OPINIONS | 3
TBL | May 14-May 20, 2014
In the Name of Almighty Xenu, Let Us Begin This Town Board Meeting by Sam Goldman STAFF WRITER “ We thank you, Allah, for the opportunity to be here. Okay then, first on the agenda…” How many residents of Greece, N.Y., would feel awkward and excluded if the opening prayer to their town board meeting was routinely given by an imam? How many would claim infringement on their religious liberties and violation of the First Amendment? The Supreme Court recently ruled that the town’s legislative session’s opening prayer, which is pretty much always overtly Christian in nature, is constitutional and does not cross any lines into unacceptability. I beg to differ. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, stated that “[a]s a practice that has long endured, legislative prayer has become part of our heritage and tradition.” Regardless of how much legislative prayer is steeped in tradition, this is certainly not a reason for ruling in favor of it. Many other unwarranted practices in the United States that left others feeling excluded or actually excluded, such as segregation and barring women from voting, were a part of our heritage and tradition that were abolished without regard to this status. Tradition does not determine a practice’s acceptability. Additionally, the conservative majority argued that ruling against the prayers would mean the government and courts would “act as supervisors and censors of religious speech.” Not quite. Individuals would still be free to express religious speech on their own behalf—just not in the capacity of a government entity. Ruling against the prayers would not entail suppression of religious freedom, but would create a neutral space where no one is subject to religious rhetoric they don’t agree with. No single belief would be elevated or deprecated. Another important aspect of the majority opinion is that no one is coerced into the prayer, which is technically true. But when atheist or non-Christian attendees are encouraged to participate, even knowing that they’re not technically being coerced does not make much of a difference in the reality of their feelings. As an atheist, I can easily imagine the awkward feeling that would result: watching everyone being encouraged to bow their heads as a prayer that I don’t think reflects reality is used to open a nonreligious legislative session. People may be actively welcomed to join, but it’s not hard to imagine how some people may still feel excluded at hearing a prayer that is explicitly out of line with what they believe. It could conceivably make some people feel like they don’t belong in their own town’s legislative meeting. And a meeting as fundamental as this kind should be made to feel as inclusive and comfortable as possible for anyone who wishes to participate in their local government. The Court’s majority opinion takes a pretty outdated view of society and religion. A couple hundred years ago, the First Amendment and separation of church and state would have referred to–in the overwhelmingly religious, Christian society–accepting whatever Christian denomination one wanted to embrace and not using the Bible as a basis for our governmental decisions. Demographics, believe it or not, have indeed changed just a tad since then. The U.S. is now a true melting pot of wildly differing religious beliefs, and it only makes sense to update our interpretation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state to reflect this. In addition to the greater diversity in America, we are becoming more and more aware of the old social norms that have been informing opinions like the Supreme Court’s. In a country of greater multiculturalism where we realize that a homogenous, Christian society’s traditional norms are outdated, we should expand the definition of separation of church and state so that religious belief will not make others feel excluded or awkward and won’t impose its morals onto government business. A legislative session opening prayer that provides a truly neutral, inclusive atmosphere for everyone who wishes to participate—the only acceptable atmosphere—is one left unspoken.
“
Illustration by Hector Lizaraga Staff Illustrator
THE U.S. IS NOW A TRUE MELTING POT OF WILDLY DIFFERING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, AND IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO UPDATE OUR INTERPRETATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE TO REFLECT THIS. While the University of California, Santa Barbara is a fairly inclusive, thoughtful place, we can all still benefit from learning the lessons the majority of the Supreme Court has yet to. Much of the misunderstanding that can happen between students here can be remedied by realizing that not everyone
”
embraces the same social norms. Exploring culturally diverse classes and attending multicultural events are two great ways to further open up our minds and help eliminate any feelings of exclusion in our peers so that we can create as fair a campus as possible.
It’s Only Our Future:
Why Keystone XL Pipeline Should Not Be Built by Isabelle Geczy If you haven’t heard about the Keystone XL Pipeline yet, then you better start listening. Our collective future is at stake. The Keystone XL Pipeline is an oil pipeline project by Trans Canada that is slated to carry crude oil from the Tar Sands of Alberta, Canada, all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. Currently, three phases of the pipeline have been approved, and the first has been constructed. However, the final and largest phase is still currently waiting for approval. Keystone XL has become a highly divisive issue in the United States, thanks in part to the already polarized state of the nation. Conservatives claim that it is a project that will stimulate the U.S. economy by creating construction jobs and promoting energy independence, while liberals claim it will only cause mass environmental degradation and further exacerbate climate change. Partisan squabbles have their unfortunate place in our country, but Keystone XL should not be one of them. Protecting the environment around us is a bipartisan issue, and stopping Keystone XL should be too. It’s not a fair deal by a long shot; the pipeline will benefit a very small percentage of people, yet it will cause a myriad of grave environmental and economic consequences. The Tar Sands of Alberta hold some of the dirtiest crude oil on earth. This oil lies underneath old-growth arboreal forest, which will be totally decimated to extract the oil. Deforestation aside, if all the oil extracted is burned, between 50 to 60 parts per million of carbon dioxide will be added to the atmosphere. This addition will push the parts per million of carbon dioxide
over 450–the point of no return for climate change, as this is the number at which climate scientists believe the effects of global warming will become irreversible. Furthermore, the idea that this pipeline will bring energy independence for the U.S. is actually base and unfounded. To even use the tar sands crude, the oil will need to be refined extensively to meet environmental regulations in the U.S. Instead, the oil from the Keystone XL pipeline will most likely be sent to developing nations with less regimented environmental standards, meaning that the pollution will be effectively offshored. In addition, at home in the U.S., the pipeline cuts through a great deal of farmland and more rural but settled areas. An overland disaster would create immense issues of degradation and clean-up for many Americans. As evidenced by the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, transnational oil companies have little incentive and commitment to cleanup. Overall, Keystone XL poses a distinct threat to the climate and environment, and it would be irresponsible to move forward with construction. Keystone XL is also far from a project that will stimulate the U.S. economy. Rather, the negative economic effects of the pipeline will be felt far sooner than any economic stimulation. While the pipeline is touted as creating American jobs, it is only creating temporary pipefitting and construction jobs that will not give any true financial security to workers. According to the U.S. State Department, Keystone XL will create only 35 permanent jobs–a figure that speaks for itself. In addition, the pipeline will actually hurt American workers as well, for it is slated to go
through vast swaths of farmland in the middle of the country. In states like Nebraska, farmers are facing having parts of their land seized by eminent domain laws for pipeline construction, meaning that they will lose arable land they could be profiting off of to the pipeline. Moreover, this isn’t even taking into account any of the effects that pollution or spills could cause to crops and farmland. Keystone XL is a losing proposition for the American people. As a member of the generation that is set to inherit this earth and the climate crisis, I feel that Keystone XL is an incredibly selfish venture that will only create lasting harm. Currently, President Obama has announced that the review of the final phase of the pipeline will be stalled indefinitely. Due to his actions, the Senate in the past week has attempted to force the approval of the pipeline, without presidential approval. This selfish, shortsighted action would spell devastation for our country. For this reason, Keystone XL has become a defining issue for the climate movement, mobilizing over 60,000 people to march on Washington, D.C. in February 2013 for the largest climate rally in history. I was fortunate enough to be a part of the march, surrounded by so many different groups of people united against a singular issue. Faith-based groups, student groups, senior citizens, farmers and professors—the collective of people was absolutely staggering and spoke to the diverse nature of the American people. Together, we can defeat this project, and prove that people power is still stronger than monetary power. Together, we can ensure that our future will be a reality.