Return to Table of Contents

THE POSITION OF THE CHURCH OVER THE CENTURIES:


The Discipline reads:
"We affirm our long -standing conviction and recommendation that abstinence from the use of alcoholic beverages is a faithful witness to God's liberating and redeeming love."

This call for abstinence is a reaffirmation of John Wesley's opposition to alcoholic beverages which has continued through all branches of what is now the United Methodist Church.

The Christmas Conference of 1784 adopted a rule that forbade "drunkenness, buying or selling spiritous liquors or drinking them."

The 1840 Discipline stated that: "No elder, deacon or preacher among us shall distill or vend spiritous liquors without forfeiting his official standing."

The 1849 Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church (North) listed among those things for which a member could be tried the "buying, selling or using intoxicating liquors as a beverage".

The Methodist Episcopal Church South asked their preachers, in 1854, if they chose and used water for their "common drink".
In 1884 the Methodist Episcopal Church (North)said: "We, therefore, regard voluntary abstinence from all intoxicants as the true groound of personal temperance, and complete legal prohibition of theIn 1884 the Methodist Episcopal Church (North) said: "We, therefore, regard voluntary total abstinence from all intoxicants as the true ground of personal abstinence from all intoxicants as the true ground of personal temperance, and complete legal prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic drinks as the duty of civil government."
The Discipline of 1894 of the Methodist Episcopal Church South not only repeated the General Rule on intoxicants, but declared that a member would be "guilty of immorality" if he manufactured or sold intoxicating liquors, signed a petition for such sale, became a bondsman for any person applying for a license to sell intoxicants or rented property to be used for the sale of intoxicants.
The United Brethern Discipline of 1913 also labeled as immoral not only the use of intoxicants but also their manufacture, the "renting and leasing of property to be used for the manufacture or sale of such drinks" and their "signing of petitions for granting license" (to sell).
The Methodist Episcopal Church (North) Discipline for 1924 called far the expulsion of not only members who used intoxicating liquors but also anyone who would manufacture them, sell them, sign a petition for a license to sell them or rent property where they are either manufactured or sold.
The 1936 General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church (North) stated: The Methodist Episcopal Church does not retreat in this trying hour. It has accepted no discharge in the war for a saloonless nation free from the domination of legalized liquor. We do not blind ourselves to the trail of moral wreckage across the years of repeal. Increased crime, the open saloon under new dress and name, depressed morals, wrecked homes, debauched youth, mounting traffic tolls, broken pledges, and other glaring evils almost without number, shout the call for a reawakened conscience that will meet this crisis. We look to Almighty God for strength to meet this issue.
The function of the State is the protection of its citizens. It is intolerable that any government through participation in revenues should be a party to a business which thrives upon the physical,social, moral and spiritual decay of its people We demand that such participation cease. We declare for an intensified program of education and agitation for creation of a national conscience that will never countenance the iniquitous liquor traffic. ...,.. The Board of Temperance, Prohibition, and Public Morals was founded to promote total abstinence. We do not recede from that position. Honoring the provisions of our Discipline, we urge a total abstinence pledge-signing campaign that shall be carried into all the churches of Methodism.
................................................................... Death rides the highways, whole families are snufffed out in so-called "accidents" caused by the liquor-befuddled brain and palsied hands of drinking drivers, while the blood money that pays for their liquor goes to "balance the budget" of the state.
............................ Another tragedy of this hour is that funds from the liquor traffic are being turned into public-school treasuries, that thus may be stilled the voices of educational leaders that should be raised in an aggressive campaign to acquaint our youth with the facts concerning this habit forming drug. We protest against the use in this way of money so acquired.
The first Discipline of the "Methodist Church" in 1939 stated: "Methodism has insisted that intoxicating liquor cannot be legalized without sin. Wine through the centuries has not ceased to be a mocker, traitorously destroying individuals and blighting society. Adequate relief can come only through total abstinence for the individual and effective prohibition by the State.
The Evangelical United Brethem Discipline in 1947 stated: "Voluntary total abstinence from all intoxicants is the true ground of personal temperance, complete legal prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic beverages is the duty of civil government. " Because of its recent merger (1946) the Discipline went on to cite that the following "law" had "been in effect since the earliest days of The Church of the United Brethern Brethern in Christ and of The Evangelical Church" This referred to paragraph #1914 which read: "The manufacture, sale and use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage, the renting and leasing of property to he used for the manufacture or sale of such liquors, also the signing of petitions for granting license, or the entering as bondsman for persons enganged in the traffic in intoxicating liquors, are strictly prohibited "
The "Uniting" General Conference of the United Methodist Church, 1968, said that to implement concern for the problems of alcohol and drugs it encouraged "abstinence from the use of alcoholic beverages as one form of personal and social witness to God's liberating love for mankind.''

Return to Table of Contents

Howard Lydick, Chairman
Richardson, Texas

Rev. Bob Bavender
Sterling, Virginia

John Dowell
Tampa, Florida

Bill Howie
Waxhaw, North Carolina

Richard Haight
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Joseph Meredith
Fresno, California

Rev. Allen B. Rice
Lansing, Michigan

Rev. R.O. Sigler
Dothan, Alabama

Rev. Virgilo Vasquez-Garza
Corpus Christi, Texas

Miss Elizabeth Williams
Knoxville, Tennessee

Mrs. Nancy Zabel
Frederick, Maryland

Return to Table of Contents

PROGRAM:

The continuance of the work of the Board of Temperance requires that we work in several areas, thus having a variety of projects. The first one was an Essay Contest for the UMYF in October, 1994 which was cosponsored by the United Methodist Reporter. Another contest for the UMYF was announced on January 2, 1999. We have printed a bulletin insert for use by the local church. For the past year we have been working towards the reintroduction in the Congress of legislation to prohibit all advertising of alcoholic beverages and anticipate its introduction this year. Other projects include the distribution of a monthly bulletin of reprinted news stories about problems caused by alcohol (fatal automobile accidents, crimes committed while intoxicated, family problems, etc.), reprinting Dr. Doug Jackson's book STUMBLING BLOCK and producing TV spot ads promoting abstinence. We have been, and will continue to be, in contact with the Council of Bishops, the General Board of Discipleship and the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry regarding how their own area of responsibility impacts on the support and promotion of the Church's stand on alcohol and drugs. We are particularly concerned about the lax attitude toward the posession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by "United Methodist" Universities and intend to continue our efforts to persuade the trustees of "United Methodist" Universities and Colleges to follow United Methodist policy regarding alcoholic beverages.

