Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Monday, March 30, 2026
The Observer

Opinion


The Observer

Hitchens-D'Souza: A Primer

·

This evening, Christopher Hitchens, the famous, and sometimes infamous, British-American journalist and anti-theist will debate Dinesh D'Souza, a star of the Conservative right movement in the states. This event has been billed "The God Debate" at Notre Dame, and certainly should prove interesting for everybody in attendance. However, many students I have talked to don't know too much about either debater, much less what positions they generally hold and should be expected to argue tonight, so I took it upon myself to do a little research and watch some of their past debate.


The Observer

Rejecting the routine

·

When I was entering seventh grade, I decided that I wanted to be a good basketball player. When I let my aspirations known to my parents, my dad said that he was happy for me, but he then proceeded to tell me exactly how it was going to happen. Over the summer, I was to run for a mile and shoot 100 free throws every day. In hindsight, that may not seem like a whole lot of work, but for a 12-year old that would have been perfectly content eating candy and playing video games every day all summer, it was like a death sentence. So each day, begrudgingly, I rolled out of bed and worked out, usually after about an hour of bickering with my mom about it. Not surprisingly, I became a pretty good player and even won a few free throw shooting contests in middle school.


The Observer

Why I do care

·

In the past few weeks, with the announcement of Christopher Hitchens coming to Notre Dame and the unearthing of more sexual abuse from Catholic priests, many people have turned their discussions again to religion and the Catholic Church. One common sentiment in these arguments is that non-believers (like the invited Christopher Hitchens) have no reason to criticize religion since they are themselves not religious. Furthermore, some people have even questioned why non-believers would bother to attend a school that is so ensconced in Catholicism if all they are going to do is argue about its Catholic policies. As a non-believer at Notre Dame, perhaps I can shed light on these two questions.


The Observer

Not standing strong

·

"To whom much is given, much is expected." Sue Chambers quoted this well-known saying in her challenge to Notre Dame to uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church ("Dream Schools," March 30).

The Observer

One Book, One Michiana

·

Although we often forget it, as students of Notre Dame we are also members of the South Bend population. If you want to break out of the "Notre Dame bubble" in an easy and fun way, consider participating in the One Book, One Michiana campaign.



The Observer

HEI: Still an issue

·

Despite the fact that we are no longer sporting our incredibly sexy and stylish orange jumpsuits this week, the issue of Notre Dame's investment in hotel company HEI is still a pressing one.


The Observer

Dream schools

·

Reading the article on a dream college , I thought it was well balanced in its comments. I would like to add one that was left out. By the fact that Notre Dame continues to be in the top 10 of this list, it was pointed out that it is the only religious affiliation as well as the only Catholic institution to make the list. This brings with it more visibility and so on. This should also bring with it more responsibility to stand up for its Catholic identity. There is more responsibility to represent Catholic values and not take a step back but to take a step up when called to stand for the truth. To whom much is given, much is expected. If Notre Dame is visible let it be so we can stand and be leaders and uphold what the Catholic church teaches us to stand up for. This responsibility starts at the top. Ask honestly, has this been what has happened in recent times? Sue Chambers St. Mary's alumna Class of 1977 March 29


The Observer

Debate good for learning

·

I write this letter in response to Sy Doan's Viewpoint ("Christopher Hitchens is the next Obama," Mar. 25) Though the upcoming debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza contains elements that our University is opposed to in its mission, it is precisely these elements of opposition that stand to better maximize the depth, discussion and propagation of Christianity. Hitchens may say that organized religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children," but these are exactly the sorts of claims that rational religious persons should seek to answer.


The Observer

Reform vs. the Constitution

·

Now that the Democrats have managed to wheedle, bribe, cajole, threaten and otherwise cram their health care package through Congress and into the law books, popular resistance and political consequences be damned, it may seem like the vicious battle has finally reached a conclusion.


The Observer

Real reform at last

·

Last week, by a slim majority vote of 219-212, the House of Representatives passed the most progressive social legislation in decades, sending to President Obama the Senate's Health Care Reform Bill, which had been passed by the Senate nearly three months ago on Christmas Eve.


