Page 8 P O S T S C R I P T — Q U I L L May 24, 1967 Beemish Writhes Again (Continued from page 6) “You-you don’t seem to understand. I was over there where we . . where this place . . . will you put down those papers and listen to me?” “You listen to me, Swampfox. I t so hap pens these papers are w h at may gain us a little recognition, if you know w h a t th a t is. I’ve been placed in charge of this sea son’s lecture series for the Garden Club; and, in case you’re interested, I’m w riting to try to get Rachel Carson. You know, the one th a t writes about poison? O f course I w on't succeed and we’ll have to settle for Mrs. MacFurdey from the nursery, but at least all those snobs from B a rrington Heights will have to sit up and take notice just at the attem pt. L e t me tell you, if you’re ever going to be anything more than assistant vice-president, you’d better put out a little bit, too, instead of blundering through some - some park.” “Yes, yes, th a t’s it. The park. T h a t’s w h a t I wanted to talk about. The park. While I remember. B-before I forget.” “Oh, yeh, before I forget. I guess you’ll have to know. Well, I ’ve gotten th a t sable stole I told you I saw at M urphy’s. Look, don’t give me th a t stunned gape; I made the first payment out of my own purse. I don’t see why you should balk at paying the rest. Honestly, Philbert, we have to have something to hold up our heads about. We certainly can’t be proud of this dumpy apartm e n t or our dumpy car, and you . . . th a t is . . . w h at I mean is . . . just that you’ve been letting yourself get pretty stout lately.” “Myra. Listen. You’ve got to tell me this much. It’s all I ask. Do you remember any thing about the park and us, about the lake . . .?” “That lake — hah! You oughta see that in the daylight like normal humans do in stead of at night. T tell you the scum on that lake is thick enough to gag a pelican. Just this bilious green scum all over the place; probably because of that meat pack ing plant’s waste running into it. I t ’s a good thing you have that cold or the stench of it would have knocked you over.” “Scum . . . stench. T h a t’s all there is, after all? Ju s t . . . th a t?” “Well, go on. W h at were you going to say about the park?” “Park? Oh, park. I don't know. I don’t remember. I ’ve forgotten. I guess I ’d better p;et busy now. Have to do the Connery report.” “Okay. See you later. Oh, P h ilbert — if you’re so fascinated with th a t lake, I saw something in the paper th a t m ight in terest you. Seems they’re starting plans to drain it. They’re gonna build a brand new superm arket in its place. I t ’ll be the second biggest in the state for a city this size.” “T h a t’s nice.” C h u r c h v e r s u s G o v e r n m e n t (Continued from page 7) stances. It is properly used in such titles as “Jones vei'sus the State”, “Smith versus Brown”, or “Smith versus the United States Government.” In courts of law the word versus em phatically states th a t two parties are in conflict, and usually some de gree of antagonism is implicit in the charges made. In other words, versus indicates an auto- moving in diametrically different directions. One accuses the other of being wrong, and the second party, m u st therefore, enter a defense for its position. In the United States of America our Constitution and its subordinate laws have always provided for full and free func tions fo r both the state and the church. N e ither has grossly challenged the other, nor interfered w ith the other, until re cent adjustm e n ts in Supreme Court opin ions on separation of the church and state. Modern critics of the American Constitu tion who cautiously suggest th a t it is passe, out of date, and inadequate, over look m any vital truths. Among them is the fact th a t fram ers of this nation’s foun dation documents and the system of gov ernm e n t those documents established, were living very close to the memory of many abuses from government. And we m u st not forget th a t religion missed the m ark con siderably in the earliest days of this new set of colonies. W hile it may be argued, successfully, th a t the government of the United States made more spectacular advances than the church in the first one hundred and fifty years after the American Revolution, both were rem arkable in their progress. U n d e r a civil governm ent devoted to growth, expansion, peace, defense of its sovereignty and legal rights for all men, our nation sprang into vibrant existence. The world was amazed. Here was a small, new, alm o st totally inexperienced society of men drawn together in a strange pattern of human interest, taking its place as a world power almost overnight. The churches in A m erica were