Return to Table of Contents

FUNDING:

Because the Committee is an independent organization and therefore not part of the formal church organization we receive zero money from World Service. We are 100% dependent on gifts from interested persons and churches to finance our program. We may accomplish as much of the overall program as we receive funding.

Gifts should be sent to:

The Independent Committee on Alcohol & Drugs For United Methodists
P. O. Box 532
Richardson, Texas 75083-0532

Return to Table of Contents

Essay Contest For the MYF:

The Committee is sponsoring an essay contest for the MYF The purpose is to offer the UMYF an opportunity to share their christian witness on the benefits of abstinence from alcohol The rules are as follows:

TOPICS:
The topics for the 2007 essay contest are:
Grades 7 thru 9 "Who is hurt when people use alcohol?".
Grades 10 thru 12 "How do I cope in a world filled with alcohol and other drugs?".

LENGTH:
Grades 7-9: 350 to 450 words.
Grades 10-12: 500 to 750 words

CONTENT: Each essay must adhere to the assigned topic. Reference material should be listed at the end of the essay. Footnotes are not necessary unless statistical data are presented or direct quotes are used. Direct quotations should not exceed 20 percent of the essay.

CRITERIA: Essays should reflect an explicitly Christian perspective. Essays will be judged on the basis of content and originality (40 percent), style and expressiveness (30 percent), clarity and grammatical construction (20 percent) and neatness(l0 percent).

PREPARATION: Submit a completed Essay Contest Application form and five (5) copies on white paper with one inch margins. Essays may be typed, computer printed, or neatly handwritten and should be double spaced.

AWARDS:
Grades 7-9: 1st place $500.00; 2nd place $250.00 and 3rd place $125.00.
Grades 10-12: 1st place $750.00; 2nd place $500.00 and 3rd place $300

DEADLINES: All essays must be postmarked by April 10, 2007. Mail essay with a completed application form to:

Essay Contest, Independent Committee on Alcohol & Drugs for United Methodists,
P. O. Box 532,
Richardson, Texas, 75083-0532.

Application forms can be obtained from the Commitee at the same address, or at Essay Contest Application.

Past Essay Contest Winners
For a list of winners and the two top essays click on the link above.

Return to Table of Contents

The following information is of vital importance to you:

Because of alcohol related traffic crashes, the 16 to 24 year old age group is the only age group for whom life expectancy is not increasing.1

Alcohol was involved in the death of 20% of those persons who committed suicide.2 If you consider only suicide by young people alcohol involvement rises to between 50 and 6O percent.3

Alcohol is involved with:

50% of traffic fatalities;
49% of murders
69% of drownings
38% of child abuse cases.1

Consumption of alcoholic beverages increases aggression and with it violence. There is a distinct difference between violence associated with illegal drugs and alcohol. Most drug violence is associated with the sale of drugs. While violence associated with alcohol normally occurs after the alcohol has been consumed. "Alcohol is the only psychoactive drug which may trigger violent behavior after a person consumes only moderate amounts."4

· Alcohol contributes to 100,000 deaths annually and is the third leading cause of preventable deaths in the U.S., after only tobacco and diet/activity habits."3

· · Of every ten persons who drink one becomes an alcoholic.1

· · If you purchased an American made car in 1990 $466.74 of the purchase price was there to cover the cost of employee absenteeism and extra health costs.'

· The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was repealed in 1933. Per capita consumption of alcoholic beverages equal to pre-prohibition level was not reached until 1970.,..37 years after repeal of the prohibition amendment!"

*******************
These research statements are presented for your consideration. Why not decide today to choose to live a life that is alcohol free!
******************

1.Drug Prevention Resources
2.National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc.
3.Center for Science in the Public Interest
4.Jeffrey Roth, National Institute of Justice, quoted from A.C.A.P. quarterly Journal, January 1996
5.The Bottom Line vol. 9 no. 2, compiled from statistics of HEW, NIAAA, and Alcohol Research Information Service

ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE ORDERED FROM: The Independent Committee on Alcohol and Drugs for United Methodists
PO Box 532
Richardson, Texas 75080

50 copies/$3.25 plus $1.50 postage and handling
100 copies/$5.00 plus $2.40 postage and handling

Printed by Michigan Interfaith Council on Alcohol Problems
Printed in U.S.A.

What are our responsibilities to others? This question shows up early in the Bible. We find this question in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. In chapter 4, verse 9, when Cain asks: “Am I my brothers keeper?” Jump forward to the first century AD and we find Saint Paul giving this advise in Romans, chapter 14: “...rather make this simple judgment: that no obstacle or stumbling block be placed in a brother’s way. (13) ....Let us then pursue the things that make for peace and build up the common life. Do not ruin the work of God for the sake of food. Everything is pure in itself, but anything is bad for the man who by his eating causes another to fall. It is a fine thing to abstain from eating meat or drinking wine, or doing anything which causes your brother’s downfall. (20-22).......Each of us must consider his neighbor and think what is for his good and will build up the common life.” (15:2) (New English Bible)

Saint Paul’s references to “eating meat” sounds strange to modern ears. But in Saint Paul’s time many animals were sacrificed to pagan gods. These sacrificial animals provided much more meat than could be eaten by the priests. Therefore some of it was offered to the worshipers. The very act of eating meat from animals sacrificed to these pagan gods was considered an act of worship. That is why Saint Paul objected to the eating of temple meat. While some could eat it without it effecting their faith, there were others who were new converts to the Christian faith and so vulnerable to being pulled away from it. These persons were used to numerous gods and seeing a leader in the Christian faith eating temple meat could easily return to the pagan concept of many gods thus greatly weakening, if not destroying, their faith in Christ. These things obviously happened which is why Saint Paul mentions them as a warning regarding ones Christian witness.

This is applicable today as regards the use of various alcoholic beverages, beer, wine and hard liquors. Some people obviously use them without any apparent ill effect on themselves. When applied to society as a whole you get a very different result. Apart from the question of fatal car accidents, alcohol is very much involved in many other problems. First, one person in ten who consumes alcoholic beverages becomes an alcoholic. It is estimated that there are 13,600,000 (1) in the United States. It is the “social drinker” who creates the alcoholics since no one ever started consuming alcoholic beverages after watching a drunk. Considering its effects on the individual, if alcohol were to be discovered today, the Food and Drug Administration would deny permission for it to be sold. Government statistics show alcoholic beverages to be deeply involved in other problems as well. Alcohol is involved in 49% of murders,69% of drownings, 38% of child abuse cases (2). It is also a cause of 60% of domestic violence (3), 20% of all suicides but is invovled in 50% and 60% of the suicides if you consider only those of young people. (4).