The Observer

Truth on orientation

·

Historians, psychologists, anthropologists, political scientists and videographers are usually extremely subjective. Their disciplines are limited. A historian will never know all events throughout all of history. A psychologist will never be able to comprehend the inner-workings of every human mind that has ever existed. An anthropologist will never experience every culture. A political scientist will never know every political structure in history. A videographer will never be able to see every video ever created. They are limited by their life spans and the constant movement of time. They will always be able to do some research, but they will never be able to do all research.


The Observer

The Yellow Brick Road

·

The U.S. response to Israel's recent announcement of 1,600 new Jewish homes in east Jerusalem has been cool. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden have criticized these plans as well as the timing of the announcement. It seems to be no coincidence that the announcement came just after Palestinians agreed to indirect negotiations with Israel. Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it very clear he is no fan of a two-state solution. It is not enough to criticize Israel for this very clear land grab; Israel needs American support, surely America can exert more pressure to bring Israel to the negotiating table. Before discussing recent events any further, it may help to briefly contextualize the situation. East Jerusalem is not recognized as Israeli territory. In fact, almost every country but Israel recognizes it as Palestinian land. Since the Israeli announcement, Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA), has refused to negotiate until Israel freezes settlement building, which includes building in east Jerusalem. A settlement is a Jewish community which has been established by the Israeli government — or at least with its tacit approval — on land recognized as belonging to the Palestinians. Initially, Netanyahu refused to freeze any settlement building but finally agreed in November to a moratorium, exempting Jerusalem, after months of pressure from the White House. Exerting pressure does not mean Israel should be viewed as anything other than an ally; after all, even good friends have disagreements from time to time. Rather, one should ask why America is hesitant to lean on Israel even when Israel explicitly acts against U.S. interests. America literally gives $3 billion every year to Israel and has consistently defended Israel against a hostile United Nations and international community. Some have suggested withholding funding would irreparably threaten U.S.-Israeli relations, however history shows this concern to be unjustified. Threatening to withhold aid has worked in the past to bring Israel into line and there is no reason to suspect it will not work in the current debacle. The most famous example is when the United States convinced Israel to enter the Oslo Accords by withholding aid. While the Oslo Accords were not the heralding of a better period in Palestinian-Israeli relations, negotiation still remains in the best interests of Israel, America and the PA. Freezing settlements in east Jerusalem and entering negotiations will signal to Israel's neighbors that she is willing to work cooperatively for a sustainable and peaceful future. Furthermore, since Israel is seen by many in the Arab world as America's client state, negotiations, even if only marginally successful, may increase America's standing in the Arab world. Lastly, Palestinians would also benefit from negotiations as they would help reduce the West's image of the Palestinians as terrorists. America and Israel have had a long and mutually beneficial relationship. The two countries have worked together on political issues and even shared technologies and carried out research together. However, Palestinians cannot be blamed for the most recent failure in peace negotiations. They quite reasonably understand the recent settlement announcement as a land grab to prevent east Jerusalem from ever being incorporated into a future Palestinian state. If a peaceful two-state solution is ever to be realized then both sides must compromise. One can understand why Israel wants to unite all of Jerusalem under its control but the simple fact is that settlements are just as bad for Israel as they are for Palestinians. For many Palestinians, settlements are the prime symbol of Israeli dominance and lust for control. In essence they stand for all the reasons Palestinians believe they cannot trust the Israeli government. Like it or not, Palestinians will be Israel's neighbors for a long time to come and Israel should make attempts to increase good will amongst its neighbors. Of course, Israel has a right to defend itself but it seems settlements make Israel less secure by increasing despair and feelings of disenfranchisement amongst the Palestinian people. Currently, Israel is headed by a hard right-wing government which makes compromise very difficult. This is where the United States comes into play. No one wants to lose out on free money. Thus, America should make its grants (still free money) contingent on freezing settlements and entering into negotiations with the PA. To stop at merely calling the building project in east Jerusalem an "insult" is the true insult both to regional stability and the Palestinian people. James Napier is a senior history major. He can be contacted at jnapier@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.


