Considerations for Staha
In reference to "Spiritual void and a West Campus murder," Sept. 14: Nick Staha states, "spiritual values are the only legitimate basis for moral values." I would ask Staha to consider the following quotes from the Old Testament, which much of the world considers to be the word of God:
1. From Leviticus 25:44-46: "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves … You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life."
2. From Deuteronomy 13:6-11: "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter … entices you, saying 'Let us go and worship other gods' … Show him no pity … You must certainly put him to death … no one among you will do such an evil thing again."
3. From Deuteronomy 21:13-21: "If a man takes a wife and … did not find proof of her virginity … she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death … you must purge the evil from among you."
Are these spiritual values the only basis for morality, or do you possess a moral sense independent of them, which tells you that they are wrong?
Dan Lessin
Computer science graduate student
Considerations for Staha II
Nick Staha's column about the horrendous crime committed by Pitonyak and Hall ("Spiritual void and a West Campus murder," Sept. 14) misses the target completely. His claim that the actions of these two individuals is indicative of some sort of failure of secular morality doesn't hold water. At best, their actions are indicative of their own moral or spiritual failing, whether secular or religious. History has told and shown us that even the most religious people are capable of the most horrible crimes.
Moreover, while it is the case that very often people commit horrible acts in the name of God and religion, no one commits such acts in the name of secular morality. It's convenience (or perhaps laziness) to say that we need spiritual values to have moral values. In the Bible parable about the Good Samaritan, it was the "godless heathen," the secular moralist, who stopped to render aid. How would he have known to do good if he didn't have spiritual values?
Spirituality shows us that morality is flexible and malleable. After all, "thou shalt not kill" becomes less rigid when we do it for God, when we do it for good or when we decide to execute someone in our secular injection chambers - presided over, of course, by a representative of the spiritual camp. Staha also argues that "spiritual beliefs … made the widespread acceptance of freedom and equality possible." It is clear that spiritual justifications for colonization, slavery and oppression counter such an argument.
Let's not forget that so-called spiritual moralists are campaigning against freedom and equality for homosexuals in committed relationships, or who want to adopt children in need of loving and supportive parents. The problem, it seems, is that it is much easier to hide behind spirituality because then we don't have to be responsible for our morality. If we do good because it is in the best interest of humanity (not for a so-called religious reward in the afterlife), and if we teach such morality, and teach that it reaches beyond the imaginary boundary of those who have the same faith, this secular morality would be far better than the spiritual one that limits itself and humankind. And just think, spiritual morality tells us that, if Pitonyak and Hall play their cards right, we'll be able to toast our arrival in eternal paradise with them.
David Siller
French and Italian Ph.D. student
Considerations for Staha III
There are some flaws in Nick Staha's reasoning ("Spiritual void and a West Campus murder," Sept. 14). He claims the horrible acts of Pitonyak and Hall are a direct result of a lack of spirituality, but by the same logic could I not point out the crusades and every other religious act of violence and claim the opposite?
A study was conducted by the Journal of Law and Economics comparing the homicide rates of 38 countries and the 10 countries with the greatest number of homicides were highly religious with low rates of atheism. The ten countries with the least amount of homicides were secular nations with higher rates of atheism, the only exception being Ireland.
"The ancients would have no difficulty in spotting the underlying truth in these crimes," says Staha. This is exactly what the rational, modern moralist is afraid of - ignorant people who refer to the logic of "ancients" to determine morality.
Greg Lovelidge
Psychology senior
Morality, according to Staha
In response to "Spiritual void and a West Campus murder," Sept. 14: If Staha's logic is correct, then I - an atheist - must be gearing up for an immoral rampage this weekend, possibly consisting of capital murder and heavy drug use. I must be thinking, "Gee, since there is no God or heaven, morality is just an 8-letter word, and I can do anything I please."
It just doesn't work that way, Staha. Sure, morality is influenced by spirituality, but can it not come from a natural desire (free of supernatural forces) as well? As for Pitonyak and Hall, they certainly acted heinously. However, if they lack spirituality does not mean that other non-theists would do what they did. I hope you can realize that moral does not equal spiritual, and that words like secular, atheist, agnostic, skeptic or bright do not equal criminal.
