| Toleration is Key Baptists need to respect Judaism
Last week, the Southern Baptist Convention produced a "Jewish prayer guide" that instructs Southern Baptists to pray that Jews convert to Christianity. Southern Baptists encourage this time of prayer to begin at sundown Friday, the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. They are calling this the "Days of Awe," and the prayers will continue through Yom Kippur - one of the most important holidays in the Jewish religion - on Sept. 20. Some Jewish leaders have called the plan arrogant and offensive, saying Jews are targeted during their holiest of holy days. But Southern Baptists say the prayer strategy is part of their duty to bring the Gospel to all people. The Southern Baptist International Mission Board in Richmond, Va., has also published guides that help members pray for Muslims during Ramadan. Should such a pointed effort for conversion be taken lightly? Can followers of a religion honestly say they wouldn't be offended if another religious group prayed for their conversion on their holiest of holy days? Christians might surely be offended if they woke up Christmas morning to prayers that pressured them to convert to another religion. Baptists have the right to pray for whatever they want, but at what point does that become an issue or insult? Just as Southern Baptists can recite their freedom of speech and religion, so can our Jewish neighbors. After all, America prides itself on these very freedoms and we base our independence on this ideal. Practicing freedom of religion is the key. Let your neighbors worship whatever powers they choose, and learn from their beliefs. But tolerance must prevail over all religious choices.recognized for our global perspective."
Gun control strategies flawed Stiffer penalties for gun-related crimes would solve issue
Last year at this time, the big bad bully the nation was trying to obliterate was the tobacco industry. Everywhere we turned, there was a new state realizing that its residents - who were literate enough to read the surgeon general's warnings on the sides of their cigarette cartons - had been duped by an industry whose main intent was revenue at the cost of the lives of its consumers. This year a similar war is being waged against another industry that legislators, politicians and a desperate society now say is attempting to do the same thing. This time the big bad bully is guns and their manufacturers. It shouldn't surprise us that after the last few years we've had, states are finally getting fed up with the nuisance an armed America has created. But what is being lost in this sudden drive to get rid of all the guns is our constitutional right to bear arms. These feelings started long before the Columbine High School tragedy and the other school shootings. But these instances - where illegal guns made it into the hands of so-called troubled youth - have served to bring the issue of gun control and the havoc they wreak into the forefront of the political and national scene. With each new tragedy, society, led by politicians, pretends it's ready for guns to be taken off the streets. We look to Great Britain and Japan where guns aren't permitted and violence is (practically) nonexistent and we say to ourselves, "Wow, that's what we want." And we support organizations like the Bell Campaign that want to get guns off the streets and out of the hands of everyone except law enforcement. And each time we get riled up and eager to snatch guns from all the "bad" people, we come to our senses just before the next tragedy. We stop and realize we have a Second Amendment right to have a gun. And we remember with all the legislative measures that are put into action, guns will never be off the streets of America. It's the American way to have a gun. That has nothing to do with old western movies or marketing schemes portraying the gun as the great equalizer. What it does deal with is the idea that we live in an unsafe world. Merely crossing the street or going to school or work have become matters of survival. But states refuse to see it that way. States see the gun industry as the root of all evil. Miami and New Orleans are suing the industry because they believe that with of the lack of safety devices, the manufacturers intentionally create a dangerous product. Others are suing simply to recoup the costs of gun-related crimes. Both suits are frivolous and gun manufacturers know this. They object to being sued, according to CNN, simply because they create an efficient product or because of the way people misuse them. Guns are for killing (theoretically for defense) and over the last few years they have proven themselves quite effective at that task. So why the suits? Well, now is the perfect time to bring the issue up. Every other day somebody gets pissed off enough to go blasting their way through home, school, work or daycare and politicians see the tragedy. But in the more than 900 laws that went into effect Sept. 1, Texas legislators decided not to jump on that overcrowded bandwagon. Local governments will not be able to sue gun makers and sellers for damages related to the lawful manufacturing or sales to the public. So, no matter what Congress decides on background checks at guns shows or federal traces on gun sales, guns in America are here to stay. Instead of trying to make it harder to get them and trying to chart their course throughout the continent, why not stiffen penalties for those who misuse them? To a woman who grew up in a home where a .38 and a rifle were always present and who spent her summers with a grandmother who carried a .357 Magnum, that sounds like the most plausible solution. Now, on to the next big bully. SheriAnn R. Spicer is a senior radio-TV-film major from Fort Worth. Appeasing hunger Eden's North removal leaves stomachs rumbling
