8The Daijy Tar HeelThursday, April 7. 1963
Be ffatii!
Sar
tot
9.rt .year of editorial freedom
Kerry DeRochi, EYor
ALISON DAVIS, Managing Editor JEFF HlDAY, Associate Editor
LISA PULLEN,tnverjy yor JOHN CONWAY, CVy Editor
CHRISTINE MANUEL, State and National Editor KAREN FISHER, Features Editor
MIKEDeSISTI, Sports Editor' ' JEFF GROVE, Arts Editor
BlLLRlEDY, News Editor CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
First Amendment not for Christians only
By AMY NO VIT
All the world' s a stage
We, the editors of The Daily Tar Heel, have always felt obliged to en
dorse those candidates whom we feel are best qualified in elections per
tinent to life at UNC.So well-received and influential were our past-endorsements
(Cobey for U.S. Congress, Reckford for studenty body
President . . .), we thought Academy voters in Hollywood surely would
be waiting for word on the DTHs opinions before casting this year's
Oscar ballots.
So, here they are the DTHs picks for Monday's competition,
Hollywood's annual night of glamour and goosebumps.
Best Picture Gandhi. Director Richard Attenborough's dream of
20 years finally realized itself in the form of the year's grandest, and most
poignant, motion picture. As portrayed by Ben Kingsley, a legendary
figure came to vivid life.
Best Actor Dustin Hoffman, Tootsie. Dustin in drag proved to be
hilarious, moving and, ultimately, an insightful glance at sex roles in our
society.
Best Actress Meryl Streep, Sophie's Choice. Streep is one of those
actresses who will wind up in this category year after year. But this is the
year for Streep's first Best Actress Oscar. Streep drew upon the most
meticulous of speech patterns and mannerisms to create an unforgettable
heroine.
Best Supporting Actor Louis Gossett Jr., An Officer and a
Gentleman. Gossett's tough drill sergeant was one of the year's most un
forgettable screen characters, and the chemistry between Gossett and star
Richard Gere was nothing shy of perfection.
Best Supporting Actress Jessica Lange, Tootsie. No one in 1982.
broke as many hearts as Lange did, and she brought to Tootsie the
warmth and sensitivity which helped to make it one of the most lovable
motion pictures of the year. ,
Best Director Steven Spielberg, E.T. Spielberg's adorable alien
was the year's best-loved star and no director in recent memory has
elicited such memorable performances from a cast of child actors.
Now, the word has been issued. Thousands of baffled Academy voters
will rush to the DTH drop box outside of Groman's Chinese Theatre to
find some direction to their all-important ballot casting. And if the
DTITs endorsements are as successful as they have always been, the win
ners will be Missing, Peter O'Toole, Julie Andrews
. . . the men, players
No one has declared for the 1984 state Senate race, but you wouldn't
know i by Judging Sen. Jesse Heinisand Gov. Jim Hunt. Their political
machines are In motion and 'tHe"ciEipa1?unds' are growing. They're
putting on quite a show and fooling no one except maybe themselves.
A Hunt-Helms battle is nothing new in North Carolina. In 1981, Hunt
proposed a 3 percent-gasoline tax increase in order to subsidize his
dwindling state Highway Fund.
In return, Helms' unleashed his powerful political organization the
National Congressional Club waging a media campaign against
Hunt's increase.
Just one year later, Helms and his shadow Sen, John East switched
votes at the last minute to help pass a bill which doubled the federal excise
tax on cigarettes.
This time it was Hunt's political powerhouse that went to work. The
Campaign Fund took out full page ads in newspapers across the state
calling Helms and East the "Tobacco Tax Twins."
But apparently, even the worst of political enemies could become
friends if the cause was right. In April 1982, the two joined forces in
an effort to save the Cape Hatteras lighthouse. Together, they kicked off
a statewide fund-raiser, smiling broadly, while posing on the steps of the
capitol for photographers.
Now, there's only a year to go and both men seem more worried about
their own public image. Last month Helms introduced his version of a
social security bill to the Senate. Then he immediately pulled it back out,
perhaps after judging that it wouldn't be too popular. And Hunt has
been spending his time making eloquent speeches on education and the
need to crack down on drunk drivers.
