Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor:

I must strongly disagree with your commentary on freedom of speech for those opposed to homosexuality and GLOBAL.

A preacher gives a "Fire and Brimstone Sermon" standing on a soapbox, in the middle of a public place, such as the Stratton Quadrangle. This person has the right to proclaim what he or she believes to be sin, to call for repentance and to inform you that you could be "damned to burn in hell" if you do not repent. If you stop and listen (no one forces you), the message may hit a sensitive spot with you. You might feel hurt, threatened or even slandered by the accusations that you are a sinner; you might even wish to retaliate against this person and/or the message.

Our Constitution and democracy allow you the right to oppose views that you do not agree with. You have the same right to publicly express your opinion as the preacher. If GLOBAL has the right to chalk on the walkways, then the same right must be granted for the opposition. I see no obscenity in ANTIGLOBAL. I agree that pure obscenities and threats are not mature or legal, but I do not think the chalkings you spoke of went to that point. I have been here a long while and I did not know that chalkings required approval. Does it require approval to paint the rock?

I believe that homosexuality is a serious sin in the eyes of my God, but it is repentable. I am tolerant of those who are afflicted by this, but I find it very sinful and evil for those who promote it as an alternative lifestyle to be tried and proud of. No, I am not a chalker. I do feel that it is freedom of speech and must be allowed, just as speaking out against the war in Vietnam was not popular; so now, is not kissing up to every group unpopular.

Think about this: If you can be arrested for sodomy, does that not make homosexual activity illegal? If yes, then why is the university supporting a group who promotes illegal activity? Now, I wonder if the over-funded parking services disbursements to campus groups funds any groups in this category.

Have I stepped on your toes or hurt your feelings? I hope so. Go ahead and write that letter to the editor and if you do, I will be happy to live in a democracy and I have something uncensored to read. Last year's editorials were pretty lame. Looks like a good 2000/2001.

Marion McVey

Ed. Note - Students do not need permission to paint the rock. Sodomy laws in Illinois were repealed in 1962. GLOBAL is not breaking an Illinois or federal law..

Dear Editor:

I would like to comment about the Oct. 3 edition of the Alestle. In this particular edition, you commented on the sale of O'Doul's and how it would negatively affect our campus.

I personally feel that the sale of this nonalcoholic beverage could benefit our school immensely. With all of the talk of the overspending on the Cougar Village renovations and new Engineering Building, one might be happy with the $30,000 the school will receive. Not to mention the extra tuition money that students are currently paying for a new University Center that none of us will see (unless he or she is on the six-year plan). Maybe this money could help lower the price of parking tickets. But then again, I am an extreme optimist.

According to the article written by Antoinette Bernich, Anheuser-Busch does not target its products, including O'Doul's, to minors. The product itself is an alcoholic alternative for the people who enjoy the taste of beer but do not want the alcohol. I do not think that O'Doul's promotes drinking on campus nor does it undermine the alcohol awareness programs. The alcohol content in O'Doul's is not enough to get anyone over 30 pounds a buzz. Quite honestly, I do not understand why an individual would want to spend money on such a product, but it is his or her legal right to do so.

My only concern about this issue is where officials draw the line. According to Bernich's article, the concession stand workers do not card for the sale of O'Doul's and students can consume this beverage openly during sporting events. Does this mean I can openly drink an O'Doul's while visiting my friends in Cougar Village? Technically, it is against the housing code. On the other hand, why is it OK for me to drink at a school function but not OK for me to drink in the privacy of someone's apartment? I have a feeling this matter is a concern for housing officials.

Frankly, I do not see what the big fuss is about. In the past, Anheuser-Busch has been an SIUE sponsor and sold its products at sporting events. Obviously, it did not cause problems then, so why would it now? I do not think that the sale of O'Doul's will draw huge, drunken crowds nor will it lower student morals. I would like to think that by the time a student has reached the age to attend college, he or she is responsible enough to make decisions for him or herself. But as I said before, I am an extreme optimist.

Abby Schwarz

Sophomore