The Rice Thresher, Vol. 91, No. 7, Ed. 1 Friday, October 3, 2003 Page: 4 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
WW JWvif
• ■ >: - , > ■■ . ,.";K v ■ ■ •. >
V1- v ''•>>' ' ''• '•. ' :.•' . ••: ' •• *• • . . ■"'•■•
> / C'Z < I ' .
THE RICE THRESHER
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2003
MARRIAGE, from Page 2
Aren't gays silly to
want to be married?
To the editor:
It's so true. Marriage is not a
natural right; it's a privileged right
sanctioned by the state (a right
awarding the typical union over
100 benefits).
And what else is there to do in a
fragmented society like America ex-
cept disperse privileges unilaterally
to upper-class heterosexual Chris-
tians? I mean, we have everything
else, so why stop at marriage?
Alessandra Gonzalez was right
on in her dogmatic interpretation
of marriage's "innate heterosexu-
ality." After all, what's bigoted
about preferring reproductive to
non-reproductive relationships?
Basically, it's Darwinian evolution
in action.
It is also accurate that "the tra-
ditional interpretation of marriage
is by far the best course." By allow-
ing individuals to engage in same-
sex marriages, we reduce the
chances they will take to a tradi-
tional happy and healthy marriage
(of which the success rate is near-
ing 50 percent)!
In addition, it's oh-so-obvious
that contemporary marriage is natu-
ral. After all, animals get married
all the time.
This is well documented. For in-
stance, in Office Space, Milton claims,
"I could see the squirrels, and they
were married." Married!
And furthermore, even though
it is also well documented that
many animals are involved in non-
reproductive sexual activity, they
do not get married.
In conclusion, if anything else,
we need to at least "protect the fun-
damental nature of marriage." Mat-
thew 7:1 states, "Judge not lest ye be
judged."
So who are these people to judge
that gay people should be allowed
to marry? Who do they think they
are?
Dirk Schmidt
Chris Sullivan
Hanszen seniors
Commandment column
was a senseless rant
To the editor:
Garret Merriam's guest column
("The commandments' questionable
morality," Sept 26) is closer to a rant
by a person who obviously hates
this country's Judeo-Christian heri-
tage than to an expression of truth.
When he calls the Ten Command-
ments a "perversion," it is not only
ridiculous, it is outrageous.
The first four commandments
are innocuous, rather than a means
of controlling society. They simply
compel us to respect our God and to
rest once a week.
The commandment to "honor thy
mother and father" is depicted by
Merriam as preferring the weak to
the strong, but evidently it didn't
occur to him that the commandment
could just as well direct us to care
for our parents in their old age.
He decries even the proscrip-
tions against murder and theft by
saying they form no moral founda-
tion to our country. While unfortu-
nately these crimes form part of
our country's history, they have
earned scorn in the past as well as
the present.
He calls the commandment
against covetousness unrealistic and
says it has little to do with America
because it is contrary to capitalism.
They do try to induce a different
mindset, that of trying to better one-
self through one's own means, but
adopting this mindset is not impos-
sible, and it happens to be the true
spirit of capitalism.
He criticizes the commandments
for failing to prohibit a host of atroci-
ties and encourage good works, but
how can 10 sentences contain all that?
The commandments are but a foun-
dation; the material he seeks is found
elsewhere throughout the Bible.
Paul Ertel
Brown freshman
Neither judge nor
columnist has it right
To the editor:
I share Garret Merriam's convic-
tion that Alabama Chief Justice Roy
Moore's "moral stand [amounts] to
nothing more than an attempt at gov-
ernment-sponsored religion." But I do
not approve Merriam's manner of ar-
riving at our shared conviction, forthis
manner is tendentious and wanting in
coherence.
First, in claiming that the Ten Com-
mandments cannot plausibly serve as a
"foundation" of U.S. law, Merriam has
confused mores and morals. It doesn't
take a Kantian to acknowledge that
practice often (if not always) falls short
ofprinciple.That capitalism fosters cov-
etousness does not obviate the moral
bearing ofpropriety and thatthe United
States was birthed in blood does not
require that it never seek peace.
What is morality if not in part of an
unattained aspiration, however imper-
fectly realized? (Whether or not the
United States truly aspires to morality
is not a question of "foundation" but of
history and psychology.) Merriam also
commits a genetic fallacy by illicitly
running together claims about moral
foundation and historical precedence
in comparing the Bible with
Hammurabi's Code.
