8The Daily Tar HeelFriday. Srn'
mi n OP-)
atlit ar mti
The nuts and bolts of atheism
91st year of editorial freedom
Kerry DeRochi, ejuot
ALISON DAVIS, Managing Editor JEFF HlDAY, Associate Editor
LISA PULLEN, University Editor
Christine Manuel, state and National Editor
MIKE DeSISTI, Sports Ediltr
BILL RIEDY, News Editor
John Conway, aty Editor
KAREN lSHEK, Features Editor
Jeff Grove, Am Editor
CHARLES W. LEDFORD, Photography Editor
On the air
An idea on campus to exploit Village Cable's University-access chan
nel, at present a blank channel silent except for Muzak, is so obvious that
until now the opportunity has been virtually ignored. It has taken the im
pressive initiative of two UNC students, John Wilson and Walt Boyle, to
spark interest in putting the channel to good" use. Their plan to air
student-produced programs, perhaps in the P.M. Magazine genre,
deserves commendation and support of all students.
According to John Bittner, chairman of the department of radio,
television and motion pictures, the concept of student-run TV is being
talked about at universities all over the nation. But a successful P.M.
Magazine format would be a national first. At Duke, a campus cable
system already in operation is the largest in the world. Students there air
programs 15 to 20 hours per week, offering broadcasts of football games,
nightly newscasts and talk shows.
There are endless possibilities for expanding, developing and enhanc
ing broadcasts of University events. Wilson and Boyle suggest that only a
few hours of programming be shown per week at first, but even in that
time special University goings-on could be covered like never before:
rallies in the Pit, poetry readings, plays, concerts and speeches.
The only limit is imagination and, of course, money. Already, Wilson
and Boyle are trying to obtain money from the Carolina Union and the
Campus Governing Council for electronic news-gathering equipment
such as portable videotape cameras and recorders, along with editing
equipment. After setting up, the student broadcasters would have to pro
vide and maintain quality programming, but it should not prove difficult
to cull an attentive audience. The only hurdle is that programming would
not be available to all UNC students; cable-TV hook-ups will not be in
stalled in residence hall rooms for at least another couple of years. But
off-campus students and Granville residents could still tune in, and
students living in residence halls could watch the shows on videotape in
the Union.
Important now is a display of support by students. Wilson said that a
questionnaire will be ready soon, and you can rest assured that ad
ministrators will take note of the results. They want to find out how
pressing the issue is, if on-campus students want cable hook-ups in their
rooms and if they support the proposal to air shows over the University
access channel.
Once the logistics are taken care of, the budding Charles Kuralts can
get down to the productive business of putting to good use a medium that
can inform and entertain both students and townspeople alike. With, and
only with, student support, the University-access channel can become an
established UNC information outlet.
Powerless act
Let's play a game; we'll call it Subverting the War Powers Act; the ob
ject being to twist the law to your own advantage. First, you say the Act
can't apply to you. Next, you say it's against the law. Then, you simply
ignore it exists, make up your own, and congratulations you win or is
it lose.
If you're confused, just ask Ronald Reagan for advice. In the middle
of controversy over control of U.S. Marines in Lebanon, he was able to
make a deal with congressional leaders to ward off enactment of the 1973
War Powers Act. The Marines would stay where they were and for 18
months. It didn't seem to matter that the War Powers Act mandated that
the president notify Congress when troops faced hostility and then
withdraw those troops within 60 days unless Congress decided otherwise.
Of course, Reagan didn't always have it this easy. At first he tried to
say the Marines weren't in hostile territory. They were on a "peacekeep
ing" mission designed to stabilize the Lebanese government. Then, four
Marines were shot and killed. Reagan continued the rhetoric on the
merits of peacekeeping, but this time Congress wouldn't listen. The
lawmakers began questioning the right of the president to decide what
were "hostile" conditions, anxious for a voice in that decision.
In the end, a law designed to eliminate more "Vietnams" was turned
into a central support for Reagan policy destined to create them. Reagan
got what he wanted: continued control of the Marines positions. And
the once-miffed congressmen were happy at not being left out.
