*■
T’,;
W«"
.-b,v ...
T»—
it
»»
■y<'7 wswvwjay
*'■-.*5*
<•
»
page6 I HE OKLAHOMA DAILY, Norman, Oklahoma W ednesday, January 27,1982
viewpoints
Pay prayer: stroking the spirit or the purse?
by Mark J. Kreidler
kreidler
Why is this a problem for one
letters
5C
Ditto, ditto.
0
'»’ ‘I
I
4
c
■Co
-Zj-
0 • %
Ditto, ditto, ditto..
i^A/6
by Garry Trudeau
letters policy
Ditto-
2'j£gniPi£
m>u
5
1
I
I
I.
lc
o oooo
He states that Oklahomans are in
favor of equal rights for women
and that they are against homosex-
uality being taught in the schools as
an alternative lifestyle. He implies
that this is why the ERA should not
be passed.
them, Jim Bakker’s Praise The
Lord may be the answer, and they
respond by coughing up the cash
that allows such programs to ap-
pear nightly.
Their sincerity in believing in
such programming is not mine to
question, nor would I be bold
enough to charge insincerity on the
part of any of America’s electronic
The mechanics of such program-
ming seem to be the real source of
humor. In order to survive, most of
But it is very troublesome to
listen to a man preach the gospel for
five minutes, then spend the next 15
asking for money to cover the cost
of thecffort.
Passing the hat is not new to
religion. Through the ages and by
definition, churches have relied on
the generous gifts of their members
for survival.
This reduces a sacred belief in a
faith to the level of a Jerry Lewis
Labor Day Telethon, unfortunate-
ly. In fact, I watched last summer as
one such religious show rolled a
tote board toward its goal, which
signaled enough revenue to begin
building a new amphitheater for the
show’s outdoor camp.
the cable religious programs must
spend about the same amount of
time asking for donations as they
do spreading the Good Word.
The problem, then, is not the
sincerity of the actors but the design
of the system itself. Television
religion that constantly requires
telethon-like participation attracts
only casual interest from the
viewer. Such apathy dooms the
program’s intent to failure —
assuming the program’s intent is to
increase awareness of the plausibili-
ty of the Christian faith.
Rhonda Murphy Reynolds
Law student
Mark Kreidler is a Tulsa senior ma-
joring in Journalism.
But, as in any belief, it is possible
for Christians to improve and cor-
rect their work whenever and
wherever they can. The onslaught
of TV telethons for Christ is no im-
provement, but perhaps it can be
corrected.
would anyone reading the amend-
ment believe that it would lead to an
interpretation that would allow
homosexual lifestyles to be taught
in the schools?
Joan Cuccio, Editor
Kyle Gilliland, Managing Editor
Gary Smith, A ssistant Managing Editor
Todd Webb, Night Editor
Chris Casteel, Entertainment Editor
Mike Easterling, Sports Editor
Jo Higgins, Photography Editor
Robert Bilbrey, News Editor
Charles T. House, Editorial Supervisor
, GOOP
HANGIN
THERE
a /
You probably would recognize
the setup:
A high-spirited man dominates
the stage for a few minutes, whipp-
ing the audience to fever pitch with
booming crescendos of voice and
wild, sweeping hand and arm mo-
tions. At once he is captivating,
charismatic.
Soon follows a parade of guests
from all walks, ail corners. They
share a common spirit. A certain
camaraderie, real or imagined,
permeates the set.
And then the host of the show
takes center stage again, but this
time he is looking directly at you.
He says: “We cannot continue this
without your help.”
Worse, the failures of the cable
religious shows often are used by
agnostic or atheistic viewers as a
means of discounting the religion
itself as fraudulous or short-
sighted. While such thinking is in-
sulting to any Christian, it is not an
altogether surprising development.
The concept of Christianity, for-
tunately, cannot be so simply
discarded. Like other faiths,
however, Christianity is manifested
in the words and deeds of human
beings, and these players cannot
carry to perfection the mandates of
the faith.
evangelists. I certainly do not feel
compelled to question the religious
conviction of any peer.
What troubles me as a Christian,
however, is that more often than
not I find my friends, and
sometimes myself, turning to these
religious programs for amusement
rather than enlightenment.
PULL
THE PLUG' SURE I
CAN0EPONN
IN A SECOND
r. 7
There are those who have en-
thusiastically taken to the concept
of religion via a 20-inch screen. For
He is a television evangelist, and
he wants your money. By mail or
telephone, your earnings — “One
hundred dollars, one thousand
dollars or just one dollar” — are re-
quested so that the tote board may
twirl and the work of the Lord can
continue, “if only until this time
next week.”
With the advent of cable televi-
sion, it appears we have ushered in
a new era in religious absurdity:
cable religion, or pay prayer. And
in a world in which innovation
moves at an increasingly rapid rate,
this coldly ingenious creation
should be no more surprising than
the flood of movie channels to the
cable circuit.
