Opinion
I UNL evangelism
Local sect threatens to cross fine line
When evangelistic preachers stand outside the Nebraska
Union, point their fingers and screech about sinners,
most students get a good laugh.
Ibese would-be Jimmy Swaggarts are good entertainment
between classes and their traveling Bible shows generally are
harmless, unless the Broyhill Plaza congregation gets out of
hand.
But recently another kina of fundamentalism nas nsen on
campus, and it’s not nearly as easy to dismiss.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln administrators have become
worried about the presence of Campus Advance members in
the residence halls. They don’t stand outside and preach; their
recruiting techniques are stealthy and effective.
Administrators are nervous because Campus Advance is af
filiated with a group that a nationwide watchdog organization
considers a cult. A similar group was booted off campus last
semester at Washington University in St. Louis.
In their anxiety over the UNL group, officials have to deal
with the situation carefully. UNL is not a private university; it
cannot bounce the group simply because its doctrine is differ
ent.
Throughout history, religious groups have become outcasts
in the eyes of conventional society because of their unconven
tional practices. In the homogeneous late 20th century, Campus
Advance members may sound like a bunch of quacks, but their
alleged rituals aren’t that unusual in a lexicon of religious ec
centrism.
Other groups also have practiced baptism by immersion,
deprived their members of sleep, asked for money and encour
aged dating only within the order.
Even mainstream religions ask for commitments from the
flock Members head to church on Sundays and go home with
lighter wallets. And every religion has its share of dogma and
curious rituals.
Bui tnat aoesn i mean cuit-iike groups ana mainstream
religion arc one and the same.
Campus Advance, and the groups it has been linked to, have,
a rigid, authoritarian system. Former members of the congrega
tion say members use group confessions and other techniques
to pry' into students’ personal and sexual lives.
Americans value Freedom of religion, and Campus Advance
members have the right to their beliefs. But a group that
prevents members from leaving once they join doesn’t have
much to say about freedom.
University officials can’t keep Campus Advance from
s meeting, as long as members do nothing illegal or against UNL
l policy. If the group does break the rules, if it actively solicits
students in the halls, administrators can take action. Until then,
% the fine line remains.
If religion is the opiate of the masses, cults are a particularly
strong narcotic for those with addictive trails. UNL administra
tors can’t just say no to that drug. But they can educate stu
dents about it and encourage them not to get hooked.
— E.F.P.
Reader criticizes Nazi analogy
Mr. Baylor, I sincerely appreciate
you taking the time to read and re
spond to my letter. I’m happy that
you picked up “my gauntlet.” How
ever, I don’t think that we see eye to
eye, so I want to make myself clear.
I don’t have any argument against
what you call the courage of Gary
Hanna. He signed a contract, went
back on it, and that’s that. If someone
wishes to claim conscientious objec
tor status out of true conviction, that
is none of my business. But if that
means not fulfilling an obligation,
then there is a problem. If someone is
going to claim CO, fine. But they
should be required to finish their
obligation to their country in some
other type of service (social or other
wise).
Mr. Baylor, while you sec me as
“stupid, irresponsible, impudent and
narrow-minded,” at least I’m not
ignorant enough to equate the Nazi
party with today’s American mili
tary. I cannot believe that you would
have the audacity to make such an
outrageous statement. Ignorance is
bliss, but it is also dangerous. Blind
obedience was a trait of both the Nazi
government and military. And I defi
nitely question our government. But
in the American military, blind obe
dience, as you call it, saves lives.
Questioning authority in the middle
of a firefight will get you killed. But
blind obedience is not the basis of our
country’s military hierarchy. The basis
of today’s military is professional
leadership (not solely management)
and all of the qualities that go with
being a professional soldier. Troops
don’t follow because of blind obedi
ence. They follow because they have
faith in the competency of their offi
cers and NCOs. I suggest you study
the Nazi party more. Equating the
Nazis with our armed forces is like
equating Adolf Hiller with Saddam
Hussein, and you certainly see that
that is somewhat rhetoric. Hitler and
Hussein may have a mentor/student
relationship, but they are not equals.
In closing, Mr. Baylor, your letter
stated that in the military, the poor
and middle-class soldiers are merely
“pawns of a contemptible foreign
policy.’’ But my letter was written in
support of the pawns, not the war or
what you call blind obedience. Tell
me this, if you lose a chess game, do
you blame the pawn or the chess
player?
Richard J. Schmidt
sophomore
political science
P.S. While General Duggan’s hands
are “clean of bloodshed” as you say,
1 don’t think he intentionally leaked
information so that he could gel out of
fighting. Air Force generals, when
given the choice, would rather work
for the Air Force, not CBS.