The Observer

Why the pope should step down

·

"Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret," then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in a letter to Catholic bishops in 2001. At that time he headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, an institution whose role in handling cases of allegations of child rape by priests has proved to have been one of protecting the perpetrators more than the victims. After the scandals in the U.S. and Ireland with tens of thousands of abuse cases, the next wave of victims breaking their silence is surfacing now in Germany, Ratzinger's country of origin. As archbishop of the diocese of Munich and Freising, he was directly involved in a decision to let a priest who had been relocated there after allegations of child abuse to continue working with children and teenagers, even though the priest's psychiatrist warned the diocese to not let him have unsupervised contact with children. As it turns out the priest continued to rape children and was found guilty of child abuse in 1986 by a German court. He was not suspended by the Catholic church until the beginning of March of this year. Given the pope's direct involvement in the embarassing handling of abuse cases in the past and his position as the leader of an organization that claims to have moral authority, he should weigh accepting personal responsibility and showing compassion for the victims against the desire to cling to the immense power of the papacy. So far we have not been given any reason to doubt he favors the latter. Andreas Best grad student off campus March 25


The Observer

Please MediCARE

·

As an only child of senior citizen parents, I also have a unique perspective on the health care debate, like cancer survivor Aidan Fitzgerald ("A plea to a mostly competent student body: True Reform," March 24). Being the daughter of "grandparents" can be fun — I've been the only employed family member since age 13 so they're available to call whenever they can find the "talk" button. I'll never need to stress about them having Facebooks. When I was six we skipped every line at Disney due to Mom's wheelchair. I'm talented at finding hearing aids and fake teeth — and thus lucky pennies. But elderly life consists of more than where-are-my-glasses games. Like many stereotypes, seniors get labeled hypertensive, arthritic and grouchy. It's not unfounded — I'm not the one in the family who swears over spilt milk. I also know their treatment is expensive and it'd be a lot to ask for ObamaCare to help us more than Medicare already does. However, I want something a bill may never bring. Last May, Dad had three strokes. He is diabetic (genetically). The hospital's physicians kept testing him for heart disease — tests he's had so many times, all proving his heart is as good as mine. His diabetes was outright ignored. They fed him sugar. His blood glucose shot up to near-coma levels. Many Medicare patients don't receive the care someone with "real" insurance does, because Medicare doesn't pay as much. It's my hope that attempting to equalize healthcare may equalize how much attention doctors pay to their patients. Also, as a biology major, I'd like to ask all applying to medical school to pick your ObamaCare battles wisely. The only negative argument I've heard so far is "Will my salary pay for med school?" Of course it will — you'll be a Notre Dame grad and a doctor. If money is your priority, do something else. I'm not supporting or condemning the bill, but please criticize constructively. I understand med school is your main concern — my main concern is Dad being at graduation. Please remember your future patients, too. Liz Devany junior McGlinn Hall March 26


The Observer

End of judgment, beginning of tolerance

·

I was disturbed by the Inside Column of March 25 ("End of Absence," Andrew Owens) about the return of Tiger Woods to the PGA. Owens' sentence "Just because people thought he had a nice smile ... does not mean he is a good person" implies indeed that because of his past transgressions, like Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods is a bad person. I would strongly disagree. As not only a Catholic, but also as a member of the population of a country based on the belief in second chances, I believe Owens confuses a bad person with a human being — that is, all of us are prone to make mistakes and deserve forgiveness and a second chance. Does he presume that his future will be mistake-free or that these inevitable mistakes will make him a bad person? Being in a Catholic community where the hallmarks of our daily living should be tolerance and forgiveness, I would hope that we would allow Tiger Woods, just as we would allow any member of our community, a second chance. His winning is simply evidence of his ability to start over. Our applause means that we are not judging, but rather giving him the ability to go on with his life and prove himself again, which is what every human being deserves. Felicia Caponigri junior off campus March 25


