—- 7-i_h-— t—: —
Tolerance ensues as sole option
r ■ i nrow rum in the fountain!
Throw him in the fountain!”
So went the cheers of a crowd
that had gathered around the evange
list in front of the Nebraska Union last
week.
They had tightly crowded around
the preacher so he could barely move.
They didn ’t throw him in, but it seemed
I like they might for a while.
Later I saw another
person scream in the
evangelist’s faceand try
to pick a fight with him.
A nice fistfight would
apparently have solved
whatever theological
argument they werchav
Some of the people
gathered around seemed glad to see
these things. I heard one person say it
was about time someone tried to shut
the preacher up. '
There was nothing to be glad about,
though. Embarrassment would have
been a better emotion, considering
the ignorance that was being dis
played.
I certainly did not agree with what
our visiting “saviors” had to say. They
were insensitive to the extreme,not to
mention insulting.
Their brand of religion, full of
contempt for women and many oth
ers, is not one I am familiar with.
But no matter how much I dis
agreed with their message, they had a
right to speak.
The first amendment, as everyone
knows, says so: “Congress shall make
bo law ... abridging the freedom of
speech.”
It doesn’t say: “People can say
anything they want as long as it doesn’t
offend anyone or make them slightly
uneasy.” It says people have a right to
speak their minds, regardless of how
many people they offend.
Thai’s a tough rule to live by.
It’seasy tostand behind it when we
agree with what is being said. It’s
much more difficult—buteven more
important — to defend ideas that of
fend us.
Tolerance of offensive ideas is the
greatest challenge faced by the citi
zens of a democracy. A society that
does not tolerate all ideas cannot claim
to be free.
We cannot say we believe in free
dom except for terribly annoying
preachers or art that we find offensive
or whatever. We cannot have free
dom and democracy in one area and
not in another.
They are all or nothing concepts.
You either have them or you don’t.
And whether we have them is a
decision made by ordinary citizens
like us. How we respond to the daily
challenges of tolerance determines
what kind of a country we have.
The scene that was played in front
of the fountain last week was not a
first for the United States. A struggle
between First Amendment rights and
those who would silence anyone they
do agree with is a constant theme in
our history.
In one of my English classes this
semester, we are studying Walt
Whitman. During his lifetime, many
people considered Whitman’s work
obscene.
Some people thought they could
do everyone a favor by banning or
censoring Whitman’s work. They
undoubtedly felt the world would have
been a better place without such of
fensive ideas.
Fortunately for us, they did not
succeed in silencing him. We now
recognize Whitman as one of
America’s greatest poets.
If the people who tried to intimi
date the evangelists into silence
thought they were doing everyone a
favor, they also were wrong. All they
did was make fools of themselves.
I doubt our traveling evangelists
will be recognized in the future as
great contributors to the United States
like Whitman. But true artists arc able
to survive in our society because we
tolerate all opin ions—popu lar or not.
Establishing a precedent that some
beliefs are right and some are wrong
is a dangerous thing. It runs contrary
to everything a democracy is about.
Who would decide what is and
isn’t acceptable in such a system?
Would it be a crowd like the one that
was intimidating the evangelist last
week?
If a system like that would have
been in place when Whitman wasv
alive, we would not have his poetry
now. If it was in place today, we might
be without Mark Twain, Kurt
Vonnegut, or many other great au
thors who have been called offensive
or obscene for one reason or another.
The people who are opposed to
those authors undoubtedly mean well.
The people who thought about throw
ing the evangelist into the fountain
probably did as well.
All the same, we would all be
better off without their help.
“The greatest dangers to liberty,”
Louis Brandeis said, ‘‘lurk in insidi
ous encroachments by men of zeal,
well meaning but without understand
ing.”
Like people who would silence an
offensive preacher, for instance.
The authors of the Constitution
found a good way to prevent such
encroachments. “The Congress shall
make no law . . . abridging the free
dom of speech.” Protect all speech
and none of it will be in danger.
That does not mean we have to 1 ike
or agree with everything we read or
hear.
But it does mean we must tolerate
others’ ideas, no matter how offen
sive they may be to us personally.
That way we are assured of our ideas
being protected, even if other people
find them offensive.
And it’s not as if we are forced to
listen to anything we don’t want to
hear. We always have a choice, the
same one the people angry with the
evangelists had.
We can walk away.
Fitzpatrick is a junior political science
major, a sports reporter and a Daily Nebras
kan columnist
Perot entry could force answers
By the lime this column is in
print we still might not know
for certain if Ross Perot has
re-entered the presidential race.
His re-emergence as a candidate
has several ramifications for both
President Bush and Arkansas Gov.
Bill Clinton. Not the least of which is
getting the candidates to discuss, not
soundbite, the important issues.
- Given that Perot has
no realistic chance of
winning in November,
at least according to the
experts, this may be ex
actly what he intends.
Recent national polls
found Perot trailing both
_Clinton and Bush.
Newsweek magazine
showed him with 9 percent — com
pared to 46 percent for Clinton and 37
percent for Bush. A Time Magazine
CNN poll found him with 17 percent
if he re-entered the race, with Clinton
having 43 percent and Bush 32 per
cent.
While these numbers arc bound to
change as Perot spends his way into
the campaign, this essentially indi
cates that the national impact Perot
had before he dropped out may be
gone.
The alienation Perot created when
he quit his unannounced candidacy
will not be easily forgotten by his past
supporters. Supporters that are now
backing Clinton, and to a lesser ex
tent, Bush, may be unwilling to make
another switch. What remains are
pockets of support in several regional
areas.
