EDITOR
Erin Gibson
OPINION
EDITOR
Cliff Hicks
EDITORIAL
BOARD
Nancy Christensen
Brad Davis
Sam McKewon
Jeff Randall
Bret Schulte
i--—
Out
VIEW
stones
Jesus’example not
followed by preachers
City Campus has been under siege lately
by a few vehement radicals who seem deter
mined to take America back to medieval
superstition and human oppression.
No, they’re not from Montana. They’re the
campus preachers who pass damnation and
judgment from atop stone benches as students
walk to class.
Last week, a student reported a preacher
known as Brother Jed to campus police
claiming he verbally attacked her sexuality
and made lewd suggestions regarding her
sexual preferences. She was picked from the
crowd for wearing a T-shirt in support of a gay
and lesbian film festival.
She walked away embarrassed, hurt and,
worst of all, another subject of persecution in
the name of religion.
Does everyone remember how cruel Jesus
was to people he didn’t like? Remember the
stories of Jesus slandering those who were
persecuted by society? Or when he insulted
the weak, the underprivileged or the margin
alized segments of an uncaring culture?
Look through your Bible. Doesn’t it have
to be in there somewhere for a preacher to
behave in such a manner?
No.
Whether you believe Jesus of Nazareth
was divine or not, his personal philosophy
was one oflove and tolerance, not humiliation
and presumptuous judgment. He dined with
the hated tax collectors, befriended prosti
tutes and offered his love to the lepers and
beggars.
Two thousand years later, people who
claim to speak on his behalf are condemning
total strangers based on their clothes.
These preachers have every right to be on
campus and have every right to speak their
minds, but they are heretics.
fire-and-brimstone preachers of eternal
damnation make a sacrilege of Jesus’ philoso
phy. This was a man who stopped the stoning
of an adulterous woman by stating, “Let those
among you without sin cast the first stone.”
He didn’t attack her. He didn’t humiliate
her in public or confront her with accusations
of sexual impropriety. He certainly didn’t
judge her based on what die was wearing.
Religion, for centuries, has been an
expression of humanity’s search for meaning
and guidance in a world filled with uncertain
ty. People like Jesus, Buddha and
Muhammad survive today because they
offered hope, not more pain.
But most of these campus preachers seem
to have forgotten Jesus’ most basic precept:
Do unto others as you would have others do
unto you.
We praise the evangelists who remember
this edict.
On campus, the Gideons quietly offer the
New Testament with an encouraging smile.
They are trying to share their faith through
love rather than hate.
How Christ-like.
HMUMky
Unsigned editorials are the opinions of
the Spring 1998 Daily Nebraskan. They
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its
employees, its student body or the
Unwereity of Nebraska Board of Regents.
A column is solely the opinion of its author.
The Board of Regents serves as pubisher
of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The
UNI Publications Board, established by
the regents, supervises the production
of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student employees.
MhrMtev
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief
letters to the editor and guest columns,
but does not guarantee their pubication.
The Daly Nebraskan retains the right to
erfit or reject any material submitted.
Submitted material becomes property of
the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be
returned. Anonymous submissions wffl
not be published. Those who submit
letters must identify themselves by name,
year in school, major and/or group
affiliation, if anv
Submit material to: Daly Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln,
NE. 68568-0443. E-mail:
letters@unlinfb.unl.edu.
f - Mook’s
VIEW
/
DN
LETTERS
Park it, Mister
There are times when it seems uni
versity critics are right in saying “the
university has plenty of money, it’s just
how it chooses to spend it” The 12 year
plan to “... reshape City and East cam
puses” is a prime example. Yes, it would
be “neat” to live and work in a secluded
community without the exposures of
the real world, but at what price? No
benefit has been proposed other than a
“pedestrian friendly” setting that would
be created.
Surely the students, faculty and staff
at this university are mature and intelli
gent enough to cope with traffic regula
tion devices such as stop lights, cross
walks, etc. that society at large uses for
orderly movement of people and cars.
There is a real price to pay for the
proposed plan, both financially and in
terms of perception. First is the cost of
development of die plan. Someone has
to pay. Buying of private lands, relocat
ing a sorority, reconfiguring streets, cre
ation of malls, etc. takes real money.
What opportunities will be lost or fore
gone? Could we have better equipped
science labs, classrooms, libraries, etc.?
If the money is available for the former,
it should also be considered available
for the latter. This is a one time up-front
cost, and it should be realized if funding
is available, it could be used for other
purposes.
