AA
Monday, October 10, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Answer to morality question found in Jesus
DAVID ZIMMERMAN
There are two ways to find out what morality is:
Either we go to God,
or he comes to us.
or he comes to us.
A few weeks ago, Fred Phelps protested another funeral. This time it was the funeral of Bob Lay, who in January of 1993, performed a same-sex union — a "marriage" ceremony for homosexual partners.
I don't think I will have to work hard to convince you how disgusting and despicable this protest was. The thing is, I feel it will be more difficult to convince you that I agree.
You see, I believe homosexuality is immoral. Every time I come out and say that, people shut out the rest of what I have to say. I feel I spend more time defending my character against claims of homophobia, hatred and close-mindedness than presenting the reasons why I believe this.
Who am I to say whether homosexuality is immoral? I am no one to make such a claim — morality is not based upon what I think or want. On the other hand, morality is not based upon what anyone else thinks either. A fundamental position behind my sexuality ethic is that morality can only come from God.
I call my stance a "sexuality ethic" because it goes beyond the issue of homosexuality. This "sexualityethic" also forbids other actions such as sodomy, incest, masturbation, premarital sex and even looking at a woman with lustful thoughts.
The next question arises: If morality comes from God, how are we supposed to know what is moral and
what isn't? There are two ways one could know what is moral and what isn't. Either we go to God, or meets us.
We could go to God to find what is moral and what isn't. The problem is, how do we do that?
If God exists, he must be beyond normal, empirical means of detection. This means it would be impossible to find him on our own with any certainty.
The other way of finding out what God says is or is not moral is if God were to come to us, I believe he did that in person and revealed himself through written testimony.
This is where I find what is moral and what isn't.
The thing is, this is not happy news.
If we were to use the Bible for the standard for morality, who would not be condemned by their sin?
Foreword.
Exactly!
You see, when I am saying that homosexuality is immoral, I am not making any claims to be perfect myself. I am just as lost in my own sin as the most "evil" homoexual.
I am not alone, even the Apostle Paul said, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want I do... Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (Romans 7:18-19, 24-25).
The answer to sin is Jesus (I know this sounds like a TV preacher, but please hear me out). Why Jesus? Because Jesus, being God, took the punishment for the sins of those who repent and believe in him.
Am I promoting some sort of hatred? Do I have homophobia? Am I "holier-thou"-thout? Absolutely not!
I believe Phelps' infamous sign — "God Hates Fags" — is wrong. After all, "Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).
If Jesus loves me,
VIEWPOINT
Jesus can love a homosexual too.
K-State fans need to learn that vandalism isn't spirit
At least "yuppies" can act civilized.
Last week's incidents of vandalism by Wildcat fans showed just how low
Kansas State University can play off the field.
A few glaring examples displayed some students' irresponsibility and lack of respect.
the incident:
"Things are changing
K-STATE VANDALS
"I just think our fans were hyped," Smith said in an Associated Press article.
Wildcat fans showed blatant disregard for sportsmanship by vandalizing the KU campus before and after last week's big game.
caught trying to spray paint the area around the Kansas Union purple. That was just the pregame show. It also says something
The only fair game KState played was during the football game.
And then K-State fans tore down the goal post.
It also says something when facilities operations has to take measures to make sure worse acts of vandalism, like defacing signs or painting statues, do not happen.
Afterwards on national television, excited fans showed their school spirit by tossing bottles and other objects that are potentially dangerous, into the silent, shocked crowd that was still in the stands.
are changing around. We tore them up. I guess they just thought they had to tear something up."
In other words, the excitement justifies vandalism.
This is a less-than-brilliant and irresponsible excuse.
Coach Bill Snyder did apologize though, and Max Urick, K-State athletic director, said the athletic department will pay $2,700 for a replacement post.
But replacing what was lost and saying, "I'm sorry" does not make up for vandalism and the destruction of property. And it does not replace the respect that is lost when "adults" behave in such childish behavior.
Breaking the law is not school spirit.
But at least someone at K-State is willing to admit that some fans' display of "hype" is just plain wrong. A principle that should be upheld by all fans from all schools, cities, states and countries.
Long live true sportmanship and spirit.
ROBERTA JOHNSON FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD.
KANSAN STAFF
STEPHEN MARTINO Editor
CATHERINE ELLSWORTH Systems coordinator
JEN CARR Business manager
TOM EBLEN General manager. news adviser
CAMERON DEATH Retail sales manager
CHRISTOPH FUHRMANS Managing editor
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
David Zimmerman is a Wichita senior in communication studies.
