| OCR Text |
Show CHRONICLE MAILBOX Body mans temple Editor: Today Dr. Philip Blaiberg is a living memorial of Mr. Clive Haupt, who died of a massive stroke. Obviously Beatrice A. Oricot is appalled by Dr. Christiaan Barnard's daring move to bring a dying Dr. Blaiberg back to life. She calls the lifeless human body an "artifact temple of the human spirit," but apparently she would rather see the "temple" reduced to ashes by fire or eaten away by worms in a grave. Or would she like to see grand mausoleums with large windows and open coffins so we can SEE these wonderful "ARTIFACT temples" just as tourists see the Parthenon in Athens. We might even set up snack bars and souvenir shops in these "mausoleums" for the convenience of culturally-minded tourists. Fifty years ago, people like Beatrice A. Oricot said, "Flying is for the birds," yet today huge jets whisk people between cities of the world in only a few hours; Beatrice, you can't stop progress either come along or be left behind all alone. Paul Sabol Security crusade Editor: In keeping with the prevailii national hysteria on police ai law enforcement the Chronicle has elected to launch the '68 school year with a ludicrous censure on the Department of Security. Charges of police brutality, overreaction and harassment are always good as an attention getter, often legitimate sometimes biased and occasionally ridiculous. Unfortunately, the ill-conceived Chrony diatribe seems to fall into the latter category, bearing all the objectivity of a George Wallace Commission on civil rights abuse. The Chronicle blithly accuses the campus police and the administration of being part of a nation-wide paranoia, not quite aware that at the present time the Chrony itself shows strong symptoms of suffering from the same malady. Does the Chronicle really envision any police officer who doesn't view our long-haired bearded friend with an obsequious smile as an insidious instrument of the radical right, a suppressor of intellectual freedom, a relic of Victorian morality, given club and mace and told to sic 'em? In order to stampede student opinion against the campus cops the Chrony is guilty either of inexcusable ineptitude or gross dishonesty. The Chrony reports that five student body officers have been "apprehended." To apprehend means to arrest or to take into custody or to seize. I Although they may have been stopped and questioned (which hardly constitutes harassment unless of course you are ultra thin-skinned or doing something wrong), none have been apprehended. tig id I would submit that this inaccuracy, whether intentional or unintentional, is a good indication of the general mood that someone is trying to conjure up. In one sentence an editorial bemoans the lack of establishment of boundaries for the Department of Security, in the next it berates the Department for overstepping these non-existent boundaries. Has the Chrony appointed itself as judge, jury and prosecuting attorney? However, it must be added that there is a definite need for student voice in Security policy. Hopefully, the new committee will establish a dialogue with the Department of Security with strong student influence and who knows maybe even mutual respect. Nevertheless the Chronicle cannot be condoned for using reproachable means to achieve a desirable end. Why not "tell it like it is? Harold E. Forgie Humorous Chrony Editor: Ho hum! Back to the grindstone. For humor, the new Chrony is better than Playboy. Dr. J. D. Williams decries the possibility of a Republican administration successfully solving America's painful problems, but ignores the failure of the last two Democratic presidents to obtain satisfactory solutions. Then, Dr. Charles Nabors, very humorously, suggests that events in Chicago have struck the "old party establishment" a fatal blow. What a laugh! Any contest between professionals and amateurs, if extended long enough, ends with the pros on top. The best amateurs change sides and the remainder lack the time, skill and goal-oriented self-interest to :tay in the fight day after day. For way-out humor, we have Jeannette Brown who ji. Iier column, "Up Against The Wall," a pun on a well-known English method of diversion. Jeannette recently wrote that because police cracked the heads of dissenters in Chicago, "Obviously, there is no right to dissent in America." Everyone will have to admit that the mind capable of bridging that gap in reasoning is childishly humorous. The only thing lacking in the new Chrony is a lecture by Henry Huey on principles and morality or an explanation by Hal Noakes of why he writes graffiti for the KKK. I'm sure this void will soon be filled. That should be funnier than Hugh Heffner emoting on the Playboy philosophy. James L. Stevens God is democratic Editor: For the benefit of Peter Scarlet, here are some points he ought to consider of democracy vs. Christianity. First, the position Christ holds as God's son is not essential to his greatness. Mahatma Ghandi, India's greatest leader in modern times, acclaimed Christ as the greatest teacher that ever lived. Titles which may seem undemocratic such as King of Kings and Prince of Peace were intended to bestow honor (which in those days was usually bestowed on kings). The question may be asked: If all the great men of history were gathered together to choose a leader, who would they choncp? democracy. When Israel wanted her first king, it was made known that God was opposed to the idea, but God respected the stubborn will of the people and appointed Saul to be king. In a similar way, God tells people to do right but allows them to make their own choices and reap their own rewards. He is respecting the will of the people to a total extent. Considering the power he holds, the belief he must have in freedom is remarkable. When Christ was challenged about some small violation of the rules of the Sabbath day, he said, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." This and the "ox in the mire" teaching emphasize Christ's belief in government for the benefit of people, not government unto itself. The existence of moral truth doesn't prevent freedom of choice. It merely means that the choices cannot be separated from the consequences that will follow, this being the reason why responsibility ought to be recognized as part of freedom. The way I see it, Christ's behavior was entirely consistent with the Constitution, which I believe he helped inspire. ,. Steven Barrowes |