It's the way of political machines, especially when the two most power
ful political figures in the state are pitted against one another. And it
won't end there. In fact, later this month, both Hunt and Helms will join
forces to rally support for the opening of the sand-clogged Oregon Inlet
on the N.C. coast. At that time, they'll probably smile a lot, shake hands
and be best friends at least for a day.
In the March 28 issue of The Daily Tar Heel, a column
by Tracey St. Pierre titled "The myth: separation of church
and state" was printed. This column was surprisingly writ
ten by a journalism major; I say surprisingly because it
was full of wild claims, vague references and quite a few
contradictions. I felt I needed to respond.
St. Pierre begins by stating that the First Amendment
does not contain the phrase "separation of church and
state." Therefore, according to her, since the Constitu
tion does not specifically use this phrase, it was not the
intention of the First Amendment to separate the church
from the government. And yet the Amendment clearly
states that "Congress shall make no law respecting the
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..." Not only does the Constitution declare that
the government may not make any laws concerning
religion, it goes a step further and states that the govern
ment has no hand in matters of religion at all. It gives
people the right to practice religion or not practice any i
religion, all without governmental interference. The First
Amendment offers not only freedom by not pushing a
religion prescribed by the government, but freedom by
not pushing a religion prescribed by the government, but
freedom by not prohibiting us to practice any religion
that we choose. Clearly this is a separation of church and
state. St. Pierre goes on to make the claim that the First
Amendment was written to "protect the church, not the
state." To suppose this is to twist the meaning of why
the Constitution was written in the first place. The pur
pose of the First Amendment was to protect the religious
freedom of each individual to worship how and if he
wanted without the fear of governmental persecution. If
this amendment protected the church in the bargain by
somehow keeping the state from having jurisdiction over
the church, then so much the better for those Americans
who chose to worship in the Christian faith. But to
declare that this is the reason that the First Amendment
was written is a narrow-minded and certainly self-serving
view. It seems to me that St. Pierre, not the Supreme
Court, has created a "new and completely arbitrary in
terpretation of the First Amendment. "
St. Pierre leaves many terms undefined, either because
she assumes that what she is saying is common
knowledge, or because she herself is unclear as to what
she means. What does it mean to say, in connection with
a political system, that "if a moral system is not being
legislated, then an immoral system is being legislated?"
St. Pierre is saying that there is some kind of universal
norm for morality that would define a political system as ,
moral or immoral. But what is her definition of. morali
ty? There are all kinds of ethical theories that try to ex
plain where morality comes from. Her definition of what
is "right" or "good" seems to come from the Christian
church. Does this mean that all non-Christians are im
moral? Or that all political systems not based on the
Christian religion are immoral? This statement is am
biguous and actually trivial to the rest of her argument,
which is why it is such a mystery that she included it in
the first place. ' .
St. Pierre states that our country was founded as a
Christian nation, and that "no system of law or govern
ment can be religiously or morally neutral." She seems
to forget that America was established as a refuge for
persecuted people of all lands, a place where they could
live and worship as they pleased. Perhaps complete
religious neutrality hasn't been established in our coun
try. But.by the very fact that the United States was
founded as a democracy (a form of government in which
the supreme power is vested in the people) and not a
theocracy (a form of government in which God or a
deity is recognized as the supreme ruler), it is evident that
our nation is not and was not ever supposed to be iden
tified as strictly Christian. St. Pierre says that the
original North Carolina Constitution demands the belief
in God, belief in Protestantism or belief in the divine
authority of the Old or New Testaments as a prerequisite
to holding any political office in the state. This is her
proof of the Christian foundings of our nation. But the
major word in this constitution is the word "or." Why
does St. Pierre think this only applies to Christians,
when Buddhists believe in God (but call him a different
name) and Jews believe in the Old Testament? Clearly
this original constitution covers many religions, a fact that
St. Pierre chooses to ignore. Another important point is
that this was the original constitution for North Carolina,
which means tht it has since been revised. If the original
constitution no longer stands, it does more harm than
good to St. Pierre's case to bring it to light.
After reading St. Pierre's column, I set out to
reconstruct her argument. My philosophy teaching assis
tant helped me come up with this summary argument of
St. Pierre's article:
Premise No.l: If the government won't support the
church, then religious freedom is jeopardized.
Premise No. 2: The government doesn't support the
church.
Conclusion: Therefore, religious freedom is being
threatened.