The Observer

Lenten candlelight dinner in poor taste

·

I'm writing in to express my disappointment with the dining halls' decision to have a candlelight dinner on March 26 (Friday in Passiontide and the Commemoration of the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary). The Church imposes the discipline of forbidding meat on Fridays as a penance, not as something chic that Catholics get to do. Ideally Friday abstinence should be augmented by prayer, fasting, almsgiving and above all a spirit of sacrifice; to that end, for centuries (and up until the 1960s) fasting was required not just on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday but on every day (except Sundays) of Lent. This prepared the Christian faithful to more fully appreciate the season of Easter, when fasting ceased and feasting with the risen Bridegroom commenced. Given this, the idea of a "Lenten buffet" on a Friday in Lent, wherein one could indulge in such things as swordfish steak, is in terribly poor taste. Symptomatic of this poor taste was the placing of the cross and crown of thorns above the dessert table — the two symbols that should most exhort us to the sacrifice of self. The Church's liturgical calendar operates in cycles that reflect the spiritual life; one must fast before one feasts, just as one must endure the struggles of earthly life before entering the blessed joy of Heaven. Feasting during Lent only serves to extinguish the blessed joy that comes with the Solemnity of all solemnities, Easter. Dale Parker freshman Morrissey Hall March 28


The Observer

Bishop D'Arcy reflects on Notre Dame

·

In this column, "The Notre Dame They Know," I will interview individuals who have been influenced by the University of Notre Dame. I will seek to discover the unique role that Notre Dame has played in their life and vocational journey. It is hoped that this column will inculcate a deeper, more honest and more profound love for Our Lady and Her University.


The Observer

So far, I've survived 'ObamaCare'