While may not personally suffer from a “social drink” or two during the year, by your use you are giving approval to its use in society. As such you are not only risking someone starting on the road to alcoholism (since you can consume alcohol it is OK for them to do also) you are also giving your approval for its use generally in society in spite of the well known problems that come with its use. You are, in the words of Saint Paul, putting a “stumbling block” in the way of your neighbor.

1 Alcohol Research Information Service 2 Drug Prevention Resources 3 World Health Organization, Substance Abuse Department 4. Center for Science in the Public Interest
ADDITIONAL COPIES MAY BE ORDERED FROM: The Independent Committee on Alcohol and Drugs for United Methodists
PO Box 532
Richardson, Texas 75080

50 copies/$3.25 plus $1.50 postage and handling
100 copies/$5.00 plus $2.40 postage and handling
Printed by Michigan Interfaith Council on Alcohol Problems
Printed in U.S.A.

Return to Table of Contents

The United Methodist Church has a long history with education. It began with John Wesley’s opening schools for the children of the very poor. He was a University educated man as were many of the other early leaders of the Methodist movement. As Methodism grew in America and spread westward across the continent so did our commitment to education. A church related college or university was established by every annual conference. A church college or university exists for two reasons. First, to stimulate and train the intellect. Second, to build character by establishing ethical and moral guidelines. In the absence of the second reason a church institution of high learning is no different from a secular institution.

Alcoholic beverages are a destructive element in today’s society. They have become so prevalent and destructive in American Colleges and Universities that in 1995 they became the subject of major magazine articles and television news programs. Early in 1996 the Committee made a random survey of United Methodist schools to learn the policy of United Methodist schools on this important subject. Although disappointed with what we found we were hardly surprised considering the decline of morals over the past thirty years. We then wrote the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry on March 5th expressing our concern. That letter along with their reply is below.

These are our schools. As such, we have both a moral and legal right to expect them to follow United Methodist moral and ethical standards. We can do something about them if we have the will to do so. Edmund Burke (1729-1797) has been quoted as stating: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. That it still true. Those concerned about this problem need to find out the actual policy of the United Methodist College or University in your area. If you find that they are, in fact, permitting the students to possess and consume alcoholic beverages then, as a United Methodist, you have right to protest and insist that they follow church policy on alcoholic beverages. Write your Bishop since most, of not all, of our Bishops sit on College and University Boards of Trustees. Address a letter to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees and to the President of the school. Secure the support of other like-minded persons and secure protests from your Sunday School Class, Methodist Men’s group,. United Methodist Women, Administrative Board or a petition signed by members of your local congregation.

Below are letters we have written to the two worst offenders because they permit the serving on alcoholic beverages on campus......a direct repudiation of the ethical standards of the United Methodist Church. We are sorry to note that one of Methodism’s flagship schools (SMU) is one of the two worst offenders. Because SMU is a Jurisdictional school it receives support from the South Central Jurisdiction and its trustees are ELECTED by the Jurisdictional Conference. That means those of us living in the South Central Jurisdiction have a direct interest in and responsibility for SMU. Thus any United Methodist living in the Jurisdiction has a clear right to ask that SMU change its present policy on alcoholic beverages to one that conforms to the standards of the Untied Methodist Church. South Central Jurisdiction consists of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas and New Mexico. Remember, things will change at United Methodists schools only if we, as members of the Church, lay and clergy, insist that they change.

DRINKING ON CAMPUS (Adopted by General Conference, May, 2000)

Whereas, United Methodist colleges should provide an environment suitable for pursuing a higher education in a Christian atmosphere; and Whereas, recent studies, including one by the Harvard School of Public health, show that 44 percent of college students---many of them under legal drinking ages--may be binge drinkers, defined as one who consumes four-to-five drinks or more in a sitting; and WHEREAS, many students are reported drinking to get drunk, and alarming percentages of students reported alcohol-related incidents, such as missing classes, personal injuries, sexual assault, or other forms of violence and vandalism. Therefore, be it resolved, that the United Methodist Church continue to address this issue through: (1) the Special Program on Substance Abuse and Related Violence ...... partnering with United Methodist College presidents and/or staff, as well as other agencies and programs that are working on the issue of reducing college drinking; (2) promoting an alternative lifestyle that encourages "wellness" without drugs and alcohol, seeking authentic advocates for this alternative lifestyle, and having these advocates promote this image on United Methodist campuses around the world; (3) carrying out the five program components of SPSARV:....... (4) strongly recommending that United Methodist related colleges and universities uphold abstinence from drinking alcohol as a viable and faith-filled option, and that those institutions provide programming and social events that would foster such an environment.

The Independent Committee on Alcohol & Drugs
For United Methodists
Post Office Box 532
Richardson, TX 75083-0532
March 5, 1996

Bishop Calvin McConnell, President
General Board of Higher Education & Ministry
Suite 301
2112 Third Avenue
Seattle, Washigton 98121-2333

RE: Alcoholic beverage policy of United Methodist Colleges and Universities

Dear Bishop McConnell:

The Committee has undertaken a random survey of United Methodist Colleges and Universities for the purpose of learning the attitude of our institutions of higher learning in regard to the use of beverage alcohol. What we have learned is disturbing though not surprising in view of the steady decline of morals in the United States over the past thirty years. We contacted 19 schools (a list is attached).They are located in all five Jurisdictions.

To our sorrow we learned that virtually all of these United Methodist schools permit the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by the students in their rooms. There are few, if any restrictions, on the consumption of alcoholic beverages at social events either for the individual student or a school organization, whether social or academic. What is worse we found that two schools, Allegheney College(Meadville,Pennsylvania) and Southern Methodist University (Dallas, Texas) permit the serving of alcoholic beverages on the school campus, if the students just make the effort to ask politely. A copy of their official rules are attached.

We are not impressed by pious statements in the various sets of student regulations regarding the fact that the school expects the students to observe state laws regarding alcoholic beverages, reminders that alcohol use can cause problems, it should be used responsibly, etc.,etc., etc. Most members of the Committee are of an age that we remember when our schools took the churches proabstinence position seriously. The use and possession of alcoholic beverages, on or off campus, was grounds for expulsion and the policy was enforced.

