8The Daily Tar Heel Thursday September 12, 1985
ttssar
6
God.
9
uDroar
93 rd year of editorial freedom
pang, yj
aim
dead
IS
Arne Rickert and David Schmidt
Editor Editor
Stuart Tonkinson
Ben Perkowski
Dick Anderson
Janet Olson
Amy Styers
Andy Trincia
Managing Editor
Associate Editor
Associate Editor
University Editor
News Editor
State and National Editor
Leigh Williams aty Editor
Mark Powell
Lee Roberts
Frank Bruni
Sharon Sheridan
Larry Childress
Business Editor
Sports Editor
Arts Editor
Features Editor
Photo Editor
You wouldn't recognize her
It's nice to know that in this age of
great renewed construction at UNC
only matched in dimension by the
construction of the early 1960s certain
people have not forgotten to keep an
eye out for details. But actually, the
details we're speaking of arent con
cerned with the Student Activities
Center that is reputed to be nearing
completion; nor are they concerned with
the aesthetically transcend ant new dorm,
or with the new computer center on the
block. Nope, they're right here on our
own home turf.
Or rather, they're right here in our
own little Student Union building. You
see, there is hope that instead of merely
space is due to be renovated by our own
dear Physical Plant wit"n the course
of a few months. The intended outcome
is the installation of a new vending area
(offering a wider variety than exists in
the Union), and the creation of a new,
dare one say, clean, student lounge.
As for the bowling alley downstairs,
one must certainly almost cry each time
one passes by. Such a waste of space
for the pleasure of so few cannot ever
have been known to man before this day.
Unfortunately, not all things come to
an end, and the bowling alley has
apparently not yet met its peak of disuse.
Our guess is that bowling is "out" with
jumping on the construction bandwagon the younger generation, but perhaps
to suit the Student Union's "changing we're not hip enough to comment
needs," we can cultivate a useful old
Southern tradition of reconstruction.
Any student who frequents the Union
building these days must have gotten the
chilling sensation at least once or twice
that things have become disjointed
within our young but still highly vital
building. But have no fear, for as was
reported Wednesday in the DTH the
Student Union building has at last been
well consult our Playboy style guide and
get back to you on that one. At any
rate, the old alleys are bound to suffer
under direct competition. Part of the
alleys' quarters are soon to take on the
aspect of a vast field of green.
No, we're not talking about the
"links." WeVe already got a golf course
near campus. Rather, the "pool hall" will
be moving in from across the way. And
slated for . . . shall we say, redecorative. in its former place, students may be
purposes. happy to hear that there will be a student
Well, the old Fastbreak .area (what cabaret, complete with a sound system
a cagey misnomer!) has been in a state and lighting equipment. Thus, at long
of disuse for some time now, perhaps .last, all social affairs need not be
dating even to the time when it was still recklessly sunk into that great pit of
open. Today, in fact, it resembles a seriousness which we call Great Hall,
museum exhibit more than anything else What this all spells out, behind the
(and by now its appearance certainly jocularity with which we treat the matter,
must have led manv a freshman to is a proiuna cnange m the nature oi tne
ponder the reason why such curios as
old hard-plastic chairs and imitation
wood-top tables are to be valued so
highly and imprisoned in such environ
mental stasis at such great pains). As
recently determined plans state, the
Student Union. On a campus that often
seems to be seeking a center for its
energy, the Student Union has become
less and less defined in recent years. But
these current plans hold promise for the
future.
Fighting over worldwide rites
There's apparently no limit as to what
Rupert Murdoch will get his hands into.
Murdoch, the Australian entrepreneur
turned American citizen, already seems
to have it all. You want a movie studio?
He owns half of Twentieth-Century Fox.
TV stations? He's about to acquire seven
of the largest independents in the nation
from Metromedia. Newspapers? He has
a international chain on three conti
nents, ranging from the prestigeous (The
Times of London) to the outrageously
sleazy (tabloids such as the New York
Post. Furthermore, Murdoch just stole
gossip columnist Suzy she broke the
news about Madonna's engagement
away from the New York Daily News
to work for him. So what's left for
Murdoch to do grab up syndication
rights to a column by the pope?
Not anymore. He's done that, too.
More than 200 newspapers worldwide
began running a column based on the
writings of Pope John Paul II over the
weekend, and the Vatican is blowing
smoke about the whole thing.
"Astonishment and disapproval" was
the reaction from the press quarters of
the Holy See. The column was further
blasted for copyrighting the pope's
words, thus indicating "exclusive nghts"
to the material.
