OCR Text |
Show Tuesday. January i. 1980 THE HERALD. Provo Ltah—Page 31 Opinions: What the Herald thinks, what the columnists say and what our readers think ik Broadsides People Mimic Government PST Letters to the Daily Herald Let’s Live Own Faith Editor, Herald; Thave been disgusted lately by the quantity and quality of the letters appearing in this paper which purport to defend the principles and teachings of the LDS Church byattacking Sonia Johnson. Most of these writers have deserved more pity than retort, but after reading the Dec.27 letter signed by no less than 14 persons from Utah County, I can no longer remainsilent. Sonia Johnson, right or wrong, is going through what is to her probably the most traumatic, eartbreaking, and confusing experience of her life. Unlike some, who lose their church membership at their own request when they can no longer accept certain principles or teachings of the church, Mrs. Johnson wants very much to be a Mormon, and she must wantjust as muchto see herdifferences with her fellow believers resolved. Sheis in need of and entitled to as much love, compassion, and understanding as all sympathetic Christians, both within and without the LDS Church, can give her. Yet what response is heard from our good people of Utah Valley, “deep in the heart of Zion’’? Not one word of compassion, not one at- tempt toward understanding. not one voice of hopeful encouragement is been raised publicly in Sonia’s behalf. Instead the prevailing attitude appears tu be more like ‘“‘she did it to herself, she had it coming, and boy, am everglad shegotit!”” Asif such a cynical view werenot bad enoughin itself, certain persons seem to gave siezed upon this reasoning to proclaim their names far and wide as defenders of the By BEN HANSEN these would-be saints can feel that they are expressing their own righteousness and benefitting the LDS Church by taking such cheap shots at a woman who, in all likelihood, not one of them has ever met, is beyond me.It reminds meof the narrow minded and brutal mobs of “righteous”’ pilgrims who used to flog men and womenin public who disagreed with the ‘authorized’ puritan teachings of Massachusetts, or of a group of chickens who will a hen to death who happens to different from the rest in the coop. Moreover, these people seem to regard Sonia’s excommunication as a “‘punishment”’ befitting her “crime”, but what does the LDS Church say about the matter? I believe that if they would ask around, they would find that excommunication is used as a toolto bless the person involved rather than to eres them.In fact, I think that an: ishop or stake presidentin the valley could give anyone interested enough information on the subjectin 10 minutes o pee them fon a public fool themselves oe the pages of their local newspaper. I wish that bishop and stake president in the church would tae the opportunity to postpone the usual diet of talks on the Joys of Geneaology and the Secrets of Successful Food Storage to arrange a crash course in their ward and stake houses on mercy, compassion, tolerance, and understanding— because wecould all use it. Jesus Christ still said it best of all: “He that is without sin among you,let him first cast a stone.”” faith, attempting brilliant justifications of their church at the expense of a castigated Sonia Johnson. How Charles M. Larson 943 S. 100 E. Orem Apostates Need Prayer Editor, Herald: Many hours of meditation have been my lot cone erning the harsh and brutal appraisal of the LDS Church by Sandra Tanner of Salt Lake City when she informed the media that ‘‘She and her husband requested excommunication after study convinced her that Moralet is a big con game, a snow job.” Her case reminds meof the story of the farmer who watched his prizebullcalf attempt to bunt the on rushing locomotiveoff the track. After it wound pas @ poor grade of hamburger, was heard to mutter: ‘‘I admired the bull calf's courage but damn his judgment.”’ Mrs. Tanner’s statement impugned and cast aspersions on the character, reputations, sincerity, credence, intelligence, integrity, sanity, spirituality and damned the judgmentof the current and past General Authorities and the membership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintssince its founding. In view of these tragic inferences, the writer finds it difficult to write with objective restraint. The General Authorities of the LDS Churchsinceits founding, have been generally some of the most Godlike, able and strongest individuals to live in the earth. Possibly the apostates, fringe members and other critics could profit and benefit in meeting with the First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve and the other General Authorities to ascertain their sincerity, ability and spiritualpulse. They would be surprised to find that they are amongGod's hardest working spiritualgiants in the earth who are amply qualified to walk and con- verse with the Holy Trinity. They epitomize and promulgate the Gospel Doctrine enunciated by God. They are characterized by humility, justice, forgiveness,tenderness, understanding, insight, sweetness of spirit, intelligence and inspired ability pravertulness: honesty, forthrightness, charitableness, devotion, dedication, generosity, unselfishness, hard work and otherattributes of God. I personally find it odious and distasteful to bombarded by the apostates, marginal so-called members and other critics unjustly attacking the LDS Church,in fact any church. Religion is a very personal matter and as Thomas Jefferson said is between an individual and his God. Whyis it that apostates and backsliders are so focally critical? If they do not agree wit! Teligious sects, they should go their wayin peace and attend to their own business. Stirring up negative emotions and strife, abusing truth and making life unpleasant for others does not achieve constructive ends. The apostates’ highly energized designs expose their lack of objectivity, dishonesty, impure andbitter intent, cankers, hateful ends sought, sadism and psychiatric profile. They cannot be trusted to tell the truth since they seem to be prompted by Satan. I would counsel and praythat all live and let live in observingthe letter and thespirit of freedom as spelled out in our constitutional democracy in this great nation. Sincerely y Dr. Harold C. Bateman 5579 S. 975 E. Ogden GETZMER,YOU'VE QUTDONE YOURSELF! A SO0LAR-HEATED NUCLEAR PLANT! IPL DRIVE THE Herald Managing Editor I'm always amused by the shrill wail that issues from any incumbent elected or appointed federal official when anyone mentions a constitutional amendment to require a balanced federal budget. Generally such talk is greeted with everything from screams of ‘‘Out of the question!’’ to condescending chortles of “How unrealistic!” I’ve often wondered how long our society could prevail if individual citizens used the government as an examplein the conductof their own financial affairs. Naturally my curiosity took me to the Genola trailer court home of Morbo the Malevolent, Utah County’s resident seer. clairvoyant and doorto-door representative for Passion Pits Men’s Cosmetics. Morbo propelled me 10 years into tie future to the Buffalo Chip, Wyo., home of Virgil J. Spendallvit. Just as I appeared in front of the Spendallvit home,a huge furniture van had pulled up, and workmen were beginning to unload an elegant looking colonial living room set. Making my wayinside past the stevadores, I found Spendallvitin the liv- ing room in intense conversation with an interior decorator and shouting occasional orders to the deliverymen. “All right,’ he said, “I want the sofa over there, and take the captain's chair into the den. Now, Mr. Swishflitt, what do you suggestfor the kitchen?” “Excuse me, Mr. Spendallvit,” I said. “I’m sorry to interrupt when you're so terribly busy, but could I just ask you a few quick questions?” “Er...of course,” Spendallvit said. ‘‘Mr. Swishflitt, could you please go in and finish your plan ‘or redoing the bedroom while I talk with this man. It’s right downat the end of this hall. You'll have to make your way around the crate holding our video recorder and 20-foottelevision projection screen. I just haven’t had timeto un- pack themyet.” ‘‘Thertainly,’’ the decorator said and minced off toward the bedroom. “Now,” Spendallvit said. “What can do for you?” “Well, sir,” I said. ‘I hope you don’t mind my prying little but I noticed that you are making a number of expensive acquisitions here, and I know yoursalary as a production trainee at the local lace doily plant is only $1,000 a month. If you don’t mind my asking, how do you propose to pay for all the things being delivered here today?” “Well,” he said blissfully. “That's quite simple. I just give them this little plastic bank charge card, and they run it through their little machine, and it’s all taken care of.” “But, sir, that only means that they'll be sending you a bill at the end of the month asking you to back that pledge with money.” “No problem! I'll justsit downand write out a check whenthe bill comes.” “But Mr. Spendallvit. Don’t they have a maximum debt level on the card?” “Well, yes, but since they passed the Personal Debt Management Act of 1981, all I have to dois call the bank and haveit increase my maximum.” “But what is the Personal Debt Management Act?” “Where have you been the past few years? Two years ago when they were lobbying for a conStitutional amendment to mandate a balanced federal budget, we came to a conclusion. Rather than force the whole government to change its behaviorto live by the people’s standards, it would be mucheasier to change the law to allow the people to live by the government's standards.” “I see, but even though you can increase the maximum on your bank card at will, the daystill has to come when you'll have to make good on your pledge to pay those debis.”” “Then I'll just sit down and makeout a check.’ “But don’t you have to back that check eventually with cash?” “Ah! I knew you were going to get to that. Come with me.” I followed him back to his den where I found that most of the room was taken up by a giant photo copier. “Now,” he said. ‘We just take a few of these $10 ills and put them here. Then we set the copier for full color and 200 copies and pushthe start button. Then wejust sit and wait.” “But, Mr. Spendallvit...”’, I started to say and the fine quality copies of U.S. currency began spewing out into the tray of the copier. “They finally discovered,” he said, ‘‘that what’s good for the government is good for the people.’ “T guess I'll have to throw out one of my father’s favorite sayings.’ “What's that?” “When your outgo is greater than your income, your upkeep can becor~ your downfall.” Robert Walters ‘Revolving Door’Still Working WASHINGTON (NEA) - Among aficionados ofpolitics, the ‘‘revolving door’’ isn't a department store entrance.It’s a technique for abusing public service while advancing the private interests of its practitioners andtheir clients. For manyyears, the beneficiaries of the ethically questionable practice generally were limited to traditional speciai interest groups such as corporations, unions and trade associations. But its corrosive influence now reaches to the highest level of politics — campaigns for the presidency — and threatens the integrity of the Federal Election Comission, the government agency responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws. The most recent case of an FEC official offering a political campaign the specialized skills and owledge he acquiced while on the government payroll involves the ~mmission’s former general Wel, William C. Oldaker. ae seniorofficer in charge of the FEC’s powerful legal staff since early 1977, Oldaker began Negotiating for a new job in midOctoberwith representativesof Sen. Edward M. Xennedy’s presidential campaign organization. Atthe time, Oldaker’s office was investigating a formal complaint filed by President Carter’s reelection committee, alleging that the supposedly independent‘‘Draft Kennedy"’ committees then operating in various states were,in fact, part of a coordinated effort orchestrated in Washington. Oldaker says that after his first contact with the Kennedy campaign, he voluntarily withdrew from any involvement in that case. There is no evidenceto refute that claim, but FEC employees under Oldaker's direct supervision continued to work on the Kennedy investigation while he was actively considering employment with the Kennedy campaign committee. Oldaker resigned from the FEC at the end of October to seek ‘‘a new challenge.’ He now is deputy legal officer for the Kennedy campaign, responsible for dealing with the same federal laws and regulations he once enforced. In his letter of resignation, Oldaker noted that heis technically in compliancewith the provisions of the new ethics-in-goverment law specifically drafted to discourage such ‘revolving door’’ activities. But Oldaker’s interpretations of the law haven't always been flawless. While serving as an aitorneyin the Denver regionaloffice of the Equal Employment Oppor- tunity Commission in 1973, he was demoted and suspended for nine weeksafter his superiors discovered thathe had falsified records submitted to agency officials in Washington. Seniorofficials in the Carter campaign have privately complained aboutthe propriety of Oldaker’s job change, but the president's su porters haven't been especially scrupulous in avoiding potential “revolving door’ conflicts of interest in their relations with the E An example: In 1977, attorney Kenneth a. Grossleft the Atlanta law firm of Lipshutz, Susmann, Sikes, Pritchard & Cohentojoin the FEC’s legal staff in Washington. Thesenior partnerin that firm was Robert J. Lipshutz. At the time, however, Lipshutz was serving as counselto the presi- dent. the senior legal post in the White House. He earlier had been treasurer of