Realistically, the 18-month agreement was nothing more than a flimsy
cover for continued confusion in U.S. policy toward Lebanon. Such an
agreement only delayed a decision until after the 1984 elections. Reagan
has called it a victory for the U.S. "bipartisan" peace effort. But that
somehow rings hollow against the realization that 1,200 Marines will stay
in Beirut, helping the Lebanese army while they save the remnants of the
peacekeeping mission.
Controversy surrounding the War Powers Act has enabled federal of
ficials to continue ignoring the reality of the Lebanon struggle. They've
granted themselves the right to keep the Marines in battle zones without
every justifying why.
The Daily Tar Heel
Editorial Writers: Frank Bruni, Charles Ellmaker and Kelly Simmons
Assistant Managing Editors: Joel Broadway, Tracy Hilton and Michael Toole
Assistant News Editor: Melissa Moore
News: Tracy Adams, Dick Anderson, Joseph Berryhill, Angela Booze, J. Bonasia, Keith
Bradsher, Amy Brannen, Lisa Brantley, Hope Buffington, Tom Cordon, Kathie Collins, Kate
Cooper, Teresa Cox, Lynn Davis, Dennis Dowdy, Chris Edwards, Suzanne Evans, Kathy
Farley, Steve Ferguson, Genie French, Kim Gilley, Marymelda Hall, Andy Hodges, Sue Kuhn,
Liz Lucas, Thad Ogburn, Beth O'KeUey, Janet Olson, Rosemary Osborne, Heidi Owen, Beth
Ownley, Cindy Parker, Donna Pazdan, Ben Perkowski, Frank Proctor, Linda Queen, Sarah
Raper, Mary Alice Resch, Cindi Ross, Katherine Schultz, Sharon Sheridan, Deborah Simp
kins, Jodi Smith, Sally Smith, Lisa Stewart, Mark Stinneford, Carrie Szymeczek, Liz Saylor,
Mike Sobeiro, Amy Tanner, Doug Tate, Wayne Thompson, Vance Trefethen, Chuck Wall
ington, Scott Wharton, Lynda Wolf, Rebekah Wright, Jim Zook, Kyle Marshall, assistant
state and national editor, and Stuart Tonkinson, assistant university editor.
Sports: Frank Kennedy and Kurt Rosenberg, assistant sports editors. Glenna Burress, Kimball
Crossley, Pete Fields, John Hackney, Lonnie McCullough, Robyn Norwood, Michael Pers
inger, Julie Peters, Glen Peterson, Lee Roberts, Mike Schoor, Scott Smith, Mike Waters,
David Wells, Eddie Wooten and Bob Young.
Features: Dawn Brazell, Clarice Bickford, Tom Camacho, Toni Carter, Margaret Claiborne,
Karen Cotten, Cindy Dunlevy, Charles Gibbs, Tom Grey, Kathy Hopper, Dana Jackson,
Charles Karnes, Joel Katzenstein, Dianna Massie, Kathy Norcross, Jane Osment, Clinton
Weaver and Mike Truell, assistant features editor.
Arts: Steve Carr, Ivy Hilliard, Jo Ellen Meekins, Gigi Sonner, Sheryl Thomas and David
. Schmidt, assistant arts editor.
Graphic Arts: Jamie Francis, Lori Heeman, Ryke Longest, Jeff Neuville, Zane Saunders and
Lori Thomas, photographers.
Business: Anne Fulcher, business manager; Tammy Martin, accounts receivable clerk; Dawn
Welch, circulationdistribution manager; William Austin, assistant circulationdistribution
manager; Patti Pittman, classified advertising manager; Julie Jones, assistant classified adver
tising manager; Debbie McCurdy, secretaryreceptionist.
Advertising: Paula Brewer, advertising manager; Mike Tabor, advertising coordinator; Laura
Austin, Melanie Eubanks, Kevin Freidheim, Patricia Gorry, Terry Lee, Doug Robinson and
Anneli Zeck ad representatives.
Composition: UNC-CH Printing Department
Printing: Hinton Press, Inc. of Mebane.
By KEN LANGSTON
Why is an atheist organization needed in the United
States today?
