UA students should help natural disaster victims
With a record of one of the worst earthquakes recorded in India, there has been a death toll of more than 20,000 people, billions of dollars worth of damage to homes, schools and hospitals. Such an awful earthquake sent shockwaves in neighboring Pakistan (many died in border towns of India and Pakistan), Southern India and Bangladesh. Like the earthquakes that happened in 1999 in Taiwan and Turkey, it was the students who took the upper hand to help earthquake victims.
So far, the United States officially has given only $25,000 dollars, and the European Union along with Gulf Nations, Pakistan, Australia and China have given India a couple million dollars. However, it is still not enough for a country with a billion people having an earthquake that holds a population equal to half of the United States. More money is needed to help the Indian poor, who have and will again be overlooked by United Nations and certain missionaries who will only help if one converts to their faith. Not every preacher there is a Mother Teresa.
What India Club here at the UA, and Indian Associations throughout the US, are doing will probably make a greater impact than the Western Governments ever will. In 1999, the Turkish Students Association made a huge contribution -especially when there are only two dozen students here in the UA. I would like to ask all students, professors and staff members to stop by the table at the UA Mall and learn about how a natural disaster has affected a community here in Tucson. Although what the US government has given is not enough, even a donation of one dollar will go. In the end, it is the students and local community members who will help.
Ahmad Saad Nasim
General business senior
Religion not detrimental to government
First off, I am a Republican Mormon from Texas. I spent two years of my life in Michigan, talking about religion with anyone who would sit still long enough. I support President Bush. How do you define religion? You seem to be using a definition along the lines of 'A devout, fanatical belief in Jesus Christ to the exclusion of all sense on the part of the inflicted individual and to the detriment of the surrounding society.' I prefer a definition closer to 'belief in some higher power.' You whine and moan that the new president does not intend to spend tax money how you want him to.
Do I approve of government sponsored lotteries? No. Do I like the lavish waste our Congress is so fond of? No. Welcome to the exciting world of representative government. You want the promise that your tax money will never be used to pay for a cross. I want the promise that it will never be used to get people roaring drunk at some banquet. I want the promise that my tax money will be used to help the poor and unemployed become contributing members of society. I want the promise that the cut my government takes from my meager paycheck will not be used to murder innocents, grease palms or steal honest people's livelihoods.
Ammon R. Lauritzen
Texan
Bush plan does not violate separation of church and state
I am writing in response to Cory Spiller's recent article, "Government and religion do not mix." Cory, and many others like him, has taken the interpretation of "separation" between religion and government too far. Separation denotes independence and sovereignty of each entity, not polar disconnection. Although a little morality and religion may be good for Washington, Bush's recent executive order creating a White House office to fund non-profit organizations does not, in any way, force religion upon anyone.
The Bush administration is trying to facilitate programs that are running already in communities, not just trying to breed new Republican voters, as Cory suggests. What many social programs need is the caring touch of people devoted to something higher than the next paycheck. Just as home-cooked food is always better than that of the public school system, non-government programs create better results with similar funding.
Cory's argument that religious programs would have no motive to aid someone as despicable (supposedly) as an atheist is totally unfounded. Every doctrine and religion that I am familiar with seeks to spread itself. Now why would a religious program turn away the same person that they are trying to convert?
Finally, I am uncertain as to why Cory made a point about Mother Theresa's view about AIDS and homosexuality. She is a perfect example of how a religious program can positively affect her community, nation and world without being overbearing and authoritarian about religious matters. Mother Theresa had a view, but she didn't let it domineer her compassion toward a hurting world. Bush's new White House office is simply trying to create Mother Theresa figures on a smaller scale.
Brian Gowler
Mechanical engineering freshman