We ask that the Board review for itself the policy on alcoholic beverages of each United Methodist College or University. We urge that the Board insist that every United Methodist school have clearly stated and published rules which, at a minimum, state that: "No alcoholic beverages are to be sold, served, consumed or possessed for any reason on school owned property, or affiliated property such as fraternities sororities or other leased or registered housing units."

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

cc: Mrs. Roslyn Sykes
Secretary of the Board
957 Warder Avenue
Saint Louis, Missouri 63130

Mr. Roger Ireson
General Secretary of the Board
Post Office Box 871
Nashville, Tennessee 37202-0871

United Methodist Colleges and Universities contacted for their official policy regarding alcoholic beverages.

Albright College - Reading, Pennsylvania
Allegheny College - Meadville, Pennsylvania
Cornell University - Mount Vernon, Iowa
De Pauw University - Greencastle, Indiana
Emery College - Atlanta, Georgia
Hamline University - Saint Paul, Minnesota
Iliff School of Theology - Denver, Colorado
Kendall College - Evanston, Illinois
Mac Murray College - Jacksonville, Illinois
McKindrew College - Lebanon, Illinois
Nebraska Wesleyan - Lincoln, Nebraska
North Central College - Naperville, Illinois
Saint Paul University - Kansas City, Missouri
Southern Methodist University - Dallas, Texas
The American University - Washington, D. C.
University of Denver - Denver, Colorado
University of Puget Sound - Tacoma, Washington
Wesley College - Dover, Delaware
Willamette University - Salem, Oregon

Return to Table of Contents

BOARD OF OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND MINISTRY
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH DIVISION OF HIGHER EDUCATION
1001 Nineteenth Avenue, South
P. O. Box 871 Ken Yamada
Nashville, Tn 37202- Associate General Secretary
Telephone (615)340-7399
FAX (615)340-7048
April 8, 1995

Mr. Howard Lydick, Chairman
The Independent Committee on Alcohol & Drugs For United Methodists
P. O. Box 532
Richardson Texas 75083-0532

Dear Mr. Lydick:

Bishop Calvin McConnell referred your letter of March 5, 1936, and the results of a random survey on alcoholic beverage policies among United Methodist-related colleges and universities. I am responding to your request that the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry "review for itself the policy on alcoholic beverages of each United Methodist college or university...and insist that every United Methodist school have clearly stated and published rules...that no alcoholic beverages are to be sold, served, consumed or possessed...

While the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry supports the prohibition of alcoholic beverage consumption on United Methodist-related college and university campuses, the Board understands the reality of student life on campus and the current policies of some of the United Methodist-related colleges and universities which you have found through the random survey.

The issue of alcoholic beverage consumption on campus cannot easily be resolved in the contemporary societal context because some of the institutions are caught in the middle between the church's and public policy considerations. Our colleges are often guided by the statutory drinking age and a series of court decisions, as well as being pressured by the church and a realistic assessment of how to address the use of alcohol. As your random survey found, those United Methodist-related colleges and universities retain a clear policy to prohibit "selling and consuming" alcoholic beverages on campus except in specifically designated areas. Our colleges and universities as well as the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry continue to address this serious and problematic issue.

Mr. Howard Lydick
April 8, 1996
Page 2

The Virginia Annual Conference has had a seriously strained relationship with its five United Methodist-related colleges in regard to the alcoholic beverage consumption policy. In the wake of the Virginia Annual Conference's concern about their colleges' policies permitting alcoholic beverage consumption in restricted area on campus by those students 21 years of age or over, the five college presidents boldly explained why their colleges are good United Methodist related colleges worthy of the church's financial and moral support. I have enclosed a copy of the document created by those five presidents. Through a series of dialogues the annual conference leaders and those students 2 1 years of age or over, the five college presidents boldly explained why their colleges are good United Methodistrelated colleges worthy of the church's financial and moral support. I have enclosed a copy of the document created by those five presidents. Through a series of dialogues, the annual conference leaders and the five college presidents increased their understanding of their respective positions without changing the policy. The relationship has been improved and even strengthened.

I hope that this response adequately addresses the important issue which you have raised. The General Board of Higher Education and Ministry continues to deal with this issue. I thank you for your serious concern in addressing this issue.

Sincerely,

Ken Yamada
KY: FG
Enclosure

c: Cavin McConnell
Roger Ireson
Alien Norris

Return to Table of Contents

In July, 2002, The United Methodist Reporter ran a very long article on United Methodist schools and the problems related to alcohol. It was picked up by the MICHIGAN CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE in August. Their article included comments from two different United Methodist schools in Michigan. the Committee responded to these schools as appears below.

August 26, 2002 President of Albion College 611 E. Porter Street Albion, Michigan 49224 Dear Sir: From the article in The Michigan Christian Advocate it appears that you are doing more than many United Methodist Schools to bring the policy of the school as regards alcoholic beverages in line with the centuries old United Methodist policy on alcoholic beverages. For that we thank you. We know from our 1996 survey that while many United Methodist schools follow church policy as regards alcoholic beverages there are also a large number which do not but insist on calling themselves “United Methodist”.

I believe that Dean Walker was correct when she stated: “Consuming alcohol and drugs is not a behavioral phenomenon; it is a cultural phenomenon.” The church is called upon to set standards and, if necessary change cultural standards. It is the responsibility of a United Methodist School to act so as to change the culture when the culture deviates from Untied Methodist standards. Unfortunately far to many “United Methodist” schools have adapted to society. I cringe whenever I read that a U. M. School is promoting “responsible drinking” since considering the damage alcoholic beverages do that is like promoting “responsible adultery”.

While your policy is less than we would prefer it is very much better than the policy of many “United Methodist” Schools. We have expressed ourselves to the Council of Bishops that this means there is no consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by anyone on University property or consumption at any University function either on or off campus, and no consumption or possession on affiliated property such as fraternities and sororities or on other leased or registered housing units. We ask that Albion College adopt this policy. It would mean only a slight modification of your present policy. Our thanks for your effort to promote abstinence from all alcoholic beverages among your student population.