Because this question aroused my curiosity, I decid
ed to attend and participate in the first meeting of
UNC's American Atheists. So, at 7:30 p.m. Monday,
I entered Room 205 of the Carolina Union, prepared to
be intellectually challenged and morally stimulated by
the views of people whom I expected to be both psy
chologically mature and mentally astute. Instead, I
was confronted with black-board diagrams and print
ed materials. I was zealously and, dare I say, reli
giously preached a sermon on what it meant to be a
"true" atheist.
In a style characteristic of the religious right, the
group denounced America's greatest evil, religion, as a
demon which oppresses minorities, hinders scientific
progress, and produces a class of "nuts" who want to
impose their values and beliefs on everyone else. (For
those of you who are unfamiliar with reality as this
particular group of atheists perceive it, there are right
wing nuts who hold to the tenets of a fundamentalist
faith, main-line nuts who profess ridiculous creeds and
adhere to anarchronistic values, and liberal nuts who,
although somehwat intelligent, .nevertheless say silly
things based on emotion rather than reason. Of
course, there is nothing unreasonable or emotional
about lumping all religious individuals together as
"nuts." After all, this conclusion was arrived at by
"enlightened" minds.)
Perhaps they are unaware of the fact that the Civil
Rights struggle in this country was motivated to a large
extent by the deep religious convictions of such men as
the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., that many of
our greatest scientific breakthroughs were made by
deeply religious men such as Newton, Sedgewick,
Mendel, Darwin and Einstein no matter how un
orthodox they may have been, and that many "nuts"
such as Baptists, Deists, Jews and Unitarians
have not only helped establish and maintain a separa
tion of church and state, but have also continued to
push for, even stronger, stricter, and clearer separation
today.
sentiments, these apostles of reactionary atheism
demanded that true atheists wage a holy war against
religion whenever and wherever possible.
Lest my position be misunderstood by my atheist
friends, I am not attacking the political goals of
atheism. That we maintain a strict separation of
church and state, that we limit the social and economic
power of organized religion, and that we defend free
dom "from" religion as well as freedom of religion
all are vital concerns in a pluralistic liberal democracy
such as ours.
. . . the ground denounced America 's greatest evil, religion, as a demon which op
presses minorities, hinders scientific research and produces a class of "nuts1
But subtle distinctions, tactful approaches and his
torical reality were as irrelevant to the group as they
are to many members of the new religious right. In the
black-and-white conception of reality, one was either
an "enlightened" atheist or an ignorant and malicious
theist: There was no middle ground for those who
considered themselves agnostic or for those who con
sidered themselves both atheist and religious (as many
Buddhists, Hindus, Unitarians and Jews do) much
less for anyone under the false assumption that he or
she could be both religious and enlightened. What was
important for these "fundamentalist" atheists was (1)
that "true" atheism be strictly defined, (2) that atheists
remain pure of any religious influence and (3) that
atheists destroy religion before religion destroys socie
ty. Proudly admitting that they sought neither alliance
nor dialogue with those who held any type of religious
However, in. pursuit of these goals, let us not replace
the prejudice and intolerance of those who adhere to a
strict religious world view with new forms of prejudice
and intolerance based on a narrow interpretation of
scientific reality. Let us be clear that we are attacking
neither religious sentiments nor fundamental theo
logical beliefs; but rather, as truly enlightened people,
we are struggling against the absolute sanctification of
any set of prejudices whether scientific or religious
in hope of defeating the intolerant position of any
"fundamentalist" mind-set, whether theistic or
atheistic.
Ken Langston is a senior political science and reli
gion major from Grifton.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A threat of nuclear holocaust
To the editor:
A new U.S. nuclear missile, the MX
missile, is about to be deployed. This new
and deadly weapon will hold 10 nuclear
warheads (bombs). If Congress approves
funding for the MX through the 1984
Department of Defense Appropriations
Bill (the vote on this bill will come up in a
week or two), at least 27 of these will be
produced next year.
And what is worse is that because of its
promptness, accuracy and destructiveness
the MX is undoubtedly a first-strike wea
pon. The basing strategy will be to put
MXs in vulnerable, outdated Minuteman
silos. Since this means the missiles will be
vulnerable to Soviet attack, the only use
for them would be as offensive weapons.
