, I have person ally witnessed this behavior by fans, followers and leaders of this fetish right here on campus. If the Federal Marriage Amendment which has a strong show of support by both Democrats and Republicans passes, the gay and lesbian community will still whine and complain that open discourse did not occur. It will not stop complaining until its destructive behavior is accepted. I know that's a harsh description, but according to the Centers for Disease Control, more than half of the AIDS victims in the United States are gay. This leads to my second point. Is bestiality abnormal? What about child pornography? What about polygamy? Incest? Statutory rape? What if all those involved with these acts do so of their own free will and choice? They're not hurting anyone, right? Where are their freedoms? It doesn't matter there's something called human decency. If gay marriage is allowed, I promise you that these groups will follow to have their behaviors legalized. Bart Gatrell Graduate Student, International Relations Belief in God is not illogical 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, religion, creed, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. is hard to put together logically. Each of these three attri- good God Editor: Deen Chatterjee, in his Feb. 3 column ("Believing in God can be a reasonable choice"), said that he would like to show that one can prove that God doesn't exist. But I guess that page was missing in the issue of The Daily Utah Chronicle that I read. I attentively read the entire article eagerly anticipating the historically elusive evidence of God's nonexistence. Chatterjee wrote, "The idea of an omnipotent, omniscient and all butes is conceptually questionable, and taken together, they are mutually inconsistent. All this conceptual mess makes the notion of God very implausible, logically speaking." Just because these "conceptually questionable attributes" are hard to put together doesn't make it implausible or illogical or is it that anything that Chatterjee doesn't understand must be considered fictional, such as "dragons and unicorns." In other words, my world view is just blind faith because Chatterjee doesn't get it. Please. Was that it? Was that your irrefutable evidence, that God is merely a creation of our minds that can be healthy as long as it's not taken too far? Santa Claus, unicorns and God that's your proof?! Thanks, Chatterjee, now the whole world can finally put this sue to rest. is- David Baker Medical Center Staff Battle for atheism not yet won Editor: Deen Chatterjee's column of Feb. 3 ("Believing in God can be a reasonable choice") was remarkable not for its trenchant clarification of issues, but for its condescending tone and worst possible reading of his putative opponent's position. Momentous questions of philosophy are not decided in letters to the editor, but I do feel that three aspects of his editorial bear a reply. First, if it were "easy to show that all proofs for God's existence are faulty," why would philosophers still write learned journal articles on, say, Anselm's ontological argument in his nth century Not all philosophers are convinced that Anselm's argument doesn't work. Although even Thomas Aquinas didn't buy into Anselm's proof, I believe it is premature to suggest that it has been demonstrated that there is no rational proof for the existence of God possible in principle. There are philosophers today who disagree with Aquinas' (and Kant's) negative assessment of Anselm's achievement. I think Pro-slogio- n? could just as fairly (or unfairly) assert that it is easy to show that all proofs for God's nonexistence are I faulty. estabSecond, I agree that lish that God doesn't exist, we need a different set of arguments." Part "to of the philosophical illumination coming from centuries of discussing Anselm's argument is that in order to show that God does not exist one would have to be able to demonstrate that God necessarily cannot exist. The standard occidental theist's claim, philosophically speaking, is that God is being itself. God necessarily exists and is not simply another contingent being among all other entities. Contrary to what Chatterjee suggests, this has not been demonstrated to be a necessarily impossible position. In my personal opinion, Bernard Lonergan has convincingly argued God's necessary existence from the structure of human knowing in his 1957 book Insight. Third, classical theism, especially traditional Catholic philosophy, sees no logical contradiction in asserting self-existe- nt God's omnipotence, omniscience and utter goodness, Chatterjee's claim to conceptual questionability and mutual inconsistency notwithstanding. I would have expected Chatterjee, of the university's philosophy department, to know better than to claim that the strife is o'er, the liberating battle for atheism won, when quite the contrary is true. Rev. James Thompson, O.P. Campus Minister, St. Catherine of Siena Newman Center Should we be shocked by the demise of American culture? We control, in large part, the direction society takes high school, there did not to appear be a serious threat to the security and general welfare of our chilnation. There was no such thing as a our children and our children's drill." We were shocked "terrorism of two the dren can expect to live in, 168 when discourbit us admittedly became a people were killed in the i1s. j of been has there bombing the Oklahoma City aged. Never before greater opportunity for progress and federal building on April 19, 