Yours truly,
Howard Lydick, For
The Independent Committee

August 26, 2002

President of Adrian College
110 S. Madison Street
Adrian, Michigan 49221

Dear Sir:

I was sorry to read in the Michigan Christian Advocate that a United Methodist School has a policy on alcoholic beverages different from that of the Church. While disappointing it, regrettably, was not surprising. We ran our own survey of United Methodist Schools in 1996 and found that many, fortunately not all have the same proalcohol stance as does Adrian College. When parents send their children to any church college they have the right to assume that the various policies of the college will reflect the doctrinal standards of that church. It is all to obvious that your policy as regards alcoholic beverages is the exact opposite of the one the Methodist Church has taken for over two centuries. There was a reason John Wesley classified these things as “evil” when he wrote the General Rules in 1739. Those reasons are equally valid today.

I understand your policy is to promote “responsible use” by those who choose to consume alcoholic beverages. That is the official policy of the alcoholic beverage industry. Considering the enormous evils that come out the presence of these beverages in society to promote their “responsible use” is like endorsing “responsible adultery” or “responsible embezzlement”.

We urge that Adrian College adopt rules more in line with Untied Methodist Policy. We have expressed ourselves to the Council of Bishops that this means there is no consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by anyone on University property or consumption at any university function either on or off campus, and no consumption or possession on affiliated property such as fraternities and sororities or on other leased or registered housing units. We ask that Adrian College adopt this policy.

Yours truly,

Howard Lydick, for
The Independent Committee

January 25, 2001

Rev. W. Mark Craig, SMU Trustee
Highland Park United Methodist Church
3300 Mockingbird
Dallas, Texas 75205

Dear Rev. Craig:

We are glad that SMU is no longer treating the list of trustees as a military secret as it has done in the past thus permitting the Committee to write the trustees directly instead of having to write to the Trustees thru the Bishop of the North Texas Conference since we knew he was on the Board of Trustees. We are particularly glad to learn that in the current rules for the University you have removed a former rule permitting the students to serve alcoholic beverages on campus if they asked politely and got permission from the “president or vice president for student affairs”.

We are , however, disappointed that SMU continues to permit the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in dormitory rooms. From reading your current rules it would appear that alcoholic beverages are also permitted in the Faculty Club and the Alumni Center. I know it is permitted on University grounds as I received a University of Kansas flyer prior to the KU-SMU football game on September 2, 2000, advising that beer would be served on the SMU campus. I wrote the President of SMU objecting. His reply confirmed that this did happen. While the answer was unsatisfactory he at least replied which is an improvement over what has occurred in the past.

The position of the church is for total abstinence from alcoholic beverages and has been since Wesley wrote the GENERAL RULES in 1739 where he classified as evil “buying or selling spirituous liquors or drinking them”. Time after time the General Conference has endorsed this position. As an individual, not the committee, I know that in the early 1960’s SMU did follow church policy as regards alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverages were not served on campus. Consuming them off campus was grounds for expulsion from SMU and the policy was enforced. We would ask that SMU again follow the policy of the United Methodist Church as regards alcoholic beverages. Specifically that there is no consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by ANYONE on University property or affiliated property such as fraternities and sororities or other leased or registered housing units.”

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

June 30, 2001

It has been five months since we wrote to the 42 individual members of the SMU
Board of Trustees. We have had a response from only one Trustee. See below.

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 31, 2001

Mr. Howard Lydick, Chairman
The Independent Committee on Alcohol
& Drugs for United Methodists
Post Office Box 532
Richardson, Texas 75083

Dear Mr. Lydick:

Thank you very much for your letter about the alcohol policy
at Southern Methodist University. The First Lady welcomes the
perspective of people like you who clearly care a great deal
about important issues and have taken time to write.

We have noted your comments and shared your letter with the
appropriate members of the White House staff.

Sincerely,

Desiree T. Sayle
Director of Correspondence for the First Lady

March 15, 1997
Bishop William B. Oden
P. O. Box 8127
Dallas, Texas 75205

RE; SMU Policy on Alcoholic Beverages

Dear Bishop:,

I am writing to you, as I did Bishop Blake in May of 1995, because SMU will not release the names of the Trustees thus precluding me from writing them directly.

At that time the Committee raised the question to the Board of the failure of SMU to follow the United Methodist position on alcoholic beverages...Not only were the students permitted to possess and consume alcoholic beverages in their rooms they were even permitted to serve it directly on University Property. We raised the question of when SMU would bring its policy regarding alcoholic beverages in line with that of the United Methodist Church. While we did receive an acknowledgment of our letter it is now obvious that the Board of Trustees itself did not take us seriously.

We are sorry to learn that the policy of SMU remains unchanged from 1995. Students are still permitted to possesses and consume alcoholic beverages in their rooms and to serve it on campus. In SMU POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY LIFE (p9) we learn that: “With the approval of the president or vice president for student affairs, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES MAY, ON EXCEPTIONAL OCCASIONS, BE SERVED ON UNIVERSITY PROPERTY.” This is a clear repudiation of the centuries long United Methodist position on alcoholic beverages.

It was very obvious to me that the Board of Trustees did not take either United Methodist policy or the Committee seriously when I attended a reception at the Umphrey Lee Center on February 9, 1996, and found beer and wine being served. I then filed a complaint, as an individual, with the President of SMU asking by what authority they violated the United Methodist Discipline. I have never received a reply to my letter of February 12, 1996 to the President of SMU.

I have lived in Dallas since 1957. I KNOW that prior to the Dallas Chamber of Commerce gaining de facto control of the Board of Trustees in the 1960’s not only were alcoholic beverages NOT SERVED on campus but consuming them off campus was grounds for expulsion and the policy was enforced. The Committee again asks that the Board of Trustees bring SMU’s policy on alcoholic beverages back in line with that of the Untied Methodist Church.....that is no consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by anyone on University property or affiliated property such as fraternities and sororities or other leased or registered housing units.
For the Committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

March 15, 1998

It is now one year since we wrote the Board of Trustees of Southern Methodist University
regarding their policy on alcoholic beverages. There has been no reply. From their failure
to respond to our letter the only conclusion we may arrive at is that they consider United
Methodist doctrine to be a nuisance rather than binding on them even though SMU is the sole
property of the United Methodist Church.
Howard Lydick, Chairman

March 15, 1997

Chairman of the Board of Trustees
Allegheny College
Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335-3902

Dear Sir:

We are sorry to find that a United Methodist College has chosen to follow the dictates of society rather than the ethical standards of the United Methodist Church. We would expect any church school (United Methodist, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, etc.) to have standards different from those of society. There is no point in sending young people to a church college or university unless the standards and the atmosphere are different from those of a secular school.