Religion sells. And in these
United States, Christianity is the
blockbuster best seller of the
bunch. It is a credit, I suppose, to
the aggressive business sense of
some of our citizens that they
would sniff out a potentially suc-
cessful situation — a market de-
mand— and pursue it.
I just wish God wasn’t mixed up
in it.
already a Christian? Because one
has to wonder about the net effect
of such a money-oriented presenta-
tion on the non-Christian. I fear
that I would either be amused or
dismayed at such programming; I
doubt 1 would feel inspired.
Not all Christians approve of
everything inflicted upon the
American public in the name of
Christ. There are those of us who
deeply resent and oppose the odd
and precarious direction toward
which we fear the aforementioned
system may be leading.
the amendment actually refers to
gender rather than sexual
preference.
lacks an understanding of the strug-
gle involved in remedying the denial
of equal rights in the United States
that has existed for over 200 years.
We ask whether his comments
could be the same if the issue was
placed in its proper context, i.e.,
human and civil rights.
To us Mr. Sadow’s arguments
against the Equal Rights Amend-
ment display naivety. He states
"the time is at hand for women to
have equal rights” and identifies
the problems existing today (shown
by his discussion of unequal pay for
men and women in comparable
situations and sexual harassment of
women). This contradicts his later
statement that “the ERA is not the
right idea ” This contradiction is
based on his belief that “the laws
are already in place for equal
rights." Yet if the laws are in fact
"in place,” why aren’t they correc-
ting the inequality?
We contend that these problems
could be solved with the passage of
the Equal Rights Amendment
because it would require all states,
as well as the federal goverment, to
examine all laws, regulations and
government practices, in order to
remove unequal treatment of men
and women. It would recognize the
fundamental dignity and in-
dividuality of each human being.
■TO k
Apparently, he is trying to link
these two “unrelated issues.” We
think he is "clouding” the issue
with an unwarranted suggestive
statement because sex tn the text of
f
Unlike Mr. Sadow, we do not
feel that the amendment is written
"far too ambiguously.” To sup-
port this position we would refer
the reader to the opening statement
which outlines the text of the
amendment. Additionally, why
Editor:
EQUALITY OF RIGHTS
UNDER THE LAW SHALL NOT
BE DENIED OR ABRIDGED BY
THE UNITED STATES OR BY
ANY STATE ON ACCOUNT OF
SEX.
We wish to respond to Jeff
Sadow’s comments of 1/25/82
where he discusses "ERA’S
Demise. . .” Certainly, other rele-
vant facts should be brought to the
attention of the readers.
First, we would question his
bases for the statement "childish
display” in describing a banner un-
furled in the Senate chambers
gallery. On what premise does he
base this statement? He does not
provide the reader with any ex-
planation of why he so feels. At
first blush, it would appear that he
TALKING TO7
SOME TEP.1MJU5T
REPORTER AROUND THE
CORNER CAN
C <^'MME£TIN
front of
Z YOUR BUILD-
IN67
DOONESBURY
LJ
Editor:
Mr. Sadow’s article on page 8 of
The Oklahoma Daily for Mon-
day, typifies the attitude of many
people who object to the ERA.
These individuals feel that women
are currently protected under the
law and the ERA is some Pandora’s
box that, once opened, would
destroy the fabric of our society.
Neither scenario in the above state-
ment is true.
Currently, women are not ade-
quately protected in the Constitu-
tion.
Legal decisions have not borne
out the statement by Mr. Sadow
"...the laws are already in place for
equal rights.” Currently, women
have to take issues on an item by
item basis, on a state by state basis.
There simply is not the umbrella of
protection offered by a constitu-
tionalamendment.
I would ask the simple question:
why should women not be in the
Constitution of the United Statesof
America?
I can think of no rational
reason why not. We work, we pay
taxes, we produce the children that
are reputed to be the future of this
country. Why should we not be in-
cluded in the document that is the
cornerstone of the greatest republic
the world has ever known?
The ERA makes a simple state-
ment on a simple issue — justice
under the law. The scare tatics used
by anti-ERA forces are just that -
fear-inspired issues used to cloud
the waters. Unisex bathrooms,
light of day in our law of the land.”
The Equal Rights Amendment is
a 24-word guarantee that all people
are equal citizens under the law.
Kim W eber Mulinix
PH.D. candidate
Political Science
your daughters dragged into
bloody conflict, raging homosex-
uality, destruction of family — how
totally absurd.
We are a people of strong will
and culture. We won’t be forced in-
to situations which are morally
abhorrent to us. To allow fear to
overcome our judgment is a sad
testimony as to the current state of
the American will.
Therefore, unlike Mr. Sadow
who felt that the Oklahoma
legislature exhibited wisdom in its
vote, 1 saw only irrational fear.
Women and men suffered a loss
and not a gain. .
The fight is not over.