the con sciences of the people. W hen there was ill ness, poverty, injury, w e a ther failure, fire or storm , church affiliated private citizens would rise to the occasion. No one ever thought in term s of asking government to become involved in such circumstances. The first hint of official governm ent interference would have brought protests. A m erica grew and her faith in God was never seriously questioned by any nation. Once the United States advanced in a clim ate of the church plus the state; then we turned to the church versus the state. Now we are approaching an era of the church and the state, as though in full partnership. There is no need for enmity, cross purpose or antagonism between civil and religious impulses, but neither is there a need for m u tuality of pursuit. Christ him self said “ R ender unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God th a t which is God’s.” S a n c t u a r y (Continued from page 7) China was carried on by many of our allies in Europe. The same problems and policies confront us in new guise as the fighting in Viet Nam involves a m a tter of life and death for more and more American troops. It is not only legitim ate but vitally necessary, to ask if the errors of the past are going to be repeated, or if this time we are going to fight to win, as our enemy always has done and is still doing. The strange idea of sanctuary for an enemy with whom you are locked in mox'tal combat needs to be explained again and again, because it seems to be a ruling ob session with certain policy-makers in W ash ington. I t appeared in its most obvious form in the Korean War. American planes were forbidden to fly north of the Yalu River even in hot pursuit of an enemy. They were held back though they could actually see enemy planes taking off just across the river to attack them. Sanctuary appeared again in the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Despite the fact th a t missiles being set up in Cuba were aimed at American cities, no direct action against Cuba was permitted. In Viet Nam, the sanctuary doctrine call ed for the w ar to be fought entirely in South Viet Nam, if a t all, while Commun- ist-ruled N o rth Viet Nam remained in violate. But this time the so-called sanctu ary was rejected by President Johnson. Re gular bombing raids on North Viet Nam were undertaken. For once, in a critical area of combat we showed ourselves will ing to carry the fight to the enemy, con signing the sanctuary where it should have been left in the first place. Some who had supported appeasem ent and sanctuary in the past took to the streets in futile public protest and demon strations against President Johnson’s pol icy, but others remained in place, seeming to agree to the change. I t is now becoming clear th a t the bombing of N orth Viet Nam alone has not sufficed to kill the sanctuary. A retired Army officer, General Thomas Lane, has called attention to the fact th a t there are two other sanctuaries for the enemy in Southeast Asia. These are the “neutral” nations of Laos and Combodia on the western border of Viet Nam. Neither Laos or Cambodia has ever real ly been able to control its own territory since both were set up as nations by the ill-fated Geneva agreem ents of 1954, which neither the United States nor South Viet Nam ever signed. It is through the border areas of Laos and Cambodia th a t the fam ous Ho Chi Minh supply trail runs. The North Vietnamese have even built air bases in this area which they use regularly. The authorities in Laos and Cambodia are either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. This means th a t our own troops in South Viet Nam are, in effect, surrounded on all sides by communist-controlled areas. The greatest American casualities have been suffered in actions close to the western border, where troops pour out of Laotian and Cambodian territory. Long-established international law re quires neutral nations to disarm and intern soldiers of w arring nations found inside its borders. If the neutral nation is unable or unwilling to do so, then international law gives full approval to w h atever steps the com b atants deem necessary to prevent their opponents from using neutral te r ritory. But there has been no invasion on Laos or Cambodia to put a stop to the use of this territory by N o rth Viet Nam and Viet Cong forces, nor any hint of action of this kind. So we find two more sanctuaries from which the foe can operate w ithout restraint. In all these ways the sanctuary doctrine is reappearing in Southeast Asia. Pundits may argue pro and con over its merits, but one thing is sure: the more sanctuaries the enemy is allowed to have, the more American soldiers will die.