OCR Text |
Show 1 THE CHRONICLE UTAH DAILY OPINION THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Let U Community Decide Athletes' Fate In a turn of events that of the U community find disheartening, if not surprising, three University of Utah football players have been charged with the theft of another student's checkbook. Two have also been charged with forgery, as they allegedly wrote themselves a check for over $3,000 from the checking account and forged the victim's signature. are If these student-athiete- s indeed convicted of the crimes with which they aire charged, they have absolutely no business representing the U on the football field. The U must not allow its reputation and honor to be sullied by allowing felons to represent the school at athletic events. If the players are found guilty then, they should at least lose their scholarships and be dismissed from the team. Earlier this year, when U foot-ba- it player Patrick Dyson was arrested for a traffic altercation, The Daily Utah Chronicle wrote that the entire school, not just the athletic department, should have a voice in who represents the U on the gridiron. The principal objection raised at the time to The Chronicle's plan of forming a committee made up of students, faculadminty, and istrators was that it would slow a decision-makin- g process that must athletic-departme- be speedy. If a student-athlet- nt gets in trou e Bin- 0,vrr- - - if Wa .O. L jjfjj it V rfr-- nl ble on Thursday goes the argument, there must be a system in place to decide whether he or she can play on Saturday, Coaches are best equipped to make that decision in such a short amount of time. That is why they. Chris Hill have been empowered to make such decisions. This alleged Incident, however, occurred a full six months before the football season will kick off. The case's entire legal process will probably have worked itself through completely before die U's first game, against the University of Arizona, next falL Tne reasonable time period enables due process to take place before the university makes a decision on the athlete's future Tne Chronicle, then, would ask U President J. Bernard Machen. to construct a better system, at least for cases where tune is not a looming factor, like this one, Machen should allow students and facility, the individuals for whem the school exists, a role in determining who will represent them before national television audiences and stadiums full of U and other schools' fans. If, after all the facts arc in, the piayers are cleared of all cliarges by both the U, through its student behavior committee, and the court system, they should obviously be allowed to play. The entire campus should have a voice in that decision, though. 10U Id Relig ion LETTER Chronicle Opinion Columnist itizens of California will vote Tuesday on Proposition piece of legislation that specifically states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Interestingly enough, in California, marriage is already between a man and a woman. Gay or lesbian marriage is not an option. Gays and lesbians and their friends and relatives are pained by California's Proposition 22. They perceive it as a needless direct assault on homosexuals, as it passes a law that already 22, a exists. Additionally, many gays and lesbians feel gay marriage will only strengthen the institution of marriage in that it is a recognition by gay and lesbian couples of the importance and sacrcdness of marriage, which they wish to be a part of. Obviously, some religious leaders disagree with this logic. But why the legislation? It can't have anything to do with the Vermont Supreme Court's recent decision in favor of registered gay partnerships, as the California proposition came into existence long before the Vermont decision. Many proponents of Proposition 22 say that they have to take a stand against what they see as an evil and that they are in no way homophobic. CHRONICLE Editor: would like to respond to Gina Erickson's March 3 letter, "Separation of God and State Hurts Our Society." Ms. Erick-so- n misses the point when she says that negative behavior is the result of not knowing God, Negative behavior is the lack of reason and rational thought becoming action. As a person who sees no point in religion, I am not shooting peers or committing criminal acts. The reason is simple: I can use my own personal judgement in what is right and what is wrong. God in no way enters the equation. Ms. Erickson's view that "without a relationship with Jesus, young men will point guns at other kids' heads and pull the trigger" is exactly what I fear from the "bcrn again." Vv'hat makes her think that she is a better judge of I what makes me a good person thasi I am? The danger is when this attitude turns into legislation, as Mr. Steed gave examples of in his March column, "Is There a Separation of Church and State?" As for the president receiving commands from God, I can only shudder at the thought. How many intolerant and oppressive regimes have come into being from divine inspiration? When a leader receives a divine message, it is the rule of law that can be threatened. Look at Iran, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that Ms. Erickson's ignorance of history and the historical effect of divine inspiration allows her to be 1 see CHURCH & STATE, page 7 Dictate Political Decisions? class today." So, to many citizens, California homosexuals are not people, they are "homosexuals." They are faceless and perhaps more threatening because of a perceived lack of human attributes. In this case, the "sinner" is, perhaps, inseparable from the sin. Many Californians are in support of Proposition 22. That is their prerogative. A problem occurs, however, when people arc told how to vote and punished or threatened when they do not agree. The Salt Lake Tribune reported Sunday that Alan Hansen, an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-da- y Saints, has fallen to the status of "informal probation" within the LDS Church because he publicly stated in a letter to the editor of his local newspaper that he is against Proposition 22, which the LDS Church supports wholeheartedly. Local church leaders say Hansen is not being criticized for his views on Proposition 22, but rather for his specific mention of the LDS Church. This is an illogical semantical distinction. An opposition to Proposition 22 by a church member is necessarily an opposition to the LDS Church because that church has projected itself into the political realm with its decision to ask OPINION EDITOR THE EDITOR We Need Reason, Not God Perhaps the offensive defensiveness, reminiscent of the term "anticipatory retaliation," stems from the idea that one should "love the sinner and hate the sin." This is a difficult objective when the "sinner" is actually defined by the "sin." Heterosexuals, on the other hand, are not identified or defined by their sexuality. A person would never say, "I talked to a heterosexual woman in KATHRYN COWLES TO members to vote yes. Furthermore, the LDS Church cannot engage in political debates and then reject political criticism as religious in nature. At any rate, I find this information very saddening. For personal reasons, Hansen finds it to be a mora! imperative that he speak his mind against the proposition. That should be his prerogative. Individuals with different politics should feel comfortable discussing issues with their fellow church members. But some of Hansen's church's leaders say it is sra-tu- s. not, if he wishes to continue in his full-LD- S Hansen is not alone in this position. Church members of many faiths with gay friends, children, siblings, or other relatives, feel they are being forced to choose between their churches and their gay associations. This is an unfair and difficult position in which to reside. When the Equal Rights Amendment for women was up for legislation, many churches, including the LDS Church, encouraged members to vote against it. Again, that was their prerogative. Churches have every right to their own opinions, and they have every right to encourage members to share those opinions, even against legislation requiring, among other things, equal KATHRYN COWLES LETTERSCHRONICLE.UTAH.EDU occupational rights for women. But threatening a church member with retaliation for his or her politics should not be an option, especially if the involved church is intermemested in inclusiveness. Many bers in California feel as though they cannot talk about the issue because retaliation will be imminent. That is highly unfortunate. Others feel personally threatened, as did a gay Mormon man strongly opposed to Proposition 22 who committed suicide with a gun to his head on the steps of an LDS chapel. A church's societal position should be to teach its idea of morality to its members, then allow them, as morally educated individuals, to make what they deem io be the proper decisions. According to much religious doctrine, homosexuality is generally considered to be wrong. Many members of religions would vote for Proposition 22 on this basis. There is nothing wrong with voting according to one's religious conscience. But to tell church members how to vote on an issue implies that these members cannot decide for themselves, based on what their church has taught them. Individuals with different politics should feci comfortable discussing issues with their fellow church members. Attempts to stifle discussion could be interpreted as very suspect. All churches should definitely be entitled to their own opinions, but they should not require members to automatically adopt the same opinions without investigation into the matter. In fact, they should encourage investigation. Any good idea worth its salt would stand up to such an educational experience. LDS-chur- ch 581-704- 1 |