The building and operating costs of
the proposed new parking system are
substantial. The statement in Tuesday’s
paper that the garages will cost
$50,000,000 dollars should be a real
wake up call. For a perspective, it is
interesting to note that this is 2 times the
possible cut from the proposed tax lid.
This (“... vast change in cost of parking
on campus... ”) increase in parking fees
represents real money out of your pock
et as would a tuition increase.
There is a second price to pay in
terms of time. Commute times will be
more than doubled for university people
who live in Lincoln. Most people on this
campus commute. Why do we have to
contrive schemes to make us suffer the
commute times of much more populat
ed areas of the country? There are all
sorts of additional time consequences,
such as less efficient use of university
buildings because early morning class
es would become even less attractive.
Finally, one has to wonder if die plan
ners are hearing the winds of change.
President Smith has repeatedly warned
the university community that in the
future, legislatures will not continue to
support higher education at the levels of
past funding. The university was given
the opportunity by LB 1100 to meet seri
ous renovation and maintenance prob
lems that have accumulated in the past
because of inadequate funding.
These bonds will have to be paid off
in the future by money that will not then
be available for other uses (it is scary to
have this fund discussed in the same
articles about the parking, malls, etc.).
There is a huge cloud on the horizon in
terms of the petition lid initiative.
Contemporary articles voice the con
cerns of the regents with the spending
lid. This is not a time of plenty for high
er education.
What message is being sent to the
citizens of Nebraska at this time? Is it
that the university has the financial abil
ity to create an aesthetic island to shelter
students, faculty and staff from the real
ities of the world but not the financial
ability to offer a first-class educational
program without full state assistance?
It is almost criminal to say that costs
would be paid by user fees and not tax
dollars. There are too many user fees
already. There has been no evidence
offered that the proposed new face will
contribute to the education mission of
the university. This university needs to
rein in “it would be nice” and focus on
its primary reasons for existing.
Darryll T. Pederson
professor
School of Natural Resource
Sciences and Geosciences
Equal time?
We are writing to inform the
Association of Students of the
University ofNebraska about our disap
pointment regarding die failure of the
Homecoming royalty nomination pro
cedure to incorporate the Athletic
Department for this year’s royalty court
Over the past few years, the athletes
have had a track on the nomination bal
lot to try to diversify the court during the
Homecoming festivities.
This year, however, the applications
sent to the Athletic Department arrived
the day prior to the due date, leaving the
athletes virtually no chance to apply for
the royalty court. It is our knowledge
that ASUN opened up the track to ath
letes to try to get more of us involved in
university activities.
Therefore, we would think they
would have granted the Athletic
Department a litde time to get nomina
tions in order. This was not to be.
Essentially, the athletes were left out of
this year’s activities by the failure to
allow proper time to get nominations
taken care of. We feel let down by
ASUN’s negligence. We understand
that future nomination committees will
have an Athletic Department member
present However, that does nothing to
help this year’s athletes who had
planned on participating. If ASUN
wants to continue to get athletes
involved, we would appreciate a little
more help to ensure our participation.
Erica Clark
Damon Strickland
seniors
University of Nebraska swim
ming and diving team members
It’s a sure thing •••
Monday’s lead editorial in die DN,
“Quite a Gamble,” criticized
Republican efforts to cut taxes by $80
billion over five years. It compared tbeir
effort to laying down a roll ofbills at the
craps table at the Kanesville Queen.
The editorial was based on two
flawed propositions. One is that project
ing future government revenue is not an
exact science and therefore we should
take no prospective action. The other is
that the money for tax cuts belongs to
the government. I grant that there is risk
involved in projecting future revenues.
Life is full of risks, and some are worth
taking. The CBO projects that the gov
ernment will runa$1^5 trillion suiphis
over the next ten years. The Republican
plan would cut taxes by $80 billion. This
is naraiy a crap snoot
Using the DN’s logic, no college
student should accept the risk of taking
out college loans because our future
earnings are not guaranteed. Nonsense.
We are autonomous human beings who
can weigh risks against potential
rewards and make reasonable judg
ments.
The second proposition, that the
government will “give taxpayets money
the government doesn’t have,” belies the
fact that the money belongs to the peo
ple and not the government The money
in question is not the government’s to
give. Under our system, die government
exists to serve the interests of the peo
ple. The people do not exist to serve the
interests of the government
Reasonable people can disagree
over the efficacy of the Republican tax
cut proposal. By dismissing the plan as
an illogical gamble, however, the DN
reduces a serious debate cm the role of
government to mere name-calling.
Timothy J.Thalken
first year
College of Law