The United Methodist Church, from its beginning in 1739, has condemned the use of alcoholic beverages because of the harm they do to the individual and to society at large. We would expect (most of the committee members are of an age to remember when this was the policy of United Methodist schools) that United Methodist Colleges and Universities would prohibit the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages on any school property including affiliated property such as fraternities, sororities or other leased or registered housing units. Violation of these rules being grounds for expulsion from the college or university. It is disappointing, indeed shocking, to find that a United Methodist school not only permits its students to consume and possess alcoholic beverages but actually permits them to he served on school property."

We feel it is reasonable to expect a United Methodist College to reflect United Methodist moral standards. We ask that you revise your policy on alcoholic beverages so that it reflects the moral standards of the Untited Methodist Church rather than those of society.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

*ALCOHOL POLICY "......1 Non-residential Areas: Regardless of a student's age, alcoholic beverages are prohibited from non-residential buildings and out of doors on campus, except when written approval has been received in advance. Final approval will be given by the Dean of Students in consultation with the President of the College."

Dr. Richard Cook, President
Allegheny College
Meadville, Pennsylvania 16335-3902

Dear Dr. Cook:

Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1997.

From your letter it is clear that Allegheny College is seeking for a way to deal with the problem of alcoholic beverages in todays society in a way that will be effective in promoting abstinence. We raise the question that perhaps your answer to this problem may, in fact, be self defeating. The College is willing to prohibit cheating on tests or copying anothers work. Strict penalties are properly given for infractions of these rules. We are to believe that these things now never happen on campus? Be real. The fact that some students may successfully do this is NOT A REASON TO CHANGE YOUR RULES.

How does the situation on alcoholic beverages differ from cheating on tests or copying anothers work? We all know one occurs and you are willing to prohibit it. Why not the other? Alcoholic beverages cause far more harm than an occasional cheating on an exam by a student. While we cannot put an exact mathematical ratio to it, the danger to the students from alcoholic beverages is expotential vs the harm from cheating on an exam. The Committee knows that alcohol permeates society. That makes it all the more important for a United Methodist institution to say loudly and clearly that alcoholic beverages will not be tolerated under any circumstances. If United Methodist Institutions do not speak loudly and clearly , who will? We are supposed to offer a way of life different from secular institutions. Of course some students will use alcohol regardless of College Rules. To say that alcoholic beverages are harmful to the students and yet permit them to posses and drink them and even, in some cases, serve them on campus is to say that the College does not believe what it says about them. In the real world, as distinct from academia, you are in effect promoting what you say you are against since the students KNOW you have the authority to keep alcoholic beverages off campus and out of all College affiliated property.

We ask that you reconsider your policy on alcoholic beverages. We stand by our letter of March 15, 1997, wherein we stated that we expected a United Methodist College to prohibit the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages on any school property including affiliated property such as fraternities, sororities or other leased or registered housing units. Violation of these rules being grounds for expulsion from the college or university.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

cc: Chairman of the Board Hoag
Rev. John Colatch

Death from drinking at college

The article on college drinking in the October 13, 1997, issue of NEWSWEEK magazine points out all to well the danger to young people from our proalcohol saturated culture. It starts with the tragic death from drinking by a student at MIT early in October. A couple of weeks earlier a student at the U. of Louisiana also drank himself to death. Other alcohol related deaths at American Colleges are also mentioned. The seriousness of the problem could not be Setter illustrated than to have a secular magazine carrying ads for hard liquor print such an article. This shows the necessity for the United Methodist Church to strongly emphasize our centuries old position that the use of alcoholic beverages is immoral.......John Wesley having classified their use as "evil" when be wrote the General Rules in 1739. It also emphasizes the importance of our Bishops attending the meetings of the governing board of United Methodist Schools on which they sit as a member. We must depend on our Bishops to see that the policy of abstaining from alcoholic beverages is written into the formal rules of U. M. Schools and that this policy is enforced. The lives of some of our students may depend upon the Board and the Administration of a U. M. College or University faithfully following church doctrine on alcoholic beverages.

Return to Table of Contents

Bishop William Oden
President of the Council of Bishops
P O Box 600127
Dallas, Texas 75360-0127

Dear Bishop Oden:

Today there is a lot of concern in society regarding tobacco and the health problems it causes. The concern among the general public has even reached the point where some states have arrived at various agreements with the tobacco industry to pay them for claimed health expenses caused by tobacco and efforts have been made in the Congress for the same kind of “settlement” for damage to the health of the American people. This is true even though the health effects of tobacco had been printed on the cigarette packages for decades. The public now wants to be paid for what it knowingly did to itself.

Unfortunately there is very little concern regarding alcoholic beverages even though the damage it causes is much greater. Tobacco products harm only the body. Alcoholic beverages harm the body and the soul. ("....Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor...... .drunkards........will inherit the kingdom of God." 1st Corinthians 6:9-!0, New International Version.) It is true that alcohol is a cause of cirrhosis of the liver, physical damage to the body.. But that is only the beginning, as you well know from your experience as pastors. It is a major cause in spouse abuse, in divorce, in crime of all sorts, suicide (especially by young people), many auto accidents resulting in severe injuries or death and, of course, in habitual drunkenness. That is why the United Methodist Church has expected abstinence from alcoholic beverages from its very beginning starting with Wesley's General Rules in 1743.

We need to recognize that this disparate concern by the public is, in part, due to the failure of the United Methodist Church to be as involved in fighting the beverage alcohol industry as it was in previous decades. A pious resolution every four years by the General Conference is not adequate to do the job. The plain blunt truth is that for all practical purposes the United Methodist Church abandoned the fight against the alcohol industry some thirty years ago. So no one should have been surprised when at Cleveland, last May, a staff member from SPARV, in talking of the work she did stated she found that many United Methodists did consume alcoholic beverages, something “which did not exist forty years ago”. (The financial support for SPARV has to be considered a joke if the Church claims to be serious about the work of SPARV).

Our failure to be more actively involved in the fight for sobriety has undoubtedly contributed to the lackadaisical attitude towards beverage alcohol by the general public and even within the church. The beverage alcohol industry has been busy telling everyone how great it is while we, as a church, have remained virtually silent. People can be persuaded of virtually anything when only one side is presented. THAT IS WHY THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH MUST AGAIN BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN FIGHTING THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

We commend the Council of Bishops for recognizing, in 1990, the failure, for decades, of those responsible for alcohol/drug education in the United Methodist Church to do their job. We very much appreciate the action of the Council, in its teaching capacity, stepping forth to create the Initiative on Drugs and Violence and causing the creation of SPARV by the 1992 General Conference. That their have been any constructive efforts by the national Church to do something about the alcohol/drug problem during the past eleven years is due solely to your leadership. We believe, however, that more needs to be done.