It will continue in Oklahoma un-
til June 30 and ffl all other
unratified states. If it has not pass-
ed by June 30, the fight will begin
again in Washington and will con-
tinue until women are no longer
standing on the outside looking in.
The fight will continue because it
is the right thing, the good thing,
the moral thing to do, and because
we are not afraid of the shadows.
Paula Montague
University Employee
The Oklahoma Daily
Opinions expressed on this page are those of the
author and arc not necessarily those of the
newspaper, university, students, faculty or staff.
The Publications Board assumes no responsibili-
ty for financial obligations incurred on the behalf
of The Oklahoma Daily without authorization of
the Director of Student Publications.
Telephones—Editorial 325-3664; Editorial Ad-
viser 325 4887; Business, Classified and Display
Advertising, 325-2521.
Editor:
Jeff Sadow’s article, “ERA’S
Demise — Welcome Relief” is a
perfect, if unintentional, synopsis
of the historic arguments used by
elites to deny minorities their
legitimate rights.
The first argument is to accuse
those seeking their freedom of
"emotionally clouding” the issue.
Southern slaveowners accused
abolitionists of "emotionally
clouding” the issue. The issue in
both cases is freedom, a very emo-
tional issue at that. Southerners
had no right to deny blacks their
physical freedom and Sadow has no
right to deny women their social
and economic freedom.
The second argument is to claim
a “popular mandate” for the con-
tinuation of discrimination. Hitler
claimed a "popular mandate” to
deny six million Jews their right to
life.
Sadow claims a "popular man-
date” to remove the government
from the role of the protector of
civil rights. Whether Hitler or
Sadow have a true "mandate” or
not is debatable, but the fact that
freedom is not a matter of popular
sovereignty is not. The rights of
minorities are too precious to ever
allow them to be endangered by
majority pressures.
The final line of defense for
discrimination is to claim that gran-
ting the freedoms sought would
result in widespread, horrendous
sexual atrocities.
Hitler claimed that Jews wanted
to pervert the German-Aryan race
with “inferior genes.”
Others claimed that granting
black Americans citizenship would
result in mass intermarriage and
"mongrelism.”
Sadow implies that the passage
of the Equal Rights Amendment
would mean the open teaching of
homosexuality in public schools.
Now who is emotionally clouding
the issue?
Every reform movement has had
its detractors who seek to continue
their system of repression. These
detractors have been able to con-
tinue their discrimination with
varying degrees of success, but
none have been able to change the
fact that humans will demand the
freedom they are born with and will
fight until they are granted.
Lewis Wayne Greene
Menomonee Falls, W is., freshman
Mary Long
Los Alamos, N.M. sophomore
ZO MOSHE
i:
LJ
I
gPnrinr&jg.
(ZZJ

Editor:
Regarding Mr. Sadow’s column
on the Equal Rights Amendment:
Mr. Sadow’s argument against
the amendment seems to be the
threat of the advocation of
homosexuality in our schools. If
Mr. Sadow is as knowledgeable
about our school system as he
seems to be he must surely be aware
that children in this country are
receiving an education that does
not stress equality for anyone.
The Equal Rights Amendment is
not a platform for homosexuals
and it does not apply only to
women but applies to all people
regardless of sex, race or sexual
preference.
It is time for people to stop focus-
ing prejudices on imaginary fears
and realize the genuine issues at
hand.
a
Z'j
L J I NO. BUT TTS JUST A
' ' MATTER OF TIME, RICK.
Tj i SHE'S GETTING READY TO
, LAY OFF ANOTHER 750
Q ORSO EMPLOYEES THE
\ AGENCY'S
1 Jft 8MGDEC-
A
~1 r
I f Oklahomans are indeed for the
Equal Rights Amendment as Mr.
Sadow himself advances, then
rightfully "the desire of the
American people will. . .see the
ERA advocates fan the fires of controversy
ERA yes, Sadow no
OKA? MATS
s HIS PROBLEM 7
HE SAYS YOU'RE
DISMANTLING EPA
MRS 6ORSUCH „„
X > ’X
( >1 S SOUND
ilJLz /'
s_________
ucoa
The Oklahoma Daily en-
courages the open exchange of
the ideas, opinions and concerns
of its readers It dedicates the Let-
ters section to that exchange The
opinions expressed therein are
those of the author and are not
necessarily those of the
newspaper university, students,
faculty or staff
Letters to the Editor should con-
centrate on issues, not per-
sonalities. should be no longer
than 250 words must be typed
double spaced and must include
the author’s signature, address
telephone number, title if a
member of the faculty or staff and
10 number, classification and
hometown if a student
Anonymous letters will not be
published The editor will consider
requests of the author to withhold
his/her name Letters may be
delivered to the Daily office 126
Copeland Hall, in person, through
U S Mail or through university in-
teroffice mail.
The editor reserves the right to
edit Letters to the Editor Great
care will be taken to ensure the
letter's message is not lost