News...Sara Bennett
Editorial...Donella Heane
Campus...Mark Martin
Sports...Brian James
Photo...Daron Bennett
Mellisa Lacey
Features...Tracil Carl
Planning Editor...Susan White
Design...Noah Muster
Assistant to the editor...Robbie Johnson
Business Staff
Campus mgr    Todd Winters
Regional mgr    Laureth Guah
National mgr    Mark Mastro
Coop mgr    Emily Gibson
Special Sections mgr    Jen Pierer
Production mgrs    Holly Boren
Marketting director    Alan Stiglic
Creative director    John Carton
Classified mgr    Heather Niahou
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reedit or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be nailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Letter suggests Reagan-Bush era has not yet ended
Sean Finn / KANSAN
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Zachary Starbird's article of Oct. 3 is so detached from reality that the "Twilight Zone" would be considered normal.
In every society, there are those few people who try to get a free ride.
But in the United States, after 12 years of Reagan-Bush economics, many citizens are facing long-term unemployment and lost health benefits that even the most diligent saver could not foresee. I worked in a hospital emergency room once.
Starbird should try it and observe the adults, mostly the children, that have been injured or killed because someone used good judgment. Yes, we are a "kept society", and thank God for it. A "kept society" that passes laws not to restrict personal liberties, but to protect society from the unthinking, self-centered people who use "good judgments." Starbird should wake up and realize that the dark years of Reagan-Bush are over and examine the harm their policies did to the citizens of this country for the sake of a privileged few.
Bruce Johanning Lawrence graduate student
Does 'Quiz Show' equal the loss of innocence? It's anybody's guess
I'm disappointed to learn that I blindly missed a defining moment in American history.
The movie "Quiz Show" is loosely based on the true story of how a popular TV quiz show from the 1950s called "Twenty-One" was rigged to heighten suspense and increase ratings and profits.
Most of the critics say the movie is of great significance because the quiz-show scandal marked the loss of our national innocence.
Americans were shattered by the revelation that Charles Van Doren, a bright, young college teacher and a member of a prominent literary family, had been slipped the correct answers and really wasn't as brilliant as he appeared.
I owned a television during much of the 1950s, and I vaguely recall watching a few segments of that tainted quiz show. But I stupidly failed to recognize its great significance — namely the loss of my innocence and that of my fellow Americans.
And this is when we lost our national innocence, which is a serious loss, indeed. It just shows how alert you have to be if you don't want to miss defining moments.
Shortly after the quiz-show scandal.
I forgot about it completely. In fact, I didn't think much about it even when the scandal was unfolding. And I haven't given one thought to Van Doren, the scandal and the rest of it until I read the scholarly movie critiques.
MIKE ROYKO
That's because I was a Chicagoan. As such, I was familiar with alderman, bagmen, juice men, hit men and other exotic urban wildlife. I had a naturally suspicious nature and assumed most public activities weren't legitimate.
As for the honesty of television, by the late 1940s our family tavern had one of the city's early sets. Those were the days when pro wrestling was one of the biggest hits, and everyone knew those outrageous matches were fixed.
In fact, the wise men of the tavern agreed that just about everything they saw on the tube was a fake. When bowling became popular, fat Eddie said: "They oil the lanes for higher
scores." When roller derby became a hit, skinny Chisel said: "If it wasn't rigged, they'd all get killed." When somebody read the news, Birdie said: "Hey, what's he know, sitting in front of a camera?"
But that is no
excuse for any alert person missing so significant a defining moment as the loss of our national innocence.
If the forgettable Charles Van Doren punctured America's faith in television, why do millions of Americans tune in every day to watch talk shows on which transvestite mothers-in-law describe affairs with their sons-in-law? While I would never argue with profound movie critics about defining moments or the precise time we lost our national innocence, these are debatable points.
Some might say that we lost our national innocence during the terrible slaughter and hardship of our Civil War. Or when tens of thousands of young men went off to die in World
War I. And there were any innocents left after the Great Depression, World War II and the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japanese civilians?
Others will argue that national virginity was violated by the Korean War ending our winning streak. Or it was plucked when John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. Or the debacle of Vietnam.
And what about Watergate? If I had a dollar for every time someone said that scandal shattered our national innocence, I could afford a nose job.
But in our society, defining moments are defined by movie and TV scripts. And the loss of national innocence is that poignant moment when a movie critic twitches.
HUBIE
By the way, I went to see "Quiz Show." I fell asleep. It was not one of my defining moments.
That's the tough thing about being an American. In most countries, defining moments and loss of innocence are the result of the collapse of governments, invasions or revolutions.
Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune.
By Greg Hardin