The beverage alcohol industry and its apologists continue to spread their distortions, half truths and out right lies about their product. They have an enormous advertising budget and then you get occasional special programs attacking those who advocate abstinence. One example is the TV special "Thirteen Years That Changed America". broadcast on July 27, 1997. Because it was made by BBC it is supposed, therefore, to be objective. In fact, this TV program could easily have been produced by the Distilled Spirits Institute as it clearly represented the proliquor point of view. Programs such as this emphasize the need for the United Methodist Church to become more aggressive in fighting the beverage alcohol industry as we were in previous decades. We can not be content to rely primarily on statements by General Conference.

When we fail to aggressively oppose the use of alcoholic beverages we, in actual effect, are consenting to the problems caused by their use. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, both the priest and the Levite intentionally by passed the injured man. Only the hated Samaritan stopped to help. Our question to you is, if we fail to actively oppose the beverage alcohol industry how are we any different in the context of today from the priest and the Levite? Christ, at lest by implication, criticized the priest and the Levite as being uncaring about anyone but himself. Would Christ not also levy the same criticism at us if we continue to fail to actively oppose the beverage alcohol industry?

We are well aware of the criticism that immediately follows anyone who dares to oppose the beverage alcohol industry. We live in a time when some "Christians" question the very concept of right and wrong, even going so far as to look on the Ten Commandments as the ten suggestions. Criticism has never prevented the descendants of John Wesley from clearly stating the unpleasant truth.

We, therefore, respectfully ask that the Council of Bishops:
1) Urge each Bishop to encourage all clergy in his or her Episcopal area to preach a sermon, at least once a year, denouncing the use of alcoholic beverages as being detrimental to the individual and society, and a negation of the glory of God. This is necessary as far to many “United Methodist” clergy have been silent on this topic. Silence is consent to the use of alcoholic beverages.
2) Urge each Bishop to make clear to the Annual Conference(s) over which he or she presides that our church views the consumption of alcoholic beverages as being inimical to Christian principles and values.
3) Formulate a statement, as the Council has done on other subjects in recent years, clearly identifying the perils of using alcoholic beverages and the inescapable obligation of our church to mount an offensive against this diabolical practice.

For the Committee:
Howard Lydick, Chairman
cc: Bishop Sharon Rader
Secretary of the Council of Bishops
750 Windsor Street, Suite 303
Sun Prarie, Wisconsin 53590

As of June 3, 1998, the Committee had not even received an acknowledgement of the receipt of our
two letters of August 25, 1997, from the Council of Bishops. So I wrote Bishop Felton May and
inquired as to what he thought the Committee should do to persuade the Council to be more active in
the fight for temperance (total abstinence for those of our readers who are under 50 years old?
Bishop May forwarded my letter to the Executive Committee of the Council for an answer. When they
responded he sent their answer on to me. It is below.
Howard Lydick

COUNCIL OF BISHOPS
THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

7-17-98

Bishop Felton May
110 Maryland Ave. NE, Ste 311
Washington, D. C. 20002-5622

Dear Bishop May,

Bishop Rader asked me to write you regarding the following action taken regarding your request of
the Executive Committee for a response to the Independent Committee on Alcohol & Drugs for
United Methodist.

98E-160 - The Committee received a request from Bishop May to respond to a
communication from The Independent Committee on Alcohol and Drugs for United
Methodists. The Committee requests that Bishop May contact Mr. Lydick and remind
him that the Council dealt with this matter in November 1997 and communicated such
with him. Bishop May is encouraged to share with Mr. Lydick the action of the Council
as recordered in the minutes of November 1997.

The November 1997 action was:

97E-108 - Asked the Council Secretary to respond to The Independent Committee on
Alcohol and Drugs for United Methodists indicating (1) our common pain at the
destructive results of substance abuse, (2)bishops are attentive in whatever arena they
find themselves to the need to represent the position of the United Methodist Church as
reflected in the Social Principals, (3) the positive work of many bishops toward the
elimination of substance abuse, and (4) our reluctance to formulate a resolution since a
clear statement has been expressed in the Social Principles.

Thank you for caring for this matter.
Sincerely,


Rev. Joyce L. Alford
Administrative Assistant


BISHOP SHARON ZIMMERMAN RADER, Secretary of the Council REV. JOYCE L. ALFORD,
Administrative Assistant
750 Windsor St., Ste. 303, Sun Prairie, Wi 53590
Phone 608-837-8526 Fax: 608-837-0281 E-mail: cobsec@itis.com

August 25, 1997

Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil
President of the Council of Bishops
P.O. B 756
Manila
The Philippines

Dear Bishop Nacpil:

The problems associated with alcoholic beverages make those associated with tobacco look small. Cigarettes and other tobacco products harm only the body. Alcoholic beverages harm the body and the soul. ("....Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor...... .drunkards........will inherit the kingdom of God." 1st Corinthians 6:9-!0, New International Version.) Tobacco's damage extends primarily, if not exclusively, to causing various cancers of which lung cancer is the best known. It is true that alcohol is a cause of cirrhosis of the liver. That is only the beginning, as you well know from your experience as pastors. It is a major cause in spouse abuse, in divorce, in crime of all sorts, suicide (especially by young people), many auto accidents resulting in severe y air injuries or death and, of course, in habitual drunkenness. That is why the United Methodist Church has expected abstinence from alcoholic beverages from its very beginning starting with Wesley's General Rules in 1743.

Today there is a lot of concern in society regarding tobacco and the health problems it causes. Unfortunately there is verqr little concern regarding alcoholic beverages even though the damage it causes is much greater. We need to recognize that this disparate concern is, in part, due to the failure of the United Methodist Church to be as involved in fighting the beverage alcohol industry as it was in previous decades. A pious resolution every four years by the General Conference is not adequate to do the job.