Erin Darling
Civil engineering junior
University Heights a bit shady
I was the "anonymous UT student" who was interviewed on Wednesday's Riverside violence issue who was living at University Heights during the murder last weekend ("Violence rises on Riverside," Sept. 13). Our apartment managers do not care at all about the safety of residents. The gates do not "rarely" work. In fact, they have never been working. Also, occasionally I would come downstairs and see people rolling joints and smoking pot in their cars - and the apartment managers do not do anything to stop this. What angers me the most is that in mid-July after the female was killed at Longhorn Station, University Heights managers put a note on every single door warning us about a murder nearby, but when a shooting death occured on their own property, they did not alert residents at all.
Anonymous
UT senior
Very happy hour with Dr. Watson
It was refreshing to read this very human perspective on a scientific issue (Graduate students host dinner with Nobel Prize winner," Sept. 11). Most of the time, scientists are portrayed as cold, rational and inhuman. Graduate students are thought of as having no life, no drive, no sense of humor and disconnected from very natural behaviors such as fandom. Nothing could be further from the truth. Science is a human endeavor; we have our idols, our prejudices and our childish disagreements that are unfortunately sanitized for the sake of laypeople.
People wanted to see Dr. Watson to become better scientists. I was glad to see him at his lecture trying hard to convince everybody that beyond the Nobel Prize, DNA and his adventures with Mr. Holmes, he is a normal person. I walked away thinking that it would be fun to share a pitcher of beer with a down-to-earth guy like him.
Cesar Rodriguez
Physics graduate student
Don't forget the mother of DNA
As a woman in science, I would like to express my disappointment and indignation at the saintly attitude many modern biology researchers and enthusiasts hold towards Dr. James Watson. Watson's appearance on campus Monday rekindled my abhorrence for the unjust and incomplete account of the discovery of the structure of DNA, for which he is said to be famous. The names Watson and Crick are synonymous with this scientific milestone, yet even very few professors acknowledge Dr. Rosalind Franklin, an x-ray crystallography expert and integral contributor to the discovery. As a young, intelligent and independent woman in the early 1950s, Franklin received condescending, patronizing and professionally unethical treatment from her colleagues. Her co-researcher, Maurice Wilkins, assumed she was his subordinate, though they were equal partners. James Watson and Francis Crick dismissed her intelligence and, to win the "race" to the answer, Watson and Crick grabbed Franklin's groundbreaking, unpublished data from Wilkins without her consent or knowledge while she tried to complete her research. By dismissing the ethical expectations of the scientific community, Watson and Crick skimmed the surface of the meticulous, difficult work of others without performing any true research themselves. Watson, Crick and Wilkins received the 1962 Nobel Prize, and Franklin died only five years after the fiasco, but could not receive it posthumously. Referring to Watson as the "father of genetics" is an insult to Rosalind Franklin and the research community at large.
Kelly Broussard
Biology junior
Crime and punishment
The arrests of UT football players has become alarmingly routine. I believe it is time for President Powers to become involved.
Thomas Van Orden
Austin resident
No contempt for institutionalized diversity
I have a level of contempt for the expression about the Division of Diversity and Community Engagement in Mr. McKendree's Firing Line ("No need for institutionalized diversity," Sept. 14). Its a clear indication as to why the division is not only a great asset to the University, but is crucial to student affairs. Were it not for the division and the programs that it sponsors, the voices of underrepresented communities would be stifled as they have been at many points in time.
I charge Mr. McKendree to do his research. In the expansion of the division, there were not 200 new positions created. The division became home to the employees of existing departments such as Academic Enrichment Services, Services for Students with Disabilities and Multicultural Information Center, to name a few. This supposed "money that could have been allocated to scholarships" was already used for salaries. Thousands of students use these services every year and, without an amazing staff, the students' needs would not be met.
I'd like to see Mr. McKendree's reaction to the egging of a statue of someone that made great strides for the nursing community, and still refer to it as a "juvenile prank." However, I have no contempt for McKendree; I could have admitted to being so uninformed before I became involved with parts of the division. That is my second charge to McKendree: Attend Campus Fusion. I guarantee you'll feel welcome.
Nathan Bunch
Student Government
two-year at large representative
Government and Mexican American studies sophomore
Be the first to comment on this article!