This argument is valid in form that is, the argument
proves the conclusion but the content is not valid at
all. St. Pierre declares that the second premise is true,
and as an example, she cites that the taking down of the
star from the top of the Planetarium is a way in which
the state doesn't support the church. This premise is
true. But the first premise is bizarre. St. Pierre seems to
equate religion with Christianity, and freedom of
religion with governmental support of the church. To
say that by not supporting the church the government is
threatening religious freedom misses the point of
religious freedom entirely. St. Pierre states that "the
Constitution was an instrument whereby existing
religious values of the nation could be protected and
perpetrated." But by saying before that the purpose of
the First Amendment was to protect the church, one
comes to the conslusion that she is saying that the Con
stitution (and therefore the First Amendment) was writ
ten in order to protect the existing Christian values. She'
is essentially saying that religious freedom means being
allowed to worship Protestantism as she wishes, but she
totally bypasses the plight of those who seek religious
freedom not to worship Protestantism. No one is stopp
ing St. Pierre from worshipping Christianity as she
chooses; she may fill her room or house with non-secular
objects and pray in her own fashion. But to put a Chris
tian religious symbol on top of the planetarium, a
secular establishment, is a violation of religious freedom
if one defines it in the usual sense of freedom for
everyone.
Finally, St. Pierre blows her entire argument to bits
with her concluding sentences. She says, "I can't believe
it's come to the point that a star can't be put on top of
the planetarium." Religion or not, the star first appeared
in the sky nearly 2,000 years ago when Jesus was born.
It's a scientific fact." By shifting her argument from
religious tQ scientific, St. Pierre discredits everything that
she has said up to that point. If she really is concerned
about science, she should have no objections to putting a
model of the Big Dipper on top of the planetarium. It
too is a scientific fact. To take away the religious mean
ing of the star is to deflate the argument. St. Pierre has
lost sight of her point, and I believe Ihave, too.
Amy Novit is a freshman from Bloomington, Ind.
S TO THEE
orroR
Lee shows musical integrity with Rundgren
To the editor:
Recently I have noticed something very
strange going on around here. Students on
campus have been asking each other,
"Who is Todd Rundgren?" It makes me
wonder how pervasive Todd's obscurity is
here, and why he's obscure at all. Rund
gren's is no new voice in rock. Recording
since 1968 with the Nazz, Utopia and solo,
he has gained fame and fortune as one of
the truly creative wizards of contemporary
music, "a true star." Todd may be one of
those artists about whose songs people say,
"That's Todd Rundgren?! I love that song
but 1 never knew it was him!'.' Songs like
"Hello, It's Me," "I Saw the light in
Your Eyes," "It Wouldn't Have Made
Any Difference," "We Gotta Get You a
Woman" and, recently, "Swing to the
Right" (with Utopia).
Todd has always attempted to expand
the horizons of rock with new studio
techniques and by combining pop, soul
and other genres of music to form his own
distinctive sound. Rundgren is a bonafide,
big-league rock 'n' roll star, and whether
you've heard of him or not, you will sell
yourself short by not at least listening to
his music before you make up your mind
not to go to this concert.
I find it amazing that Carolina Concert
for Children Chairperson Ben Lee has
contracted acts the quality of Rundgren
and U2 after years of second- and third
rate acts at outrageous prices. WXYC ap
plauds his attempts to inject some musical
integrity into this concert. U2 is one of the
most exciting bands anywhere. I think it is
unfortunate that on a major college cam
pus, where rock music traditionally has its
base, an act the quality of Todd Rundgren
is even questioned. But it is not too late to
wake up. Bill Burton
x WXYC station manager
Our, we urn fwiw
'rMPia& HOD SHU- MS 15 MBX KFEN3VE '
Pine Room greeting usually more like a threat
To the editor:
It has been getting on my nerves since
the beginning of the year, yet I have said
nothing thus far. However, I feel it is time
to discuss the behavior and courtesy of
the workers in the Pine Room.
There are three or four ladies who work
there that I like very much because they
are always helpful and ready to serve with
a great attitude. However, a majority of
personnel act as if they are doing us a
favor by serving us. They are rude, offen
sive and just plain impolite more often
than not. ; "
Sure, sometimes they ask, "Can I help
you?", but it usually sounds like a threat
rather than a greeting. The constant
bickering and arguing between workers is
very annoying, and seeing as there are no
places on campus to eat other than the
"Slow Break" or the snack bars in Mor
rison and James, I feel like the University
can and should do better for the out
rageous prices they charge for third-rate
Not much to say
To the editor:
Judging by the editorial page lately, it
appears that The Daily Tar Heel will print
anything. Therefore I've decided there's
no better time to be vain and see my name
in print.