GEN. ARNOLD SCHWARTZKORE^
in
DESERT
STORM,,.
PAT DINSLAGE
America breeds the ‘right’ life
A Native American literature
course I’m taking this semes
ter has taught me more than I
bargained for — about the white
American culture.
I expected to read stories about
Native Americans and learn about the
different tribal cultures. I really didn’t
expect to learn that the American
white culture, in many ways, isn’t
much different than it was more than
100 years ago.
Through movies and books, most
people are familiar with the way the
white people in the 1800s and 1900s
tried, with near-total success, to oblit
erate the Native American culture.
It was a many-pronged attack on a
culture.
The media of the time reflected
and promoted the stereotyped image
of uncivilized savages out to destroy
“decent” white peoples’ families,
livelihood and way of life, or, at best,
portrayed them as “children of the
forest,” needing to be taughtcivilizcd
ways. The underlying attitude of white
superiority colored both perceptions.
White people’s progress had a price
that someone had to pay, we said as
wc used up the Native Americans’
resources.
I he military, regarding the Native
Americans as less than people, saw
nothing wrong with destroying vil
lages, women and children, as well as
warriors. It was war.
As the U.S. Army of the time
achieved success after success, the
white Americans cheered. As our
greater firepower, equipment, sup
plies and numbers defeated the Na
tive American tribes one by one, Army
members were awarded, honored and
praised for making America “safe”
from savagery.
As Native American homes and
the future of their cultures was de
stroyed, the “benevolent” white gov
ernment relocated the Native Ameri
cans to unwanted, unproductive res
ervation lands, giving them neither
voice in the decision nor choice. They
were told to change their culture to
conform to the white, civilized ways.
A shameful, mistaken page in
American history. But we now know
better, right? That took place when
America was a young country. That
was before Americans defined the
human rights violations concept; before
Bsmum. Ameri
can culture, is. mm
enlightened, we can
h££SUM. anery
about South Afri
can apartheid. It’s
totally unlike, how
blacks, Hispanic s
and other groups in
America are
treated. of course.
our consciousness got raised; before
Americans began to appreciate cul
tural diversity.
Because American culture is now
enlightened, we can become angry
about South African apartheid. It’s
totally unlike how blacks, Hispanics
and other groups in America arc treated,
of course.
Now that we Americans arc en
lightened and tolerant, we regard
ourselves as the saviors of those val
ues in the world. And we will fight, as
we are now fighting, for the right of
any people to choose democracy and
freedom — the American way.
We are still, however, not stop
ping to ask ourselves if our way is
what the people of other cultures want.
We are still assuming that we arc
civilized and that they are ignorant or
uncivilized.
It never occurs to us to wonder
why they don’t want to be just like us.
We still believe that because we
are the wealthiest nation in the world,
our way of iife is the “right” way. We
arc still equaling an emphasis on
material goods acquisition and con
sumption with being a more civilized
culture.
And we are still stereotyping. Rather
than trying to understand Saddam, his
motives and the Iraqis’ religion, cul
ture, politics and beliefs, we label
him “Hitler” and the Iraqi people as
unintelligent, misguided fanatics.
As we arc busily obliterating Iraq,
its people, economy and future, the
American forces are cheered by the
average white American.
American commanders are eu
phoric that the much greater fire
power, equipment and numbers of the
primarily American forces are de
feating the best people and resources
of one nation, one culture.
Instead of admiring another cul
ture, Americans, especially the me
dia, are focusing on the case with
which our battles are won, telling
ourselves that God and civilization
are on our side.
With satisfaction ana conacscen
sion, wc describe the bedraggled,
poverty-stricken state of the defeated
Iraqi troops.
And we do not want to leave until
the defeat is total — their identity,
pride and capability to survive inde
pendently, are destroyed.
Of course, we will help Iraq and
Kuwait after we win. We will pour in
money through a new Marshall Plan
to rebuild them our way. We will
establish military bases to make sure
they never rise again.
We will aid in the relocation of the
Iraqi people because the bombing has
left no homes or businesses to go back
to, no jobs, no economy. Wc will help
the “poor unfortunates”— if they get
rid of their leaders, slay on their
“reservation,” make no trouble and
accept only what we feel like giving
them.
After all, we are the saviors of the
“right" way to live. And wc have
nothing to learn from them or their
culture.
Wc have come a long way in 100
years.
Dinslage is a senior news-editorial major,
a Daily Nebraskan nlRht news editor and a
columnist.