Second, the assertion that the Ten
Commandments "lack[s] ... genu-
ine, specific and innovative moral
substance" is unsubstantiated. What-
ever valid arguments maybe leveled
against commandments, men wiser
than Merriam, Moore and myself—
not least among them Plato (on some
readings) and Kant — have argued
that the first commandment, "there
shall be for you no other gods be-
sides God," expresses a metaethical
principle (of divine uniqueness)
which justifies normative ethical
stipulations. Though I may well dis-
pute the principle, I am reluctant to
assume it is not genuine. At least, it is
innovative (as far as such things go);
Hammurabi, for one, assumes no
such rule. (Incidentally, the first four
commandments scarcely express a
"deistic protocol" on any definition
of the term; and to identify theologi-
cal doctrine with the "purpose of
exerting social control" is an egre-
gious feat of reductionism. Even phi-
losophers should take a moment to
learn about a religious text before
disparaging it.)
As for specificity, Merriam be-
trays ignorance of the Ten Com-
mandments'context. Should we ex-
pect that the U.S. Constitution de-
cide in advance all (or even most)
legal cases that have and will arise in
its light? No, because it states prin-
ciples and preferences that are open
to interpretation. So do the Ten Com-
mandments.
We can justifiably complain about
the actionable nature of the Ten
Commandments' principles; I even
concur with the spirit of Merriam's
laundry list of charges. Yet, as much
as I am willing to criticize biblical
law and condemn Israelite society,
it is not acceptable to slander their
principled effort by supposing that
rape, unjust war, false imprisonment,
oppression and abuse were "ne-
glected" in order that God might
"command his people to commit
these acts." (Not to mention ignor-
ing questions raised by Plato and
biblical commentaries about
whether God could possibly com-
mand injustice.)
Merriam fails to consider the (ad-
mittedly insufficient but nonethe-
less) specified precepts deterring
rape, war, imprisonment, oppression
and abuse which are strewn through-
out a very long text (known as the
Hebrew Bible) in which the Ten
Commandments are embedded. To
be sure, these crimes were fre-
quently committed; but, then again,
limits were repeatedly drawn around
them, recommending a concerted
effort (however inadequate) to dis-
tinguish common practices from
preferences or principles.
To reiterate, I, like Merriam,
wholeheartedly oppose a state-spon-
sored display of the Ten Command-
ments, and agree that the Ten Com-
mandments cannot serve as the
moral foundation of U.S. jurispru-
dence. Contrary to popular belief,
theTen Commandments were never
intended as universal rules (for this
the Bible provides the seven
"Noachide" commandments); the
Ten Commandments apply exclu-
sively to the people of Israel. This is
what defeats Judge Moore's posi-
tion, I think. But the stronger thesis
that the Ten Commandments not
only remain imperfect but also lack
"moral substance" (whatever that
is) is untenable.
Fan offended with
Powderpuff cheers
To the editor:
I was deeply offended by the be-
havior of one bullhorn-wielding fan
at the Powderpuff football game be-
tween Wiess College and Will Rice
College Sunday night.
As much as I appreciate Rice's
general atmosphere — and was dis-
mayed as anyone by the controversy
that arose surrounding college cheers
and the sexual harassment policy two
years ago — for anyone to yell over a
bullhorn to a field full of women, "Will
Rice sucks my dick!" and "Kick them
in the balls!" can be deemed nothing
but inappropriate.
Such behavior is appalling in the
wake of so much public debate about
Rice's sexual harassment policy, espe-
dally when contrasted with the behav-
ior of the Wiess team members, who. as
always, played a very clean game. I
would hope that fans for all teams would
attempt to reflect the high level of sports-
manship displayed by the women rep-
resenting them on the field.
Carly Kocurek
Will Rice senior
Powderpuff team member
Thresher Arts and Entertainment
editor
Gregory Kaplan
Assistant Professor,
Religious Studies
Their reward tor a successful season
is playing in an exciting Howl game.
your reward is watching one
The 2003 GMflC BOWL
December 18
Ladd-Peebles Stadium
Mobile AL
gmacbowi.com
At GMACBOWL T
flLVMV
mm
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Berenson, Mark. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 91, No. 7, Ed. 1 Friday, October 3, 2003, newspaper, October 3, 2003; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth398420/m1/4/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.