NE|
riALK
page
memi
Jnion l
)olisli
heir
soli
h penal]
Opinion
The Battalion
Page 9 • Friday, January 30, 2004
12-2421
iclilt
1
onservative interests
work
a sort
eani
ti, sail)
forac
:d the a
the
:t of
historjl
’ Eliza
se ni);
degresj
i the i
con
raditiocl
uls
ounti
when |
iceive
5imo
time,
cou
an, i
1 to
t (e
said.
20 i
lEt
Kim
jvm
mu
f o reason for CBS to refuse to run MoveOn.org s Super Bowl advertisement
COLLINS
EZEANYIM
ho will win the
Super Bowl - the
Pats or the Cats?
his Sunday, an estimated 90
nillion U.S. viewers will
(une in to CBS to find out.
lut it is w’hat the viewers
not see that has proven
:ontroversial.
The Web site MoveOn.org
[ecently held a contest titled
1‘Bush in 30 Seconds.” The contest sought half-
linute television advertisements that best por-
(rayed the negative effects of President George
Bush’s policies on the country. The Web site
'anted to buy airtime to run a commercial enti-
|led “Child’s Play” during the Super Bowl. But
!BS announced on Jan. 15 that it refused to run
|he ad during this Sunday’s broadcast along
vith an ad from the People for the Ethical
'reatment of Animals.
This is a cowardly move by
BS, which should have
illowed the online advocacy
;roup to buy air time. After
ill, it wasn’t a question of
loney.
The reasoning used by CBS
for rejecting the ad may seem
mderstandable at first. The
letwork says it has a policy of
lot running ads involving
rolitical issues, according to
ic online magazine
ialon.com. But this reasoning
:rumbles when one learns that
'BS plans to air no less than
three politically-geared adver
tisements during the Super
towl. One is an anti-smoking
:ommercial and another is a
lublic service announcement
ibout AIDS.
Although there is some
lebate concerning smoking legislation and
Isubstantial concern about AIDS prevention,
Ithese two ads are unlikely to upset too many
|people and probably will not create any notice-
ibh controversy.
The third political ad CBS is running, how
ever, is highly controversial. It originates from
tie White House Office of National Drug
Tontrol Policy. It is highly inappropriate that
'BS will air a spot from the Bush administra-
|tion but not an ad that attacks the policies of
said administration. To be fair, if CBS airs one
Side’s advertisement, the other side should also
get airtime if it can afford to buy it.
The winning ad of MoveOn.org’s contest is
unlikely to make many people angry. "Child's
^ay” is a moving piece that depicts children
cashing dishes in restaurants, mopping floors,
(4
... the actions of
CBS are deserving of
criticism for stifling the
great American
tradition of debate. Let
us hope that the
network that airs the
next Super Bowi will be
more open to letting
advocacy groups pay
for commercials which
deserve to be aired.
working in factories, etc. At the end of the
spot, a simple question is asked, “Guess who's
going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion
deficit?” This ad is especially poignant consid
ering the release of the annual budget report
by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office on Monday. The report says the govern
ment could easily accumulate another $2.4 tril
lion in debt, according to a Washington Post
story/
Some observers have said Super Bowl view
ers do not want to view potentially divisive
advertising from an admittedly progressive
group. They argue the Super Bowl is a time
when America, indeed much of the world,
comes together to watch one of the biggest
sports spectacles on Earth. Their reasoning is
that the only dividing lines that should be
drawn that day should be between those sup
porting Tom Brady’s Patriots or Jake
Delhomme’s Panthers.
Some have also said if the
ad had aired, instead of con
vincing people that Bush was
doing a poor job in office as
intended, MoveOn.org’s
efforts would have backfired
and even more people would
support the president after he
came under attack during
America’s biggest sporting
event. This may very well be
the case, but if it can cough up
the money, MoveOn.org has
the right to take that risk.
The refusal by CBS to run
the MoveOn.org ad and the
one by PETA shows a grow
ing conservative ideology on
the part of the network — or
at the very least, the willing
ness to kowtow to conserva-
live demands. Earlier this tel
evision season, CBS can
celled a planned November sweeps miniseries
entitled “The Reagans” after conservative
groups demanded the movie not be aired. CBS
also faced criticisms over another miniseries
tt Ihis one concerning Adolf Hitler — but still
aired the program.
MoveOn.org calls CBS’ refusal to air its ad
censorship. While it is not quite on the level of
government censorship, the actions of CBS are
deserving of criticism for stilling the great
American tradition of debate. Let us hope that
the network that airs the next Super Bowl will
be more open to letting advocacy groups pay
for commercials that deserve to be aired.
Collins Ezeanyim is a senior
computer engineering major.
Tony Piedra • THE BATTALION
MAIL CALL
j6p
:BS exercising free press rights
In response to a Jan. 29 mail call:
I Andrew Prihoda alleges that, by refusing to air the
lontroversial ad campaign sponsored by the left-wing
Ictivist organization MoveOn.org, CBS is infringing on
tie rights ensured to U.S. citizens by the First
Imendment of our Constitution.
This amendment states that “Congress shall make
ino law respecting an establishment of religion, or pro-
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the free-
om of speech, or the press; or of the right of the peo-
le to peaceably assemble, and to petition the govern-
ent for a redress of grievances.”
After exhaustive research, I have found no clause
erein that ensures that one’s voice will be heard, or
at one’s opinions will be accepted.