And yet President Reagan calls the MX
the Peacekeeper and says it will be a good
deterrent and useful as a bargaining chip in
arms reductions talks. NotMig could be
further from the truth. The MX is de
stabilizing. It threatens our security by in
creasing the threat of nuclear war because
it will force the Soviet Union to deploy a
similar weapon to keep up with the United
States. And not only this but all the money
spent on it (at least $2.5 billion next year)
will be taken away from social programs,
including student aid and loans.
You must ask yourself if this is what you
really want for your country. Do you want
to live under the constant threat of a
nuclear holocaust? If not, you must speak
out. I believe it is time that we, the future
leaders of our country, make our voices
heard. It is our duty to educate ourselves,
to vote, to write our congressmen, to sup
port and work in disarmament groups. We
must all take part. We must try to save our
country from the threat of nuclear war
before it is too late.
Kathryn Dowling
Chapel Hill
Remember the Alamo?
To the editor:
Watching the halftime activities during
one of the recent college football games, I
stumbled across a representational picture
of what our newspapers and correspond
ing White House media have labeled the
"revulsion" with which Americans are
reacting to the atrocious gunning down of
Flight 007 by Soviet airmen. Revulsed, I
sat indifferently watching the game be
tween two college teams, neither of which
I'd heard much about.
But it was a hot day and the beer was
cold. About halftime, Fd gotten sick of
the incessant blabbering by the an
nouncers, so I cranked up the stereo and
sat watching the video. While Bob Dylan
sang, "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," the
marching band whipped about very mar
tially, the helmeted drummer beating his.
bass drum, majorettes hurling batons, all
reacting with identical and rigid cadence to
their leader's wand.
Before long, I realized that the band was
. forming the numbers 007 across mid-field.
Flabbergasted, I jumped out of my arm
chair to turn up the volume on the set,
"John Brown's Body?" I surmised. When
the sound came up, I was eased consider
ably. It was only the latest theme song to
one of the James Bond thrillers.
Luke Powers
. Carrboro
Beer and circuses
rWFESSOR-ITHWK ITS TIME W (JPMTEP OUR SCIENCE PROGRAM,
THE WEEK IN REVIEW
To the editor:
Football Saturdays are a delightful
reminder that our University has a func
tion in today's world: it serves beer in a
circus atmosphere. But it is sad to see how
far we are ready to go.
Last year we all were told about how if
we drank on the street we would be fined,
and some of us sophomores believe that
we aren't allowed to drink on campus. But
one glance at the Tar Heel fans reassures
us. Hip flasks and beer cans outnumber
programs. Does the Campus Governing
Council support this? Does the Law
School, that vital concession to supply-side
education, really want us all to know that
any law in the land can be gotten around?
Or do folks who just came here to study
have a hope of seeing that the president's
speeches about how good we are still mean
something?
Lenny D. Andersen
Chapel Hill
Support is crucial to Marines' safety
By CHARLES ELLMAKER
Peacekeeping strategies in war-torn
Lebanon have taken a decidedly different
bent since Monday, when U.S. warships
began shelling Syrian-backed Druse rebels
in support of the Lebanese Army's defense
of Souk el-Gharb, a town overlooking
Beirut.
Defense Department and White House
spokesmen said direct support of the
Lebanese Army in defense of the town was
crucial to safeguarding U.S. Marine and
other peacekeeping contingents.
The cruiser Virginia and the destroyer
John Rodgers moved to within a mile of
the Lebanese coast Tuesday and fired
5-inch shells successively at rebel troops
during the morning and afternoon.
The actions were the first use of a week
old order allowing Marine commanders to
call on Navy and Air Force firepower to
defend the land-based troops. But direct
support of the Lebanese Army again
raised the question of whether the United
States is a neutral peacekeeping force or an
active participant in a Lebanon torn by
. civil war and invaded by both Israeli and
Syrian armies.
Presidential power
Despite increased U.S. military action
against Lebanese rebels, President Reagan
and key congressional leaders reached a
compromise resolution Tuesday concern
ing troop activities in an attempt to avoid a
direct White House-congressional clash
over the War Powers Act.