His "rights" to the material notwith
standing, Murdoch is carrying the
column for all the wrong reasons. While
Murdoch may have some noble inten
tions in spreading the word of the world's
most powerful religious official, it seems
that his primary motivation is greed.
Unauthorized writings are not uncom
mon, but more often than not they are
the stuff that quickie bestsellers are made
of, you know, fly-by-night biographies
of Michael Jackson, Madonna, and
most recently, Lee Iacocca. But the pope
is not an entertainment figure; he is a
man to be respected, whether or not you
share his religious beliefs.
The pope deserves better than this. He
has dedicated his life to religion,
shunning personal gain. Murdoch is
virtually the opposite, and only reinfor
ces his on-again, off-again reputation of
shoddy journalism with his latest
venture.
Murdoch, in short, has two options:
Donate the column's earnings to the
church (something he is loathe to do),
or discontinue it altogether.
Stick to Suzy, Rupert.
A good lesson to learn
The Senate's killing Tuesday of
legislation aimed at permitting organ
ized prayer in public schools was another
low blow to the New Right's agenda of
social issues. That alone makes the
Senate's action commendable, but it
should also be applauded for simply
being the correct thing to do.
The bill, sp onsored by none other than
our own Sen. Helms, would have
removed the prayer issue from federal
court jurisdiction, giving state and local
governments power to allow prayers in
schools if they chose to do so. It was
a tricky attempt known as "court
stripping" to slip the issue past the
federal courts.
Trickiness aside, Sen. Helms' bill died
a justified death. Trie school prayer issue
has too long served as a political
football; and the Senate's 62 to 36 vote
not only strongly rejects the proposal,
but signals, we hope, declining public
support for religion-related crusades of
the New Right.
Every time the prayer issue comes up
many New Right politicians are more
than happy to use it to challenge
opponent politicians' commitment to
family, home, God, the American way,
and everything else that is good, right
and moral. Somehow opposition to
organized school prayer for whatever
reasons is construed as opposition to
religion at least, that's what some
proponents seem to want the public to
believe.
Organized school prayer is a clear
encroachment into the proper separation
of church and state that this country was
founded upon. A publicly run school
system should in no manner appear to
endorse or favor any particular religious
belief. The rights of those students who
do not believe in prayer should be
respected. This does not thwart religion
in any way, it is not anti-God, it merely
takes organized prayer out of an
improper setting; -
There are those who will probably say
that our opposition to organized school
prayer only confirms the ridiculous
accusations that our choice of the
Nietzsche quote reflects our editorial
opinion, religious bias, moral corrupt
ness, etc. Apparently these same people
won't be satisfied until there is one
national religion and persecution
becomes the order of the day.
'DTH' shows some boldness
with controversial quote
To the editors:
As both a concerned agnostic and
a socially conscious student
appalled at the current political and
economic power of the various
Christian fascist New Right groups
both on campus and across the
country, I applaud the DTITs use
of Nietzsche's now infamous "God
is dead" quote (Sept. 4). It is not
that I would deny the right for some
people to believe that their God is
alive, but rather, I am happy that
the DTH has become bold enough
to ruffle the feathers of the so-called
Christians so soon into the semester.
I am surprised that the DTH did
not wait at least until these same
people, who complain about things
they would rather not hear, begin
their lunchtime barrages in the Pit,
effectively forcing thousands of
people to listen to their antiquated
fundamentalist blurbs that many of
us do not want to hear. Born-again
Christians enjoy a religious freedom
that allows them to try to impose
their moral values upon those who
are not so adamant. Yet at the same
time, they object to the expression
of any religious or non-religious
views that contradict theirs. Is
freedom of religion only acceptable
if it is Christian? Hypocrisy seems
to flourish here.
I am sure that if the D TH instead
had run the generic fundamentalist
quote "God is alive" the born-agains
would have been ecstatic that they
had finally taken control of our
newspaper's moral slant some
thing that they most aspire to, but
moreso on a world level. I am also
sure that had such a quote been
printed, the less religious people
among us would have condoned it,
but' would have attributed it to be
one of the more unsavory bypro
ducts of the First Amendment.
Now I am waiting patiently for
the DTH to print something to the
tune of "Lucifer is alive and well
and living in West Virginia," so that
God's renowned disciple on this
earth, Jerry Falwell, can unleash his
wrath upon this newspaper. Praise
the Lord!
Michael Smith
Chapel Hill
Religious totalitarianism?
