opinion Craft case goes into appeals ad nauseum We should have seen it coming. Perhaps Christine Craft did. She told the Associated Press she was appalled, but wasn't surprised. Monday, a federal judge in Kansas City ruled that Craft was not a victim of sex discrimination when she was demoted from her position as news anchor. He then threw out the $500,000 she was awarded by a jury on the basis of fraud charges It's really not surprising with the intricate mechanism of American jurisprudence. Everyone tinkers with the machinery, whether it's broken or not. The judge, Joseph Stevens (who also heard the initial suit), said the jury of four women and two men in the first trial was af fected by the "pervasive publicity" in the Craft case. If this were true than it's an adequate reason to overturn the verdict. Although, what's odd in this latest turn of events is that the jury should have been given the usual caution by Stevens regarding talking about the case to others, or reading or viewing accounts of the case in the media. It's the court's responsibility to ensure the jurors are isolated from publicity and public comments surrounding the case they are hearing. More than the court, isn't it the judge's responsibility to ensure the jury's verdict doesn't become tainted by publicity? Stevens said: "The court is firmly convinced that this verdict is excessive and is the result of passion, prejudice, confusion or mistake on the part of the jury." This is a strange statement coming from the judge in the case. He has repudiated the findings of a jury in his own court. Stevens apparently had no control of his own jury. Why is Stevens overturning the verdict at this time? It's unusual for a judge to overturn a jury verdict. Stevens went on to state the Metromedia TV station that demoted Craft did so because of "her affinity for the beach life and her apparent indifference to matters of appearance. . .ap propriate to her unique circumstances." Stevens, by this statement, seems to be encouraging a strange sort of discrimination. To sanction Metromedia's demo tion of Craft because of "her affinity for the beach" is more than a little questionable. Craft, on a lecture tour, (she recently ^poke in Eugene), com mented that she was appalled, but not surprised. "I think as a reporter I was prepared for the worst.... (But) I will pursue it to the highest level if I have to." It appears Craft will have to pursue it, and more than likely Stevens' rulings will be overturned, and up the ladder of litiga tion the case will go until maybe the Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court will hear the case. All along Craft downplayed the jury verdict, saying it wasn't a landmark decision against sex discrimination in the news media. Perhaps she was correct. We'll find out though on the ap peal, and the appeal of the appeal, and the appeal of the appeal to the appeal ad nauseum. Atiyeh on triple high over Hatfield bid Tuesday was a triple-high for Gov. Vic Atiyeh. First, Atiyeh expressed his "complete joy" that Sen. Mark Hatfield has announced he will run for another term in the U.S. Senate. Atiyeh went on to note that Hatfield is one of the most dynamic politicians Oregon has ever produced. He added Hat field will demolish any challenger in next year's elections. Second, Atiyeh said he was confident that the state's economy is improving. "Our economy is improving," he told reporters at the weekly press conference. "I think the future is bright for our state." Regardless of all things "bright" and "joyful" in Atiyeh's eyes, we've heard these type of comments before on the state of the state's economy. Let's hope Atiyeh is not looking through rose-colored glasses. *> **!«««* WWt 'DON'T look now, Bur M MARINES WAVt Ianled! ' A Christian duty to be political Although I am certain to anger and upset a large portion of the people who read this, I herein state my unequivocal support for the passage of a very con troversial law. Even if only one half of 1 percent of the voters are in favor of it and are able to force its passage, I will be satisfied to see it enforced. I’m real ly not concerned that many others, even a majority, oppose or consider this law oppressive, for I know I am right. I am, after all, only attempting to force others to conform to Cod's clearly and positively stated values. comments theresa purviance-garcia God's values? Yes. But just what are these values? No, I am not referring to the controversial anti abortion legislation. Biblical instructions on that are open to interpretation. I refer rather to a law which would enforce upon all people, Christian and non Christian alike, the injunction, clear and definite, of the fourth commandment We could pass this law, taken verbatim from God's word, and so forte everyone to observe the seventh day, Saturday, sabbath. We'd be absolutely right and justified according to the letter of Cod's law. It is not, however, my purpose to argue here the rights or the wrongs of either abortion or the sab bath. My purpose is to address the question; do I or any others truly have any right to pass and enforce such laws upon all those who do not agree with them? There are a great number of social ills in our society. Abortion is not so much one of those ills as it is a symptom of them. It does little good and makes less sense to concentrate on treating the symptom while ignoring the disease that is the underlying cause. Abortion is a symptom of the disease of promiscuity. How can the disease be cured? By keeping our homes pure and Christian. By teaching our children to have respect for, not only their own, but also others' bodies. By training our boys, not only our girls, to be chaste ana circumspect in aeaung wim the opposite sex. Then both the disease and its symp toms will be eradicted. Another social ill which, I believe, has its roots in promiscuity, is homosexuality. I can not accept the often quoted modern theory that this is a viable "alternative lifestyle." Neither, however, do I accept that the homosexual person is automatically damned by God. I belive, against most "authorities," that homosexuality is a learned or chosen behavior, and if the motivation is strong enough, it can be changed or unlearned. If, as is now often claimed, homosex uality is "natural" or as "normal" as heterosexuality, why then does it cause so much guilt and unhap piness by its practice? Why is the disease AIDS, con tracted and spread mainly by its practice? No, homsexuality is both unnatural and abnormal. Its practice is a sin. However, I become upset when I hear "Christians" shouting things like,"God hates homosexuals" and "Kill a queer for Christ." God doesn't hate the homosexual any more than he hates the fornicator or adulterer. God hates the sin, not the sinner. He hates the sexual act outside the bonds of holy sanctification, but just as the for nicator and adulterer can obtain forgiveness for their sins, so may the homosexual receive divine pardon. "For all have sinned, and come short ot the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). Many "Christians" have become intolerant and self-righteous, incapable of showing Christian charity toward others. In their so-called social concern, they are intent only on curing others' failing be forcing conformity to the moral values they feel are valid. This is one danger inherent in Christian involvement in politics. At the other end of the scale are those "Christians" who become inurred to immorality and begin to accept it as the normal thing. This is the pro blem with those denominations which have begun accepting practicing homosexuals into fellowship and even ordaining them into the ministry. This is as wrong as ostracism is wrong. Christians do have an obligation to become in volved in politics, but not to pass laws restrictive to the freedom of conscience and religion of others. Theresa Purviance-Garcia is a University student majoring in history and English. letters Got a good beat "This morning there are only isolated pockets left." — C BS News on U.S. invasion of Grenada, Oct. 27. Dopplegangers. I am isolated. I resist. Will hold out with all my heartsblood. Know of no c urse sharp enough to cut the pain transmitted, your language is war yet you sleep nights snug in your deceptive conceptions; putrescent taffeta popcorn; money hunger, sensation moneerinp How may we be real respondents of The All? How may we be at all? Hear our War Chief Winburger: “There were 3 or 4 small poc kets and the fighting is eliminating that." Once again: What do we think we're gonna do? Outlive them? P.»ul Prf»mkv Oregon daily emerald The Oregon Only Imerald n pubh«h«t Monday through Fri day except during exam week and vacation*, by the Oregon Daily Emerald Pubfnhing Co., at the Unrvertity of Oregon, (ugene. 041