Though the exact phraseology of a "separation between church and state" is not in the Constitution, it is expressed in the First Amendment's promise that "no establishment of religion" will be respected by the government. If anything is an establishment of religion, it is the concept of God, the most divisive and bitterly-debated subject in the history of mankind. By requiring public school employees to state that our nation is "under God," the state stokes the flames of theological controversy every day.

For my high school graduation ceremony, I was chosen to lead my class, our family members, teachers and faculty in the Pledge of Allegiance. As we lined up in our caps and gowns, many of my friends urged me to not say those two words because they did not believe in God, and they refused to profess their faith in something for which they had none. I still recited the Pledge in its entirety, but so long as religion was a part of it, they would not take part at all.

Regardless of their constitutionality, the words "under God" should be removed for practical reasons. The point of having a Pledge of Allegiance in the first place is to instill in our country's youth reverence for "the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all-" basic American values which people can believe in even if they do not believe in God. By adding Him to the mix, the McCarthy-era Congress has bred resentment for these civic values among innumerable, otherwise-patriotic atheists.

Zachary Mason '08

U.S. lags behind civilized world

Last week was Amherst College's own Pride Week. The Pride Alliance hosted such events as a screening of the moving film "Beautiful Thing" and the Gay Amherst Party that has come to be a tradition at Amherst. Many students stopped by the Pride Alliance's table in the Campus Center to show their support by signing the rainbow banner. In the end, Pride Week continued important conversations about diversity and tolerance, and I can only hope that it also sparked curiosity and discussion where there had been none before. The openness of Pride Week signals that Amherst is a place where dialogue about GLBTQ issues can at least take place respectfully and seriously.

Unfortunately, this openness and respect is not the case everywhere. The most recent news from England shows how the United States continues to lag behind its international partners in caring for its GLBTQ citizens. Beginning at the end of 2005, same-sex couples in Great Britain will be allowed to register in civil unions that grant them significant rights and protections. More importantly, the Royal Navy, which ended discrimination against GLBTQ servicemen in 2000, has pledged to work with Britain's leading GLBTQ organization, Stonewall, to develop and implement steps to become a GLBTQ-sensitive employer. These positive steps show in stark contrast the paranoia that inflames the 11 states that passed anti-gay marriage (and, in some instances, anti-civil union) amendments in November. They expose the ridiculousness and injustice of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy pursued in our armed forces. These issues aren't abstract policy questions; they are issues that affect GLBTQ Americans and their families everyday.

Pride Week might be over, but the fight for GLBTQ rights continues. Put up a "Safe Space" sticker on your door. Wear a supportive pin. Donate to the Human Rights Campaign or other GLBTQ organizations. Visit the Rainbow Room in Pratt. Write to your congressional representatives in support of GLBTQ issues. Or just talk to a friend to spread the word.

Now that the movies and dancing have ended, let us all roll up our sleeves and get to work for equality.

Ian Shin '06

Songs of Amherst Web site on-line

Since mid-December 2004, I have been creating a Web site (http://www.personal.riverusers.com/~s/AC_Songs/AC_Songs.html) that focuses on the songs of Amherst College. This site is and will remain a work in progress. I hope that this will become a group effort. Your participation, comments, suggestions for improvement and other help will be welcome.

Stephen A. Langford '63

Peace comes at the end of occupation

Two weeks ago, I wrote that as Zionism and Judaism differ, so do anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Joseph Kushick demurs (Feb. 16), citing six people who "have written cogently and eloquently about the modern resurgence of anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism," and whose "articles would serve admirably as an antidote to Rudy's piece."

Kushick doesn't burden us with "their arguments." For him, if six people think something, it must be true. But consider Hillel Halken, one of Kushick's "antidotes." He writes: "Israel is the state of the Jews. Zionism is the belief that the Jews should have a state. To defame Israel is to defame the Jews." These sentences are bunk. Most Jews do not regard Israel as their state. Zionism is not only the "belief that the Jews should have a state;" it is also a conflicted ideology now imposed on another people. "To defame Israel" means nothing, and can not refer to "the Jews."

The anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism equation doesn't need silly slogans but rather a real argument. It's this: Only a Zionist state protects Jews, so anti-Zionists oppose protecting Jews. Of course most anti-Semites are anti-Zionists, but the opposite doesn't hold. Many Jews reject Zionism as a dangerous atavistic nationalism. I'm suspicious of anti-Zionism because I have a certain conception of a safe haven. But labeling all dissent from that conception "anti-Semitic" is coercive.

Zionists must ask what kind of politics protects Jews. As for orthodox anti-Zionists, Kushick confirms my point; he dares not call this "lunatic fringe" anti-Semitic. His next non sequitur-that my resort to this example means only mad Jews question Zionism-is absurd and insulting. Zionism's promise to Jews is far too important to be left to such hostile fundamentalism.

I'm grateful for Ron Tiersky's classifications of anti-Semitism in last week's Student. But he misleadingly suggests the Palestinians are only now conceding the "struggle against Zionism." They have formally and practically recognized Israel for decades, without reciprocity, most notably at the 1988 Algiers summit (during Israel's vicious repression of the intifada). Tiersky declares "the Jewish state ... should not be asked to disappear," "[b]ut under the right conditions of peace and security ... could be asked to adapt."

This legerdemain first conjures those anti-Zionists that want to remove Israel and then blames them for Israel's (defensive) "brutality." But Israel's expansion, settlement, occupation and smokescreen "peace offerings" since 1967 have proved its unwillingness to relinquish the West Bank or Gaza to Palestinian self-determination under any circumstances. Tiersky conditions Israeli reform on Palestinian "peace and security" efforts. But it is occupation's end that brings peace, not peace that ends occupation. If Israel meets its legal and moral obligations to free the Palestinians, it will enable peace. Then, too, will real Jew-haters get smoked out from the anti-Zionist ranks.

Visiting Professor of Political Science Sayres Rudy