I In fact, CBS is exercising the right of free press by
ri fusing to endorse content it believes to be false or
lefamatory. Many times, I have heard liberals tout
lieir First Amendment rights, simultaneously seeking
to abridge those rights for people who do not share
lieir ideals.
■ This closes the public forum to debate. Let’s put an
Ind to the double standard and maintain a free
Imerica for all.
Gregory Mikeska
Class of 2007
Robinson has no place in church
T he question of separating a man
from his actions is one that has
arisen repeatedly in recent
years. Can former President Bill
Clinton still be an effective leader
despite his private turmoil? Are priests
capable of spreading the word of God
while being plagued with a sinful
infatuation? Can Michael Jackson still
be appreciated as an artist despite his
alleged depraved behavior? And
recently, can the Rev. V. Gene Robinson really
be an effective leader in the Episcopal Church
while seemingly not believing a part of the
Bible from which he teaches? Indeed, a man
can never truly be separated from his actions,
and in the case of Robinson’s open homosexu
ality, it has resulted in a schism in the
Episcopalian church.
Those opposed to Robinson’s election met
the week of Jan. 20 in Plano, Texas, to discuss
what actions should be taken to right what they
see as a very serious wrong.
As followers of and believers in Jesus
Christ’s message, Christians believe they are
called to follow his example by loving and
accepting everyone they come into contact
with. Although many Christians fail at this far
too often, it does not change the fact that it is
the standard that all sincere Christians should
aspire to. Robinson himself charged
Christians by asking them on the Episcopal
Web site, gc2003.episcopalchurch.com, “Do
we truly value the people who hold an oppos
ing view, while disagreeing with their posi
tion?” If he can ask that question, surely he
should know the answer to it ... those who
oppose him are not judging him as a person.
They are not saying that they hate him or that
he should be discriminated against. They are
doing exactly what any Christian should
strive to do: truly valuing him as a person
who holds the opposing view, while disagree
ing with his position.
This being said, no matter how much he is
still valued as a person, as a homosexual,
Robinson has no place as a church leader. In
regards to certain occupations, a person does
not just do their job, they are their job.
The priesthood is one occupation in
which people have completely given
themselves to their jobs. Thus, we
should assume that they are exactly
what they profess to be at all times.
Their behavior should be consistent
with what they teach, whether in the
pulpit, the supermarket or their homes.
They should never pretend to be an
earnest believer if they are not striving
to follow every bit of the doctrine they profess.
Sophomore A&M student and
Episcopalian follower Katherine White says
that, more than anything, the situation with
her church makes her sad — sad that the
Episcopal Church has strayed so far from the
Bible and that the church has come to
embrace the standards of society over the
standards of God. As a minister of God’s
word, a priest should strive to be stable, to
never even think about looking to society as a
standard and to not only believe this standard,
but to uphold it in their own lives.
Even if he did have homosexual desires,
as a man of God, Robinson should have
known that people should not always a</t on
their desires, whether natural or unnatural
ones. He should have known that, as a man
of God, it is wrong to “(make) a home for
the past 13 years” with someone who is not a
spouse. Robinson should have known, as a
man of God, that with enough prayer and
effort, he can overcome any homosexual
temptation. The Rev. Phillip Jones, pastor of
St. Clements Episcopal Church in El Paso,
Texas, told The El Paso Times that “(those
that side with Robinson) are basically saying,
‘Jesus Christ cannot change your life.’ He
can and he will.”
Robinson obviously believes the Bible to
be true or he would not have, as the
Episcopal News Service Web site says,
remembered “accepting Christ ‘as my per
sonal Lord and Savior’ at the age of 12.” He
believes the part of the Bible that preaches
salvation but cannot believe that part that
warns, “Men committed indecent acts with
other men, and they received in themselves
the due penalty for their perversion”
(Romans 1:27b). How can a man who does
not fully believe what he preaches be trusted
to lead the masses?
Those opposed to Robinson formed their
own group — the Network of Anglican
Communion Dioceses and Parishes. “Yet the
creation of the Network of Anglican
Communion Dioceses and Parishes stopped
short of a schism with the Episcopal Church,
raising the prospect of church-by-church fights
for authority and control,” says MSNBC. The
network plans to seek support from their
Episcopalian roots, The Church of England,
which mostly opposes ordaining gays. The dis
senters claim they will seek to set up a “church
within a church” system.
Proponents of the Robinson camp, though,
seem to be confused altogether about why they
are involved in the church in the first place.
They claim that no good Episcopal would go
for the “church within a church” idea because
it violates the church law that MSNBC reports
as saying, “no bishop from outside a diocese
can minister to a congregation without the
local bishop’s permission.”
Daniel England, a national church
spokesman, told MSNBC, “I don’t think most
Episcopalians, committed to a system centered
on the authority of diocesan bishops are going
to put up with that kind of behavior very long.”
The problems with the church can be found
within that statement. A church should not be
centered on the authority of any man no matter
how worthy or unworthy he may be. All the
problems within the Episcopal Church could
be solved if it would shift their focus from
being a “system centered on the authority of
diocesan bishops” to being a “system centered
on the authority of God.”
White sums up what most dissenters in the
Episcopal Church believe, “Whichever church
stands planted in the truth of the word is the
church that I will support.”
Holly Coneway is a junior
English major.
HOLLY
CONEWAY