To the editors:
A challenge is an invitation to
debate, argue and reason. Ken
Throckmorton's "challenge" to
"good" Christians ("Christians must
fight the good fight, 'DTH'," Sept.
1 1) is hardly that. It is nothing more
than a thinly veiled call for religious
totalitarianism, something no demo
cracy can tolerate. It puts him on
a par with Rabbi Kahane and
Ayatollah Khomeini, both religious
men contemptuous of democracy.
The ultimate irony behind the
poisonous closed-mindedness of
those so highly offended by the
Nietzsche quote is their failure to
acknowledge the source of the
following day's quote by St. Aug
ustine ("Hear the other side," Sept.
5) hardly an atheist.
Of course God is alive. Our faith
in the Holy Spirit, whether Jewish
or Christian, is a testimony to that
life. I do not know about Throck
morton's faith, but mine teaches
compassion, not persecution, and
the ability to reason, not strike out
in blind hatred.
Throckmorton might wish to
consider another of Nietzsche's
quotes, "What does not kill me,
makes me stronger." If one cannot
survive such a mild challenge to
faith as a quote in the DTH, then
the faith was sorely lacking to begin
with. To survive the challenge with
faith intact can only make one
stronger. It's a shame it can't make
Throckmorton wiser, as well.
BradTorgan
Chapel Hill
A view from The Far Side
To the editors: at UNC stopped reading the DTH,
In response to the column by Ken they would miss out on The Far
Throckmorton ("Christians must Side, and humor can be just as
fight the good fight, 'DTH'," Sept. important as God.
11): I admire your strength and Dexter Mandrake
conviction, Ken, but if all Christians Chapel Hill
C
(
L .
Accusation of blasphemy fanatic in nature
To the editors:
Ken Throckmorton ("Christians
must fight the good fight, 'DTH',"
Sept. 11) is an interesting sort of
Christian. He is apparently gifted
with a positive knowledge of right
and wrong, and seems to find the
distinction between good and evil
as sharp as that between night and
day everyone is either on the side
of the angels or the demons. The
battle lines are clearly drawn, and
there's no spiritual "no-man's land."
Right or wrong, good or evil,
Christian or heathen, period. j c
I can imagine all sorts of circum
stances in which such confident
ethical judgments would come in
handy why, if you worked at it,
you would never make a morally
incorrect decision! Unfortunately,
the price for such sure judgmental
ability is steep: You must be willing
to completely sacrifice your reason
and become a fanatic. When a writer
levels the charge of blasphemy at
the editors of a student newspaper
for running a historically significant
quote by a largely discredited
philosopher as their daily salute,
and interprets this as a deliberate
frontal assault on the Trinity with
potentially dire consequences
("Only God knows what you may
have done . . .") I say he can safely
be labeled a fanatic . . . though I
prefer the term "nut."
The real world, Throckmorton,
is not some massive stage on which
a morality play is constantly being
acted out; it's not that simple.
Distinctions between good and evil
are often very hard to come by, and
those of us who don't see things with
the clarity you possess because of
your particular brand of madness
must often make moral decisions
' the hard way by thought, reflec
tion and prayer, rather than by a
stamped-out set of moral prejudi
ces. The "theology" you espouse,
Ken, is an offense to intelligent
people, and especially intelligent
Christians, everywhere. Your hys
terical, splenetic study in overreac
tion that ran as a column in the
DTH Wednesday makes a mockery
of the principles you claim to
champion.
The DTH wasn't launching an
' atheistic assault on Christianity by
running the Nietzsche quote: If you
want a reason to stand up for Christ
and Christian justice, why not find
a real one: Scan the front page of
any good newspaper, identifying the
uncountable injustices and indigni
ties chronicled there, and do what
you can to better one or two of these
situations.
You might also look at the front
page quote that ran the next day
inthe77.
Barry Campbell
Chapel Hill
Varied ideas a blessing
Quote choice skewed logic
To the editors:
My compliments on Arne's
column "Be not fearful of taboos"
("To the dth degree," Sept. 9). You
eloquently displayed your knowl
edge of English vocabulary. You
also revealed your competence in
logical principles with words such
as "fallacious" and "reverse logic."
Just a couple of corrections, though,
Arne. One of your arguments was
that you choose your quotes from
"world literature." Nietzsche's
works are a part of world literature;
therefore, you used Nietzsche's
quotation, "God is dead." I'm sure
with your extensive knowledge of
logic, you would recognize this as
the "fallacy of composition" apply
ing the whole to parts. That is as
fallacious as saying "because this
whole University is dedicated to
learning, every student at this
University is dedicated to learning."