Carter's 1976 campaign committee and thus was legally responsiblefor the financial reports submitted to the FEC. Last year, while the commission staff was auditing the Carter campaign reports, Gross was promoted to a new job at the FEC — in charge of audits of all presidential campaigns. Like Oldaker, he says he excused himself from any involvement with the Carter audit. Butalso like Oldaker, Gross maintained direct supervision of those working on the Carter case. The ethical problems posed by such situations are quite obvious, yet the FEC’s “revolving door’ continues to spin at a dizzying pace (NEWSPAPER ENTERPRISE M. Stanton Evans ‘Brethren’ Only Worsens Woes WASHINGTON — Therecent expose of the U.S. Supreme Court by two Washington Post reporters has properlystirred a lot of outrage, but most of the protests have been aimed in the wrong direction. It is objected that publication of “The Brethren,” by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, violates the confidentiality of court proceedings and will inhibit free exchange among the justices. Both these points doubtless are true, and sufficiently deplorable, but hardly suggest the major evils exhibited by this volume. To begin with,it is pretty obvious that ‘The Brethren” is not even an impartial expose, but a hatchet job against Chief Justice Warren Burger. Burgeris routinely depicted ina negativelight — faulted for poor legal scholarship, lack of leadership, moments of pomposity — while justices opposed to him are treated gently for worse or similar failings. Most obviously, former Chief Justice Earl Warren, whom Burger succeeded, was nobody's idea of a legal scholar. He was a politician who wanted to movethe court in a liberal-left direction, and was perfectly indifferent to the methods 4 whichhegotit there. This aspect of Warren's tenure on the court emerges clearly from ‘The Brethren.”” Yet Warrenbasically comes over who wield enormous power over court deliberations — power which obviously should be curtailed. No doubt there are exceptions to the Tule, but the clerks portrayed by Woodward and Armstrong come over as arrogant punks, whose as a retrospective hero — a bold, negative opinions should be taken as dynamic ‘‘leader,’’ who could carry the court with him,in contrastto the alleged bungling of Burger. Similar favorable treatmentis accorded the highly non-judicial Thurgood Marshall who,in the evidence of this volume, shares the Warren penchant for posting a desired result,thenfinding legal reasons for attainingit. Burger frequently is revealed as an object of derision by the ubi quitous Supreme Court law clerks, whose opinions the authors continually drag in to fill the role of Greek chorus. If anything, these law clerks would seem to be morelikely candidates for villains of the story than for respected arbiters of their Sonret conduct, On showing provided by ‘The Brethren,” the law clerks are a pack of cocksureleft-wing activists a compliment. Andit is obvious that some of them have sung like canaries — and handed over confidential documents — to the representatives of the Washington Post Whileit is hard to assess Burger through the veil of prejudice that mantles ‘The Brethren,” he ap- pears to be a rather moderate Justice with someconservative leanings. His majorfailing — if the book is anywhere near accurate —is an excessive concern for compromising differences within the court in search of unanimous decisions, especially in busing cases, rather than simplystating what he believes the law to be,thenletting the chipsfall where they may. This ‘unanimous’ nonsense in civil rights matters dates from the Warren ela, and seems to lave becomeanobsession with the court. It is ridiculous on the faceofit, and becomes the more so when the Court has wandered into realms of social engineering which have nothing whatever to do with constitutional law, or with authentic civil rights. If there is any genericfailing of the court revealed by ‘‘The Brethren,” it is precisely this: That the court has long since become a tool for implementing the sociological thecries of the liberalleft. retaining faint connection to its original task of applying the guidelines of the Constitution to the conduct of the federal government Its ‘constitutional’ decisions in First Amendment, busing. abortion and other cases have accordingly beenfarcical, and worse The flagrant politicization of the court is obviously reflected by the political infighting reported in ‘The Brethren.’ Unfortunately, the bias of the authorsandtheir sources is of such a nature as to make the problem worse, instead of better (c) 1979, Los Angeles Times |