Perot will in all likelihood make
Bush’s chance of winning both Texas
and Florida, already slim at best, nearly
impossible. Perot, as a fellow Texan
who actually lives there, will substan
tially erode Bush’s support in that
state.
Bush also faces tough questions
from many Floridians because of his
handling of Hurricane Andrew. Many
of these people, who in the past voted
Republican, may now support Perot.
Perot could also impact Clinton’s
chances at winning the industrial
Midwest states of Ohio, Illinois and
possibly Michigan. Although Clinton
has attempted to move closer to these
voters, many distrust his policies. Perot
may benefit from this distrust.
Clinton can probably still win the
election without these Midwest stales
if he can hold Texas and Florida — a
realistic goal with or without Perot.
What this portends for a belea
guered Bush campaign, already es
sentially writing off both California
and New York, is that it may be
impossible to win the election. The
Bush campaign expected a huge in
flux of energy when James Baker
joined up. Instead Bush has continued
to float along seemingly without pur
pose or drive.
Bush will be in the position of
having not one, but two candidates
attack, and rightly so, his domestic
agenda, or more accurately, his lack
thereof. There will now be an addi
tional voice to decry Bush’s blatant
use of pork barrel electioneering.
In the midst of a campaign as ap-.
parently dysfunctional as Bush’s, the
wild card of Perot cannot be taken as
anything other than bad.
On the other hand, Perot’s appear
ance should, if anything, help Clinton
in getting Bush to discuss some real
answers to domestic problems.
It will also allow Clinton, should
he choose it, the higher road. If Perot
sharply attacks Bush positions, Clinton
can sit back and stay above the mud
slinging. Conversely, if Perot attacks
Clinton’s plans, Clinton can fire back
as strongly as necessary. The fallout
of strongly attacking a third-party
candidate is less harmful than may
result in attacking Bush.
Bush, in hindsight, miscalculated
the costs of not debating Clinton in
East Lansing, Mich., last week or
Louisville, Ky., this week.
If Perot becomes an official candi
date, he should be included in any
national debate. Perot will, in all like
lihood, insist on the single-moderator
debate similar to that proposed by the
non-partisan committee and rejected
by Bush.
The president cannot risk sitting
outanational debate that, with Perot’s
entrance, would take place with or
without him.
Bush’s unwillingness to appear on
television in a setting that required
real answers and permitted interplay
and serious discussion now appears
shallow and ignorant. If a debate of
this style finally occurs, we should
thank Perot for forcing the issue and
giving the voters this opportunity
rather than being forced to watch a
debate format, which has proven it
self to be a glorified news conference.
What is ironic about Perot’s re
entrance is that he claims to force
Bush and Clinton into confronting the
real issues facing the United Stales.
When Perot first became a non-candi
date, he presented no specific policy
plans. When he did, he found out what
all politicians know all too well: Any
position taken or plan outlined will
negatively affect some segment of
voters, these voters will now be less
inclined to support your candidacy.
Perot, and in reality any candidate,
is much more appealing before they
say what they would do if elected.
This is one of the fundamental cam
paign problems that Perot was unable
to handle last time around. Perhaps he
may find better luck in his new role.,
Maybe we will learn more about
economic policies of the candidates
and who should pay for the various
new programs proposed.
Perot’s campaign will force both
Bush and Clinton to answer the tough
questions that voters ask. It will hope
fully result in a belter president for
United States. We could do worse.
Heckman is a graduate student in politi
cal science and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
r//s/y/'//-/y/'s////7/
RESEARCH
Shedding
light on
birth defects^)
-- (*AXi.ttni.iiniliiiillHliU^ __ ^B|j||jp|§gjp
% + Support the 'OMjBBB
I CQ) ■■■!«9l)tc9fLSiO«B n p
• Free Pregnancy testing Women's
• Abor°t?onCprwedures Medical Center
to 14 weeks of Nebraska
• Saturday appointments AMr. „ _
available 4930 L Street
• Student discounts ^
• Visa Mastercard (402) 734-7500
|, visa, Mastercard Toll free (800) 877-6337
Irresistible Prices Til We’re Gone
DINE IN OR CARRY OUT ONLY - 7 DAYS A WEEK
I MON & WED 1
Spaghetti & 049
w/meatballs & Garlic Cheese Rolls $ feea
I TUES 4 THUR5 || FRL 5AT & SUN I
Any6BHotHoagIe *199 PIZZA SPECIALS
Any1Z*HotHoagla *2" 16'Lg. 1-item
8" Cheese Steak *249 12'Med. 1-item
12" Cheese Steak $349 6" Mini 1-item $J"
T 'W !k A Dlne in
DELIVERY AVAILABLE FROM OUR OTHER 5 LOCATIONS
HORI ORIS
A seminar to help you
prepare for personal and professional decisions.
October 16 & 17,1992
Mayo Medical Center ■ Rochester, Minnesota
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
■ Transition: From New Graduate to Expert Nurse
■ The Future Nurses of Oz
BREAKOUT SESSIONS
■ Financial Planning ■ Preparing for Your Job Search
■ Collaborative Practice - What It Is And What It Isn't
■ State Boards: Are You Ready?
Your $10 registration fee Covers sessions, instruction
materials and food. Mayo Medical Center will cover the
cost of lodging for out-of-town participants.
Deadline for registration is October 9, 1992
Call 1-800-545-0357 for registration information
and brochure.
ONursing Horizons is sponsored by
Mayo Center for Nursing -
Rochester, Minnesota 55905
Mayo Foundation is an affirmative action and equal ofifkirlunitq educator and em/iloi/cr.
A smoke-free institution.