Who decides what world literature
is anyway? I seem to recall a
quotation from last year as saying,
"When the elevator tries to take you
down, go crazy." I'm sure most
critics would agree with you, Arne,
that Prince is an influential figure
in world literature.
Arne, you also defended yourself
with the argument that your critics
thought the quotation to be inap
propriate for "food for thought," yet
they proceeded to contradict them
selves by telling you their thoughts.
I urge you to consider that you have
struck at the very essence of our
existence. God is alive! We will fight
back to defend our God. This goes
beyond mere , political, moral or
social opinion (which are good
subjects for thought). You have
challenged God. I feel that the
Christians are due an open apology.
"And they have said, 'The Lord does
not see, nor does the God of Jacob
pay heed.' Pay heed, you senseless
among the people; and when will
you understand, stupid ones? The
Lord knows the thoughts of man,
that they are a mere breath." (Psalm
94:7, 8,11 NASV) :
Kevin Graham Ford
Chapel Hill
To the editors:
Can you say overreaction? C'mon
on, Ken, do you really think that
because the DTH prints a quote by
Nietzsche (whom you failed to
mention in your column, "Chris
tians must fight the good fight,
'DTH'," Sept. 11) that the editors
are compelled to proclaim it as their
own belief? Does it really seem to
you that simply because they
printed one man's view of religion
in the modern world that they
"slapped Jesus Christ in the face"
and "launched an, attack" on God?
I am quite proud of the fact that
I attend an open-minded, liberal
university that is free of the senseless
censorship of the Moral Majority
and other such groups. It is an
invaluable asset to the University
community in general to be exposed
to as many varying views as pos
sible. I may not find the slightest
bit of truth or sense in some of them,
but I feel that I have given myself
a broader understanding of life and
that I have given a new idea at least
a chance at validity.
I do not agree with Nietzsche's
idea that "God is dead;" I feel that
he is very much alive in this world.
I also do not agree with Ken
Throckmorton's exaggerations of
the intent and implications of
printing this quote. I am glad to
have been exposed to both these
views, however, and I am glad to
be able to expose mine.
Paul J. Pickhardt
Alexander
Playing politics with God
Gosh darn, Throckmorton!
To the editors:
Gosh darn, Ken Throckmorton
("Christians must fight the good
fight, 'DTH'," Sept, 11), I missed
where the DTH declared God is
dead. All I saw was a quote (i.e.,
someone's opinion) on the bottom
of the front page. It's not like the
editors put "God is dead" in a
banner headline without ascribing
it to anyone or wrote an article
citing conclusive evidence that God
has kicked the bucket. Quoting
Nietzsche's "God is dead" is as
meaningless as me quoting Throck
morton's "God is alive now, today"
because that is his opinion not mine,
just as Nietzsche's opinion is not
necesarily the DTHs.
And, Rickert and Schmidt, please,
keep printing these controversial
quotations, they make your Reader
Forum very amusing. I like to see
how "offensensative" people can be.
Allyson Mathis
Parker
To the editors:
In response to Rick Spargo's
letter "Is there no room at the Inn
for the house of God?" (Sept. 6),
I would like to express my concern
that our society has reached the
point where we have had to establish
such restrictions on the use of our
public buildings by religious groups.
I believe, however, that such
regulations are necessary to preserve
what little separation is left between
church and state in our nation
today. Too many people are com-
To the editors:
I attended the "Rock and Roll
A Search for G-d" seminar last
Thursday with a search for a good
laugh in mind. Instead, I learned
that all rock 'n' roll is evil and uses
Satan for a medium. I learned that
if I detest rock 'n' roll music because
of its anti-Christian message, I will
reach G-d. I learned that rock music
uses Satanic backward masking to
persuade this nation's youth away
bining their religious and political
views into one political philosophy
and then trying to establish the
combination as our system of
government. No one points this out
as clearly as Rick Spargo, who
argues that his religious group is
being denied the privileges of other
groups which are political in nature
and then signs the letter as a
representative of the College
Republicans.
Alice Marshbanks
Chapel Hill
from the true Savior and into the
clutches of sex, drugs and violence.
I learned that an innocent freshman
cannot be lured and deceived by a
religious cult called Maranatha
Campus Ministries. How could this
happen at a state institution called
UNC? In a country with such lofty
founding principles such as separa
tion of church and state?
- Jackie Carr
; Chapel Hill