I WAS ON "THE RANT" LAST NIGHT!!!!"

"The Rant" is a public opinion spot on the local Oklahoma news broadcast from KFOR channel 4. It's basically a forum where people can e-mail short comments about a predetermined topic. 6 or 7 of these opinions are aired just before the weather forecast. It's the creation of news anchor Kevin Ogle, son of legendary news reporting pioneer Jack Ogle. His brother Kent, a superior anchor IMO, works the morning and noon shows. He also has a brother named Kelly who is the chief anchor at a rival station, KWTV. Kelly is well known for creating his own op-ed piece called "My 2 Cents". "The Rant" is almost certainly Kevin's attempt to steal some of Kelly's thunder. The only difference is that his "Rant" is made up of audience's responses (to be fair, Kevin almost always gives equal opportunity to both sides of any particular issue). Personally I prefer the "Rant" over Kelly's 2 Cents, because, face it, there are rarely occasions when I give a flying flip about what Kelly Ogle has to say, no matter who correct he is or how eloquently he presents his point of view. "The Rant" shows both sides of the coin, and a lot of the time the participants display just how backwards a lot of us Oklahomans really are. Who knows...the fact that they included my "rant" last night could very well place me right square in the middle of that category. That's fine by me! I've wanted to be on "The Rant" for a long time, and I do believe in what I wrote about.

The topic:

Trouble between cellmates at a prison in England. One prisoner is an atheist - the other a Christian. The atheist inmate complained that the Christian prisoner is a Bible thumper who won't quit talking about God. Authorities ended up moving the Christian to another cell. A bad precedent - caving to one prisoner's complaints? Or was it the right move to keep the peace?

My wife, quite unhappy with my answer, pointed out that I had dodged the actual question of whether the move was the right thing to do under the circumstances. She takes a very common (and reasonable) view: if a person is in prison they don't deserve to have ANY rights whatsoever, by virtue of the fact that they are incarcerated and shouldn't be pandered to. I can see how that makes perfect sense insomuch as a guilty verdict and a prison sentence strips a man of many of the rights he enjoyed as a free citizen.

But I think that viewpoint only stands from the outside looking in. Prisoners DO have rights, within the system. One of those rights is Freedom of Religion. I imagine they have Freedom of Speech up to a point. One might say, "But the Christian was only exercising those freedoms...religion and speech." And they would be absolutely right. But isn't it also true that the atheist has freedom FROM religion? Why should he be subjected to incessant proselytizing? Surely people from both sides can see the foolishness of the prison authorities in housing the two together in the first place. Take it a step further and imagine cells shared by a Muslim and a Christian, or a Satanist and a Christian, a Hindu and a Christian...there's a common denominator developing here...but then again, I'm sure those kinds of pairings happen all the time with no incidents. In fact, I would bet that solid friendships are likely forged in such situations by people who can respect others' faiths and mind their own business. You have to remember that the culprit in this "Rant" situation was "a Bible Thumper", and we all know what that means. The ONLY people who should have to live in a cell with a Bible Thumper is another Bible Thumper. Otherwise it should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It sounds like I'm mocking, but I'm NOT.

That's what the atheist convict deserves, the majority insist. I say it's not for other prisoners to mete out punishment above and beyond what the prison system is capable of doing as it's duty, even if they don't think of what they are doing as "punishment"...just as I have no doubt that the majority would never admit that a continuous, endless bombardment of "God talk" should be considered as "punishment" in the first place. This is a point to which I disagree. Just think of it this way: how would you like it if the only television station you could get in your house was the Trinity Broadcasting Network and you had no way of turning the set off or the volume down? I think your ideas about this being "punishment" might change after a few days (I realize that there are those who watch absolutely nothing but TBN anyway, and I don't mean to offend these folks...but you have to admit that when you get to that point you have crossed the line into fanaticism).

But I suppose I should tell you my "Rant" response. And then I will try to defend it. Hopefully I won't/don't come off like one of the less tolerant "Ranters" that are always good for a chuckle or two.

Where's the "Christian compassion" in driving a man insane? I say preach the gospel, shut up and let God take care of it.

Okay, so I don't address the issue straight up. But as I see it, if the Bible Thumper had respected the atheists wishes, reasonable as they undeniably were, there would BE NO ISSUE. Sure, the Bible tells followers to go out and preach to all the world. But I've always been of the opinion that to "preach" does not necessarily mean "to speak". A man preaches the gospel by the life he lives. Think about it. I'm not saying that Christians shouldn't "preach" in the accepted use of the word. But to do it that way with someone who has already rejected the message seems disrespectful, especially in light of the fact that a "true Christian lifestyle" would have been much more persuasive at that point than the blah blah blah of a self-appointed prison evangelist.

Go ahead, I say. Preach your message. Extend the invitation. But then it's time to LIVE the message you preach, which is (or should be) "Love Your Neighbor as You Love Yourself". Treat him the way you would want to be treated. I doubt very seriously if this Bible Thumper would have appreciated repeated readings from the works of Bertrand Russell courtesy of his atheist cell mate. Or a pin-up poster of Madelyn Murray O'Hair hanging on the wall. Or God's name being used in vain constantly.

And maybe he got just that. Just maybe the separation wasn't at the sole instigation of the atheist. Which brings me back to the topic of last night's "Rant". I admit I sort of skirted the issue, but I thought that the underlying reasons were a lot more thought provoking than whether or not the prison folks did the right thing in separating them. The right thing? I wouldn't venture to say. The HUMANE thing? Absolutely. It seems like a winning situation for all involved. The atheist got some peace. The Christian got a whole 'nother soul to try and convert. The prison officials avoided a potentially serious situation...

...and I FINALLY got my e-mail shown on "The Rant"! I can't seem to wipe the smile off of my face! he he

---