I'm sorry I don't have anything of ma
jor importance to say. I would say that I
have a job when I graduate, but I'm likely
to be stoned to death by envious seniors. I
would mention El Salvador, toxic waste
or homosexual rights, but I've led a shel
tered life I don't believe they exist.
I know! I'll write about the apathy on
campus. No, no one cares about that. I
should write about bricking all of the grass
over, or chopping down all of the trees, or
building more dorms or fewer libraries or
making Comp 114 a requirement for
graduation.
I think, instead, I'll just say nothing. I'll
just leave school quietly and join the
establishment peacefully. Maybe now the
CIA will stop opening my mail.
Rusty Sebastian
Chapel Hill
Not laughing over comics
The Bottom Line
If Chapel Hill is even half as gullible as .
Philadelphia, close your eyes and pray for
a pothole. And hope that you break your
ankle when you find one.
A woman in the City of Brotherly Love
did just that when she fell into a 3-inch-deep
pothole. Then, she sued the city for
negligence arid" won $600,000.
"The jurors must have had their heads
in the sand," an official for the
Philadelphia Solicitor's office said. A
jury in Philadelphia Common Pleas
Court ruled last week that the city was
negligent in failing to repair the pothole
and ordered Philadelphia to pay the
award to Betty Rogers 32. City officials
say they will appeal the case.
Rogers broke her ankle in two places
May 17, 1978, when she stepped off a
curb into the sinister pothole. Her lawyers
said her ankle never healed properly, and
now she is prevented from even standing
up.
One of Rogers' lawyers, Robert
Davitch, said, "What I think is
outrageous is that the city permitted that
hole to remain there for six or seven
years."
He said the hole was repaired in 1981
by the owner of a restaurant who "went
out with a wheelbarrow and filled the
hole with cement."
The fountain of life
Two holes are better than one. Two
holes also give you "a bigger mouth-full
quicker."
To the editor:
Congratulations on reaching a new all
time low in public service! It's nice to
know that you prefer to feed your readers
on two-bit advertising and features ar
ticles, but it's a travesty to leave out the
comics on which most people dearly de
pend. Of what use1 is the paper anyway
unless you run something really vital to
student interests? If this is your idea of
"new journalism" please spare us from
being the guinea pigs in your experiment
"and don't sell your soul for a fast buck.
, - Michael Norris
Carrboro
Thanks for edit
To the editor:
Thanks for your excellent edi
torial ("Tune to divest," DTH,
March 24) advocating divestment by
UNC of holdings in all companies
doing business in South Africa.
Even if the multinationals currently
making millions by exploiting the
labor and resources of South Africa
were truly "working for change
from within," their continued
presence would be suspect. As any
evidence is absent that such cor
porations are seriously striving for
reform (why should they, when they
make too much money off the
status quo?), their staying is inex
cusable. Rob Gelblum
Law School
According to Dennis
product manager of the
company, drinking from a
which is equipped with
Bubbler is safer and more
drinking from a fountain
single projector.
Heyden, local
Halsey Taylor
water fountain
a Two-Stream
satisfying than
that has only a
Most conventional water fountains
.have what appears to be a single stream
of water that is projected up in the shape
of a parabola. Yet, hidden beneath that
stream is another stream that emerges
from a small opening just behind the
opening for the main stream arid
you've got your Two-Stream Bubbler.
the Bubbler, as it is 'affectionately
referred to, was invented in 1912 by a Mr.
Halsey Taylor for submission to the
secretary of the U.S. Army
Rather than letting water that had
touched one's mouth fall, back on the
projector, the Taylor design left the water
to fall in a drain, consequently reducing
the chance of germs being transmitted
from one drinker to another from the
projector. .
And that's the safe, satisfying bottom
line.
aigain with guerrillas
By WINSTON GILCHRIST
As Congress considers providing additional military aid to
the government of El Salvador, the debate over the impor
tance of this tiny Central American nation to the United States
and the appropriate American response to the crisis there
grows increasingly intense.
