LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Daniel Vining Regional Studies Professor To the Editor: Wrong Direction I am writing in response to Marc Teillon's article ("California First" DP, 12/1/94) regarding California's Proposition 187 whose passage on Nov. 7, has resulted in increased fervor over the illegal immigrant issue. On first inspection of the initiative, I too was eluded by its deceptive appearance of being an efficient solution to a difficult problem. However, upon closer inspection I came to realize that in addition to the positive effect of freeing up much needed tax revenues, it will also create a rampant increase of common illnesses in the California population. Illnesses, which in the poorest of third world countries can be easily prevented through simple inoculation. It is common knowledge that the new Republican regime is eager to re-establish in the fabric of American society the old fashioned value system prevalent in the 1950's. A society with high regard for Christian values, clean cut youth and respect for authority. Contrary to the conservative's opinion, opponents of Prop. 187 are not guilty of being "fear mongers." Rather, they are attempting to raise in decent Americans the awareness of the dangers characteristic of "hate mongers." People whose vile racism spews like poison from their wretched mouths with statements like "Take Back America" or "Take care of your own." Facts are, illegal immigrants cannot deplete a "liberal" welfare payroll because they are already not eligible to receive benefits. Facts are, in order to qualify for many job positions, illegal aliens must create false social security numbers, thereby contributing a portion of their income towards state tax revenues. I agree with Tellion that the illegal immigrant issue is one of the most pressing problems facing the state of California. However, his heartless and disassociated approach reeks of the most inhuman sentiments veiled behind false aspirations of utilitarian expediency. Mark Alba College '95 To the Editor: Marc Teillon's analysis of Proposition 187 ("California First" DP, 12/1/94) is superficial at best. Advocates concede that the measure does nothing to deter illegal immigration at its source (the border and with the employers who encourage workers to cross it). The hope is that life will be made so difficult for the undocumented in the U.S. that they will not come here. The popularity of Prop. 187 lies in its Clint Eastwood-style response to the anger many feel about the problems in California. Voters acted on their anger toward aliens for allegedly taking jobs from Americans. Not surprisingly, however, illegals take low-paying hotel, restaurant and farm work. Anyone who believes this work would be done for the same wages by an American is delusional. And anyone who says he will voluntarily pay higher hotel, restaurant and food costs to employ a legal worker is a liar. Many are also angry at the undocumented for "leaching," as Teillon described the idea. A study by Los Angeles Count, however, showed that while aliens cost the county $954 million in public services, they pay $4.3 billion in federal taxes. It is really the American system which funnels the money out of California that Californians should be, and are, blaming. Furthermore, Teillon naively insists that "support for Prop 187 has little to do with?fear of foreigners or the preservation of the Caucasian ethnicity of America." Unfortunately, top backers of the measure include Don Rogers, a California state senator who is perhaps best known for his association with the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. I appreciate Teillon's sentiments about Prop 187, but take issue with his analysis. Undocumented aliens are an integral part of the economy and we as Americans must recognize that our future is linked to their welfare. Furthermore, Prop 187 is only a political tool to satisfy the anger of Californians during their economic crisis. A finance major such as Teillon should know better than to look for scapegoats when the bottom line is not meeting expectations. Elizabeth Valdes Law School '96 To the Editor: There are numerous errors and libelous statements about Church Universal and Triumphant and church leader Elizabeth Clare Prophet in the DP's recent story. ("Alleged cult to hold several seminars on campus this weekend" DP, 11/18/94). Neither Marie Mar nor "Sarah" (correct name is Sandy) Buchaklian were ever members of the church, as the reporter wrote. Both are self-styled critics of the church who have never attended any of its services, but who have a history of making demonstrably false statements about Mrs. Prophet and her church. Buchaklian was a member of the Montana Cult Awareness Network (CAN), an organization that unfairly criticizes New Religious Movements. CAN has a history of indirectly (and perhaps directly) supporting coercive deprogrammings (which involve kidnapping) and was criticized in a Justice Department report for being indirectly responsible for the debacle at Waco. The reporter, relying on statements from Mar and Buchaklian, which she got not from them but allegedly from the Anti-Defamation League, argues that Mrs. Prophet is anti-Semitic. For the record, neither Elizabeth Clare Prophet nor Church Universal and Triumphant is anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish. Statements to the contrary are false. If the reporter had bothered to get a response from the church (which good journalistic practice requires her to do), I would have set her straight. Our beliefs are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition and we spend a good deal of time studying the OldTestament. We also study Kabbalah, which is Jewish mysticism. I'm not sure what history preservation and urban studies professor George Thomas was talking about when he said that the people sitting in The Ranch Kitchen, the church's Montana restaurant, all looked the same and had "that sort of weird, passive facial look." However unprofessional this comment is, he should be more careful before he traffics in stereotypes. In all likelihood, the people in the restaurant were mostly tourists visiting Yellowstone National Park. Perhaps he finds that bizarre. But "Gourmet" magazine came away with a different impression. Their reporters gave the restaurant an excellent review. While there is a legitimate meaning for the cult in the lexicon in the field of religious studies, the word "cult," as the reporter has used it, is a pejorative. Nevertheless, Church Universal and Triumphant is not a cult. A group of leading scholars recently published the results of an interdisciplinary study called "Church Universal and Triumphant in Scholarly Perspective." They concluded that the church is a denomination like the Babtists or Methodists. They also found that church members are no more subject to being led by an authoritarian leader than the general population. In fact, they found that church members are more intelligent, educated and independent than the average American. The church does not use mind control. CAN's theory of mind control has been repudiated by both the American Psychological Association and the American Sociological Association. Dr. Margaret Singer, the person who has done most to champion CAN's theory of mind control, can no longer testify in court as an expert in her area of claimed "expertise" because her views are not generally accepted in the scientific community. In the future I hope reporters from The Daily Pennsylvanian will be more professional when they write about us. Like everyone else, we are interested in fairness, balance and accuracy. So have your reporters give us a call. Murray Steinman Media Relations Director