The student body of TCU can no longer stand by, unconcerned about the actions of our administrators. Apathy has become an epidemic among TCU students. Many claim that this is because we students cannot make a difference. There is also the feeling that we are subjects of the administration which governs us. But we students can do anything if we properly channel our energy and organize our efforts. Others claim that our apathy exists because there are no significant issues to debate. But as a great revolutionary once said, "if there exist no issues, make your own issues and fight them with all of your might." Well, the hungry and dispossessed students at TCU now have an issue for which to fight: the recent elimination of the all-you-can-eat buffet at Eden's North. Last semester, students enjoyed a culinary paradise equal in bliss to the Garden of Eden. It was an Eden for those students who had hearty appetites and meager funds. Eden's North was a haven for the hungriest of TCU students. No hunger that ever entered those sacred North doors of Reed Hall ever left intact. It was a place where even a corn-fed fella from Iowa could go for a satisfying meal at a reasonable price. At Eden's North the food never stopped coming until a student cried for mercy and left the all-you-can-eat buffet with a feeling of utmost satisfaction. For those of us who frequented Eden's North, it was truly the Garden of Eden here on campus. However, just as God banished mankind forever from the Garden of Eden, the higher-ups have decided that we will no longer have the privilege of an all-you-can-eat buffet on campus. What sin have we committed to deserve such punishment? TCU Food Services, why has thou forsaken me? The powers that be have apparently decided that Eden's North was no longer convenient to their agenda, and in an attempt to put the space to better use they found it necessary to replace the buffet at Eden's with the more expensive (and more profitable) Deco-Deli. Deco-Deli. The name alone tells chapters. "Deco," short for the decorations that adorn the formerly plain basement of Reed Hall, and "Deli," representing the overpriced sandwiches that have left my hunger unsatisfied time and time again. I would have to eat ten dollars worth of sandwiches at Deco-Deli to appease my monster hunger. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against an occasional sandwich. But at Eden's North you could have gotten three sandwiches as well as fried chicken, mashed potatoes, "vegetable surprise," ice cream and all the soft drink you could handle for roughly the same price as one sandwich and a soft drink at Deco-Deli. Given that all students residing on campus must purchase a mandatory meal plan with a minimum of $400, it is only proper that students should be given a less expensive alternative to the Main. It is the responsibility of the administration to assure that the needs of the student body are addressed. But we are only students, there is nothing that we can do about it, right? Wrong! Now is the time to speak up on behalf of hungry students at TCU. If you care, you must make this an issue. If you want the all-you-can-eat buffet back, speak your mind. Let the administration know that you are not happy with this change, and e-mail the Student Government Association at (sga@tcu.edu) to tell them how you feel. Attend the SGA meetings; don't let this become a dead issue! Even if we fail to resurrect Eden's North, at least the student leaders and administrators won't forget that we do care and that we are watching them.
Zachary Norris is a senior biology major from Long Beach, California. New mission welcomes all Absence of reference to heritage allows for true diversity
There has always been controversy regarding TCU and its Christian heritage. For some, the legacy is emphasized too much; for others, the references to it are never enough. Others stand somewhere in between. The controversy was opened up again when the university recently announced its new mission statement, which lacked a reference to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). The reactions to this omission have varied. Some were shocked and others welcomed it, but the point is, it did not go unnoticed. The fact that this omission has been noticed is splendid, because this offers everyone a chance to evaluate what the reference to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) meant before and what it will mean from now on. It's a great opportunity to ponder TCU's past and the image that TCU is trying to carve for the future. I must say I agree with this omission in the new mission statement. I believe leaving that reference out gives room to a more inclusive mission statement, one that is truly reflective of TCU's current desire to make the university more diverse in every field. I also understand the change must be hard for those who have thought of TCU as a traditionally Christian university. It must be scary to sense the way the university has been perceived by ourselves and by others is going to change. But this change does not have to be viewed as negative. Frankly, I doubt any lack of reference to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the future can overshadow the Christian legacy TCU has attached to its past. I also doubt the positive legacy the Disciples of Christ has left on the university is going to be forgotten. The lack of reference to the church should not be viewed as an attack on TCU's heritage. Rather, it should be viewed as a real initiative by the university to embrace not only racial and cultural diversity, but also religious diversity. It is one of many initiatives that has actually been followed, and it is testimony that TCU is not only talking about seeking diversity, but actually taking steps toward achieving it. Many at TCU speak of how important diversity is, and how we should strain to achieve it if we want to be successful in our global community. The hard part of embracing diversity, however, is to accept that one's views are just part of many other views. Even though we hold them as truth, others may not. The fact that the church has been omitted in our mission statement tells me other religious views are finally going to be valued with as much interest as Christianity at TCU. I don't view it as neglect to Christianity, but as a welcome to other faiths in equality. This will not only attract people with more diverse backgrounds to the university, but it will also allow the people of the Christian faith to evaluate equally their own values and beliefs, along with those of other faiths. This is where the legacy of the Disciples of Christ will really be put to the test. Are our Christian siblings going to be able to receive our Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic and even atheist brothers and sisters with tolerance and inclusiveness? Moreover, are we finally going to follow through with all our talk about diversity, even if it means losing our spotlight to others? Are we going to go through with our intentions to change, even if it means our views are no longer going to be the unquestioned truth? If we can make something positive out of this initiative by not viewing it as the exclusion of one, but as the inclusion of all, we can take our first real step toward diversity. I congratulate our chancellor and the committee who changed our statement for setting the first example and taking this first step. Let's just hope all of us at TCU are able to follow.
Raquel Torres is a sophomore broadcast journalism major from Cali, Colombia. |
The TCU Daily Skiff © 1998, 1999 Credits |