No informed person can question that the United States has
vital national interests in Central America. Lying on the
southern flank of the United States and controlling the sea
lanes to and from the Panama Canal, Central America has
great strategic significance. The United States also has exten
sive economic interests in the area, including large corporate
investments.
Although El Salvador occupies only a small portion of Cen
tral America, the internal strife presently taking place in that
country seriously threatens broader American interests in the
area. If forces inimical to the United States seize power in El
Salvador, the Soviet Union will expand its influence in
America's backyard, and other nations such as Honduras,
Guatemala and even Mexico may well be threatened.
In seeking to increase military aid to El Salvador, President
Reagan's administration hopes to help the Salvadoran Army
crush the rebelling guerrillas. In seeking a military solution,
however, the administration may well be damaging American
interests. The failed U.S. attempt to resolve the Vietnam con
flict with military power immediately comes to mind.
Although Vietnam and El Salvador should not be paralleled
too closely, conditions in El Salvador do resemble those that
existed in Vietnam in several important respects. As was true in
Vietnam, forces support by the United States in El Salvador
find themselves fighting a guerrilla war in difficult terrain with
minimal support from the indigenous population. Such factors
will make defeating the insurgents very difficult, even if the
United States takes the drastic step of introducing American
combat troops.
Given the problems associated with a military solution,
negotiating with the insurgents seems to be a much more viable
option for resolving the crisis. By bargaining with the guerrillas
and by suggesting to any coalition government that negotia
tions may product substantial economic and technical aid to
induce cooperation with the United States, the administration
could possibly secure a friendly government in El Salvador,
reduce Soviet influence in Central America and protect
American national interests.
Of course the Salvadoran rebels may be, as Reagan claims,
hard-core Communists determined to forcibly seize power. If
such is the case, Reagan faces the most difficult decision of his
presidency: whether to prop up a weak Salvadoran regime,
with American troops if necessary, or to allow El Salvador to
fall into Communist hands. But we as a nation will cross that
bridge if and when we come to it. For the present we may still
hope that all parties will be willing to end the conflict in a
reasonable and peaceful manner. 4 "
Winston Gilchrist is a sophomore history and political
science major from Sanford.
food, or whatever it is that they serve.
I feel like management is the problem.
Last semester, under a man we called
"Mr. Pine Room," the food quality was
better and the attitudes of the workers
were much less "gestapo-like."
The University and ARA cannot expect
us to pay $100 for a meal plan for service
that is comparable to prison food. I hope
ARA will either ax some employees or
shape up some attitudes.
Phil Bridges
Ehringhaus
Favorite slogan
To the editor:
When I read Bill Marsh's letter ("Dis
tinguished statesmen," DTH, March 31),
I was reminded of one of my favorite
T-shirt slogans: "Once I was disgusted
Now I'm just amused." It describes my
reaction to his letter quite well. I simply
cannot understand how a person can em
brace the politics of Senators Helms and
East with such enthusiasm. With low
level zeal, OK; with reservations, sure;
with some regrets, understandable; but
"a privilege to live in a state represented
by two such distinguished statesmen as
Helms and East?" I break out in laughter.
Distinguished? Helms? Past? I'm
sorry, but I just cannot make the mental
leap across a chasm that wide. I count
myself among those who are embarrassed
to have Helms and East for senators. In
fact, so many of my friends and acquain
tances consider Helms and East to be re
grettable at best that I find myself asking
"Who is voting for these men?" And so I
read a letter like Marsh's with a smile and
a nod, saying: "Ah yes. Here's one.
Here's one. Sure enough."
Steven R. Brown
Chapel HiU
Blood brothers
To the editor:
We would like to thank the residents of
Morrison Residence College for their help
in a recent emergency. Recent snowfall
caused the cancellation of several blood
mobiles across the state. Because the Red
Cross could not maintain a safe supply of
blood, Betsy Ferrell, the Red Cross field
consultant, called Alpha Phi Omega, the
service fraternity that coordinates all the
campus bloodmobiles. APO then con
tacted Greg Hinson and Mark Brown of
Morrison. In less than 24 hours the resi
dents recruited the necessary donors and
volunteers for the bloodmobile. Their
prompt action allowed the Red Cross to
continue supplying blood to the hospitals
in this region. Thank you.
Betsy Ferrell
Red Cross Field Consultant
Ruth Lucas
Campus Bloodmobile Coordinator