«
Monologue
Religious displays placed
in public areas acceptable
By Shelley Ball
Editor In Chief
Learn to Write!
On-the-job training is offered to anyone wishing to
write for The Print during the Winter and Spring
terms. Get credits while you learn. Don’t repress the
hidden writer in you any longer. Come to Trailer B or
call 657-8400, ext. 309 and ask for Shelley Ball.
The Christmas holiday (and the season acom-
panying it) has traditionally been accentuated
with displays of decorations, both religious and
non-religious, on public and private property.
Oregon’s Ecumenical Ministries has taken a
partial offense to this tradition, however. The
^organization has, in regards to the approaching
holidays, formulated and recently issued a
statement discouraging church and civic groups
from displaying religious symbols on publicly-
owned property.
A part of this statement reads, “They
(religious symbols) are appropriate in and
about places of worship, inside and outside of
private dwellings and on other privately-owned
property. They should not be displayed on
publicly-owned property in any way that could
be interpreted as advancing or retarding any
particular religion.”
The statement was made despite the United
States Supreme Court’s March 1984 ruling of a
case involving a publicly-funded Nativity scene
in Pawtucket, R.I. The Court voted 5-4 that the
annual displaying of the Nativity scene by the
city of Pawtucket does not violate the law of
seperation of church and state.
Chief Justice Warren Burger has been quoted
as saying the displaying of Nativity scenes do
not promote religion, in this case Christianity,
but rather note “a significant historical
religious event long-celebrated in the Western
World.”
The Court’s decision was a controversial one.
Nevertheless, it does make sense. Religious
symbols such as a Nativity scene or a cross
should be allowed to be displayed on public
property. This act should not be interpreted as
a statement establishing any one religion as
superior, but rather as an act expressing
religious freedom.
The state is not endorsing any particular
religion. What it is endorsing is the right for
people to freely practice religion. Is Ecumenical
Ministries asking citizens to violate the First
Amendment to the Constitution,- which pro
tects the right to freely express religious beliefs,
when it asks citizens not to display religious
symbols on public property?
Ecumenical Ministries is not out to denounce
any particular religion with its statement,
though. What the statement seems to be imply
ing is that if all religions cannot be represented
equally, then any references to any one religion
should be prohibited altogether on public pro
perty.
Christianity has many followers, but it is by
no means the only religion in this world and
should never be considered the only one whose
religious symbols can be displayed at Christmas
time. Local communities should take into con
sideration the different religious sects located in
their area.
Since there is no problem displaying a Nativi
ty scene in a public area, there’s also nothing
wrong with displaying other religious symbols
from non-Christian groups who may live in the
community as well.
Christmas is supposed to be a time of good
will, and all religions should be allowed to ex
press their beliefs pertaining to that event by
having equal displaying of religious symbols.
Westmoreland case questions media practices
By Rodney Fobert v
Sports Editor
If you’ve listened to the news, read a
newspaper or picked up a magazine
lately, you’ve no doubt heard about
the libel trial of General William C.
Westmoreland vs. CBS.
Gen. Westmoreland is string CBS
for $120 million for accusing him of
being part of a conspiracy during the
Vietnam war.
In a 1982 CBS News documentary,
Gen. Westmoreland was accused of
deceiving former President Johnson
regarding the number of enemy troops
in Vietnam in an attempt to make it
seem that the United States was mak
ing great progress in the war. The case
has become known as the libel trial of
the century, with more than just money
at stake in the final decision.
In order for people to get a fair
understanding of an issue, both sides
of the story must be known.
Westmoreland’s lawyer, Dan Burt, has
shown parts of interviews which were
Page 2
originally cut out of the documentary.
These excerpts would have been
helpful to the general’s case.
Since CBS cut out parts of interviews
considered helpful to the general, then
their report did not take a neutral stand
and show both sides of the story equal
ly-
included in the group of CBS defen
dants is newsman Mike Wallace, who
narrated the documentary which aired
in January of 1982.
The documentary implied that
Westmoreland played down the
number of enemy troops so that
President Johnson would commit
more U.S. soldiers to the war. The
show also charged that an intelligence
officer had later erased computer tapes
in order to hide the deception. In the
trial, CBS must give evidence to sup
port these charges.
On the other hand, Gen.
Westmoreland is attempting to prove
that the CBS documentary was libelous
and the charges made against him
false. Westmoreland’s lawyer, Dan
Burt, is attempting to show there was
never a conspiracy to make the enemy
troop estimates seem lower than they
actually were.
•
All of this comes down to the ques
tion of how far the television news
media can go to uncover a story.
Although the methods CBS used to
make the documentary are ques
tionable, the General has, so far, been
unable to disprove the charges made
against him.
The two sides in the case have come
to a disagreement over who was
counted
as
enemy troops.
Westmoreland contends that Com
munist self-defense forces were not
counted in the enemy estimates. The
much higher CIA estimate figure did,
however, include these troops.
In order to win his case, General
Westmoreland must prove that CBS
purposefully broadcasted “defamatory
falsehoods or showed a reckless
disregard for the truth” in making the
documentary. This complex trial pro
mises to go on for a long time. Even
after a decision is made, there will sure
ly be many questions remaining about
Westmoreland’s actions during the war
and CBS’ editing practices in telling ;
the story.
----------------------- ----------------------------------- -------------- X
THE PRINT, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, aims to be a fair and
impartial journalistic medium covering the campus community as thoroughly as possible. Opi
nions expressed in THE PRINT do not necessarily reflect those of the College administration,
faculty, Associated Student Government or other members of THE PRINT. THE PRINT is a
weekly publication distributed each Wednesday except for finals week. Clackamas Community
College, 19600 S. Molalla Avenue, Oregon City, Oregon 97045.
x____________________ ______________________
J
Clackamas Community College