Debate over whether Reagan has the
authority to keep troops in Lebanon has
escalated following increased U.S. Marine
activity in the Lebanese conflict. Under the
War Powers Act enacted 10 years ago
in the waning days of the Vietnam War
the president must notify Congress if
troops are involved in hostile situations..
The president then has 60 days to
withdraw troops from the region unless
Congress authorizes continued action.
Reagan has been skirting the act by main
taining that all Marine actions have been
defensive measures and as such did not '
constitute hostile activity. -
The resolution, expected to pass
through Congress quickly, signaled strong
bipartisan approval of Reagan's peace
keeping efforts in Lebanon. Under the
agreement, Reagan will maintain control
over the 1 ,200-man contingent for the next
18 months so long as U.S. troop involve
ment does not escalate past defending
itself and other peacekeeping contingents.
Also, the land-based peacekeeping troops
cannot be expanded beyond the present.
1,200, and Reagan must make a full status
report to Congress every six months.
The compromise marked significant
concessions by both Reagan and congres
sional leaders. By agreeing to the com
promise, Reagan is recognizing Congress
war powers while reasserting his power as
commander-in-chief. And because the
agreement extends over 18 months, the
question of military authority in Lebanon
will not affect the 1984 U.S. presidential
race.
Rioting in the Philippines
RiotingcontinuesinManila, where 1 1 peo
ple seven civilians, two firefighters and
two marines were killed Wednesday fol
lowing a massive rally called by govern
ment opposition leaders to mark the 11th
anniversary of the imposition of martial
law by President Ferdinand Marcos and to
mourn the death last month of former
Sen. Benigno S. Aquino. Aquino was
assassinated just seconds after he stepped
off a plane in Manila following three years
of self-exile in the United States.
Rioting began when riot police attacked
thousands of students and other, anti
government supporters as they marched,
on the presidential palace. About 500,000
people attended the anti-government rally
Wednesday. ,
Here's what's what
Closer to home, a minor U.S. United
Nations diplomat, Charles M. Lichenstein,
shocked a U.N. host country relations
committee meeting by urging that all U.N.
AFTER YEARS OF LIVING A LIE,
PEAUN5 WITH QUliT ANP 5HAMF,
APRAIP OF SOMEONE UNCOVERING
DOUBLE LIFEI'M RNALLV
COlAlHQOuTOFTHE C105ET...
1
diplomats who felt unwelcome in the
United States pack up themselves and the
U.N. assembly and move elsewhere. He
added that the United States would "be
down on dockside waving you a fond fare
well as you sail into the sunset."
Lichenstein's strong comment came as a
retort to a Soviet diplomat's condemna
tion of the United States for prohibiting
Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko
from landing at either Kennedy or Newark
airports. Soviet aircraft are restricted
from landing at U.S. commercial airports
following the Soviet downing of a Korean
jetliner in which 269 civilians were killed.
Gromyko was offered landing privileges at
an Air Force base outside of New York,
but he declined.
Critics of Lichenstein have called for his
resignation, and though the diplomat's
comments were not White House-approved,
President Reagan has now come
out in support of Lichenstein, advocating
that U.N. diplomats spend six months
each in New York and Moscow to see how
each country's citizens live.
Playing Sherlock
According to documents released under
the Freedom of Information Act, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation in the late
1960s and early 1970s planted spies in
many student organizations including
the then-newly formed Black Student
Movement at UNC believed to present
a threat to the security of the United
States.
After searching through 750 pages of
partially censored FBI' documents, UNC
Law School graduate Alex Charns released
information acknowledging FBI infiltra
tion into many campus organizations
across the nation. The BSM, founded by a
group of black students disenchanted with
the local NAACP chapter, originally ad
vocated violence to achieve its goals and
was suspected of having ties with the mili
tant Black Panthers.
One. document identified UNC Presi
dent William C. Friday as an FBI "Special
Correspondent." Although the meaning
of the title is unclear, Friday has said that,
while he had limited correspondence with
the FBI during that time, his role was not
of a subversive nature.
Charles Ellmaker, a senior journalism
and English major from Orange Park,
Fla., is an editorial writer for The Daily
Tar Heel.