1995. As horrible as that was, it was initiated achievement in virtually every field Jim Berqstedt or endeavor. But never before has by Timothy McVeigh an American, Opinion Editor the overall picture also appeared so on American soil. We would have and cannot say. It's hard enough never imagined that a foreign-bre- d bleak. for some of us on the college level act of terrorism would eventually Not long after our conversation, I 18 times as many lives, almost take to know what is politically correct, a cartoon originally happened upon in three different let alone students in the school that Tribune simultaneously, in published Chicago states. system. Just the other day I comreaffirmed our concerns. It features Kids are also confronted now a young, obese boy glaring at a wall plimented a fellow student on his more than ever with a deluge of "good penmanship." He thanked me, covered with placards in his elemensexual cues and messages at an early then politely reprimanded me for "Terof them Some school. say tary c term. After age. More and more schools are using a rorism Drill," "Condom Handout," abshift from teaching all, women write well, too. I wonder making the "Gun Screening at School Entrancstinence before marriage to teaching if I would have received a similar es," "Language and Political Corteens how to have safe and, in some response from a woman. rectness Lecture," "Sex Education In sex. cases, enjoyable many high Unfortunately children (and Lecture Room 72," "Unisex," etc. schools, condoms are as accessible adults, for that matter) are bomThe boy seems to accept all of barded with similar messages at to students as No. 2 pencils. And in these signs as commonplace. The a York home on the TV, in magazines and New City, segregated high poster that draws his attention, for bisexual school and the Internet. Case in point: Super on lesbian, drinks soft gay, however, reads, "Notice Bowl last XXXVIII. The NFL should students of opened transgender will be banned due to the dangers for a fall. have that's But reanother known better when it turned he topic obesity." To that proclamation halftime the entertainment over to far!" too day. sponds, "Now they've gone It was MTV. seems It that estimated that of the high a appropriate This cartoon provides fitting a lecture on have million school students 89 on 15 million were viewers, commentary on society today, 18. In what has traWe correctness. than wouldn't as the younger political to what we have come accept d want to offend anybody, would we? ditionally been a norm and what surprisingly shocks is have halftime show this the The to only far problem they'll look production, to You us. don't have it every term or semester was retake around to time but. have anything changed, realize how times I thought Michael Jacksoii was a to be reminded of what they can far better or for worse. Even when In a talk with a family member about the current state affairs and what type of world I was in gender-specifi- family-oriente- little strange. Janet Jackson (who eerily resembled Michael in her halftime performance) claimed that "it was not her intention" for her right breast to be revealed at the end of the show. She seemed more apologetic than Justin Timberlake, whose act of removing a piece of Jackson's wardrobe initiated the controversy. He flippantly told "Access Hollywood" after the show, "Hey, man, we love giving you all something to talk about." In spite of what Jackson is saying, it did not appear to be an accident. Even on Jan. 28, the MTV Web site promised something "shocking" during Jackson's performance. CBS and the NFL needed only to listen to the lyrics of the song performed by Jackson and Timberlake during rehearsals to know that there was potential for something "I'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song." But who is to blame for this embarrassing display? It is tempting to place the entire blame on Jackson, Timberlake and the producers of the show. They deserve a portion of it. But we, the American public, are also in large part to blame. The viewing audience increased 180 percent after the halftime fiasco on Sunday. Millions have since replayed the occurrence over and over again, just to make sure they saw what they thought they saw. So we have over-the-to- p: created the monster. We are being fed exactly what we tell the media that we want to see. This incident is currently under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission. But will that solve the problem? Just last year, the FCC approved the use of the on any TV show or radio program. Will the FCC impose any punishment upon CBS for Sunday's display, other than a hefty fine and a slap on the wrist? CBS announced yesterday that, in the future, it will implement a delay to avoid a similar is a start, but it also beThat display. with us. Some gins people have said Jackson's stunt wasn't really that big of a deal. For many, it may not be. It's second nature to them. But there are still millions of Americans who feel that prime-tim- e TV is not the place for nudity and vulgarity and if the FCC chooses not to take a stand, then it's probably time to turn off the TV. Our children have much to look forward to in terms of technological advancements, scientific discoveries, greater resources in education in general, a better quality of life. It's hard to imagine it getting much better than it already is. But it's also hard to fathom a world any more complicated and perverse than it has already become. ' lettors&chronicle. utah.edu five-seco- |