·

What a week to catch my first chest cold in several years. Many times a day, while nursing my miserable congestion, my e-mail account fluttered with apocalyptic warnings from Alan M. Gottlieb, Chairman of the conservative AmeriPAC organization about what he calls, "ObamaCare." Gottlieb's personal pleadings began, "We need your continued help more than ever as ‘Socialized Health Care Must Still Be Stopped!'" "Wow," I thought to myself. Who wants that much socialism? After all, socialism is a form of the government pooling citizens together for the common good. Who the hell would want that? But then I remembered — local police forces, fire departments and school systems are all forms of socialism. Say what you may about an individual organization or the merits of home schooling, but those particular forms of a socialized system have worked pretty well now for hundreds of years. Next Gottlieb enlightened me about the specific facts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid do not want me personally to know. They are, "rejecting sensible ideas, not starting over, feeding on the members of their own party and when all else fails Obama, Pelosi and Reid have become true dictators as they lie, cheat and deal." In another message, Gottlieb notes, "Obama truly made history by betraying America and has become a Progressive Dictator ruling from the extreme liberal left with his own agenda." He traces the roots of Obama's socialistic past in a 1996 Obama commitment made while running for state senate to the Chicago Democratic Socialist Party. Even the socialist magazine, "Progressive Populist," acknowledges "new party member Barack Obama [who] was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago." But Gottlieb then flaunts his tireless fight "to stop the progressive socialist agenda of Obama" and takes credit for more than 1,346,016 faxes and phone calls that virtually shut down the congressional switchboard while "Democrats told American that their government does not listen to them. Instead, Democrats accepted Pelosi's bribes of power, money, promises of committee positions and getting better office space and sold out America." Gottlieb further chronicles his belief that ObamaCare: u Imposes $2.5 trillion in new taxes u Puts seven percent of Americans on a government subsidy to help pay for mandatory health insurance u Raises taxes on 25 percent of Americans earning $200,000 a year u Raises taxes on three middle-class families to pay for every family receiving a government subsidy u Excludes 93 percent of Americans who are not eligible for a tax benefit under the bill. Well, Alan — may I call you Alan, since I have at least 40 communications from you? That is exactly what the bill does, and much more. The legislation not only reduces the deficit by more than a trillion dollars in 10 years, it models itself on the initial Social Security foundation whereby several workers while currently employed pay into the system for the benefits of some who are retired. What would you like to repeal? Starting this week, reform immediately began to lower health care costs for American families and small businesses. For example, small businesses can now receive tax credits of up to 35 percent of premiums to help cover employees. This year, early retirees will receive help through a temporary re-insurance program that offsets the costs of expensive premiums for employers and retirees aged 55-64. Shall we forego these business-friendly initiatives by labeling them some form of socialism? Or shall we turn right around now and take back money we just put into the American public's pockets with this law? Now, new private plans must provide free preventive care: no co-payments and no deductibles for preventive services. Medicare will do the same next January. This year, the law starts to close the Medicare Part D "donut hole" by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who reach the gap in prescription drug coverage. Next year, the bill institutes a 50 percent discount on prescription drugs for seniors in the "donut hole." It is not a conservative value to prevent government tax rebates, is it? Under health insurance reform, Americans will be ensured access to the care they need. Now children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Young people may now remain on a parent's insurance policy until their 26th birthday. Insurance companies can no longer drop people when they become sick, and cannot implement certain restrictive annual limits or lifetime caps on coverage. Adults previously uninsured because of pre-existing conditions will now have access to affordable insurance through a temporary subsidized high-risk pool. Furthermore, everyone will be considered equally and have access to coverage. Discrimination based on salary is now outlawed. New group health plans are prohibited from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that discriminates in favor of higher-waged employees. The law establishes an independent commission to advise on how best to build the health care workforce and increase the number of nurses, doctors and other professionals to meet our country's needs. It creates a new, independent appeals process that ensures consumers have access to an effective process when appealing decisions made by an insurer. Later this year, but technically in the next fiscal year, the bill increases funding for community health centers so they can treat nearly double the number of patients over the next five years. Are any of these changes bad for the nation? Finally, my new BFF, Alan, thanked me yesterday by pledging to continue the fight while quoting President Ronald Reagan's farewell that referred to our nation as a shining city. Gottlieb concludes with "we have only begun to fight to bring America back again. For America, Alan." For the record, BFF Alan, your hero raised taxes several times during his presidency after campaigning to cut personal income and business taxes. In fact, taxes during the end of Reagan's era were as large a percent of GNP (about 19 percent) as when he took office. The 1981 Economic Recovery Act tax cut reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 equaled about $1.5 trillion. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 — at the time, the largest tax increase in American history — designed to raise $214.1 billion in just five years, took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. In 1982, Reagan also supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry totaling $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Special Security Commission — chaired by the man he later elevated to the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan — Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later, Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act raised another $50 billion. I will charitably call him a pragmatic politician; something Obama proves each day when he weighs his campaign promises against the nation's best interests. Returning to our new "ObamaCare," we made the correct step towards correcting our health care industry. Years from now when we look back in history, we'll wonder what all the fuss was about … and chicken soup will still be the best remedy for a chest cold.


The Observer

The wrong impression

·

This is in response to Sy Doan's March 25 letter "Christopher Hitchens is the next Obama." I'm an atheist and I don't like this any better than you do. However, I can think of several reasons why the sponsors chose Hitchens and the administration has been oddly quiet about their choice. The one that seems most likely to me is, they want to make atheism look ridiculous. To represent the side of non-belief, they chose a real-life straw man with views so radical that no Notre Dame student could possibly agree with him, so that Christianity would look reasonable and brilliant in comparison. That might just be me being a little cynical, so I'll move on. A more charitable explanation would be that the sponsors naively went with the most famous atheist they could scrounge up, without doing much research. But I know Notre Dame organizations aren't that lazy. Alternatively, they may have been trying to make the debate as entertaining as possible by choosing debaters with some fire to them. But if that's the case, why didn't they make it Christopher Hitchens vs. Billy Graham? Oh, yes, because this was meant to be a scholarly, serious affair. The most worrisome possibility of all is, the sponsors legitimately believe that the views of this cantankerous buffoon are shared by the average atheist. If so, it is all the more important that a few moderate atheists be brought to campus to speak in the future. I'd hate for anyone to get the wrong impression.