Our failure to be more actively involved in the fight for sobriety has undoubtedly contributed to the lackadaisical attitude towards beverage alcohol by the general public and even within the church. The beverage alcohol industry has been busy telling everyone how great it is while we, as a church, have remained virtually silent. People can be persuaded of virtually anything when only one side is presented. THAT IS WHY THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH MUST AGAIN BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN FIGHTING THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

We commend the Council of Bishops for recognizing this problem and the failure, for decades, of those responsible for alcohol/drug education in the United Methodist Church to do their job. We very much appreciate the action of the Council, in its teaching capacity, stepping forth to create the Initiative on Drugs and Violence in 1990. All the constructive efforts by the national Church to do something about the alcohol/drug problem during the past seven years are due solely to your leadership. We believe, however, that more needs to be done.

The beverage alcohol industry and its apologists continue to spread their distortions, half truths and out right lies about their product. One example is the recent TV special "Thirteen Years That Changed America". broadcast on July 27th. Because it was made by BBC it is supposed, therefore, to be objective. In fact, this TV program could easily have been produced by the Distilled Spirits Institute as it clearly represented the proliquor point of view. (My letter to BBC written as an individual is enclosed for your information.) Programs such as this emphasize the need for the United Methodist Church to become more aggressive in fighting the beverage alcohol industry. We can not be content to rely primarily on statements by General Conference.

When we fail to aggressively oppose the use of alcoholic beverages we, in actual effect, are consenting to the problems caused by their use. In the parable of tbe Good Samaritan, both the priest and the Levite intentionally by passed the injured man. Only the hated Samaritan stopped to help. Our question to you is, if we fail to actively oppose the beverage alcohol industry how are we any different in the context of the 1990's from the priest and the Levite? Christ, at lest by implication, criticized the priest and the Levite as being uncaring about anyone but themselves. Would Christ not also levy the same criticism at us if we continue to fail to actively oppose the beverage alcohol industry?

We are well aware of the criticism that immediately follows anyone who dares to oppose the beverage alcohol industry. We live in a time when some "Christians" question the very concept of right and wrong, even going so far as to look on the Ten Commandments as the Ten Suggestions. Criticism has never prevented the descendants of John Wesley from clearly stating the unpleasant truth.

We, therefore, respectfully ask that the Council of Bishops:

1) Urge each Bishop to encourage all clergy in his or her Episcopal area to preach a sermon, at least once a year, denouncing the use of alcoholic beverages as being detrimental to the individual and society, and a negation of the glory of God

2) Urge each Bishop to make clear to the Annual Conference(s) over which he or she presides that our church views the consumption of alcoholic beverages as being inimieal to Christian principles and values.

3) Formulate a statement, as the Council has done on other subjects in recent years, clearly identifying the perils of using alcoholic beverages and the inescapable obligation of our church to mount an offensive against this diabolical practice.

For the Committee:

Howard Lydick, Chairman

Return to Table of Contents

March 12, 1999
Bishop George W. Bashore, President
Council on Bishops

Dear Bishop:

We thank the Council for their reply to our letter of August 25, 1997. We acknowledge that the Discipline is clear and unambiguous in its call for total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages by all members of the United Methodist church, lay and clergy. However, that fact fails to mean what it once did in a day when 60% of the American People cannot name even half of the ten commandments and that nearly as many people think Billy Graham preached the Sermon on the Mount as know that it was Jesus. (George Barna at the U M Congress on Evangelism in January, 1999.)

Ignorance of both Scripture and the Discipline is widespread among members of the United Methodist Church. Further, all of us are constantly bombarded by different forms of proalcohol advertising, That makes it important for the church to speak clearly and loudly on this issue lest many of our members be deceived into thinking alcoholic beverages are absolutely harmless.

The problems associated with beverage alcohol are many and are well known to members of the Council.. They are why Wesley insisted on total abstinence from them when he wrote the General Rules. In the past our Board of Temperance was referred to by the industry as their most dangerous enemy. Today, it is questionable that the industry even knows the United Methodist Church exists (only 20% of the general public even knows our name). To protect our own people, if for no other reason, the Council must take the lead against the beverage alcohol industry, better classified as merchants of misery.

We respectfUlly ask that the Council take the following action:

1) Formulate a statement, as the Council has done on other subjects in recent years, clearly identifying the perils of using alcoholic beverages and the inescapable obligation of the United Methodist Church to mount an offensive against this diabolical practice.

2) Urge each Bishop to encourage all clergy in his or her Episcopal area to preach a sermon, at least once a year, denouncing the use of alcoholic beverages as being detrimental to the individual and society and a negation of the glory of God.

3) Urge each Bishop to make clear to the Annual Conference(s) over which he or she presides that our church views the consumption of alcoholic beverages as being inimical to Christian principals and values.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick

cc: Bishop Sharon Rader, Secretary
March 12, 1999
Bishop George W. Bashore, President
Council on Bishops

Dear Bishop:

We thank the Council for their reply to our letter of August 25, 1997. We acknowledge that the Discipline is clear and unambiguous in its call for total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages by all members of the United Methodist church, lay and clergy. However, that fact fails to mean what it once did in a day when 60% of the American People cannot name even half of the ten commandments and that nearly as many people think Billy Graham preached the Sermon on the Mount as know that it was Jesus. (George Barna at the U M Congress on Evangelism in January, 1999.)

Ignorance of both Scripture and the Discipline is widespread among members of the United Methodist Church. Further, all of us are constantly bombarded by different forms of proalcohol advertising, That makes it important for the church to speak clearly and loudly on this issue lest many of our members be deceived into thinking alcoholic beverages are absolutely harmless.

The problems associated with beverage alcohol are many and are well known to members of the Council.. They are why Wesley insisted on total abstinence from them when he wrote the General Rules. In the past our Board of Temperance was referred to by the industry as their most dangerous enemy. Today, it is questionable that the industry even knows the United Methodist Church exists (only 20% of the general public even knows our name). To protect our own people, if for no other reason, the Council must take the lead against the beverage alcohol industry, better classified as merchants of misery.

We respectfUlly ask that the Council take the following action:

1) Formulate a statement, as the Council has done on other subjects in recent years, clearly identifying the perils of using alcoholic beverages and the inescapable obligation of the United Methodist Church to mount an offensive against this diabolical practice.
2) Urge each Bishop to encourage all clergy in his or her Episcopal area to preach a sermon, at least once a year, denouncing the use of alcoholic beverages as being detrimental to the individual and society and a negation of the glory of God.
3) Urge each Bishop to make clear to the Annual Conference(s) over which he or she presides that our church views the consumption of alcoholic beverages as being inimical to Christian principals and values.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick

cc: Bishop Sharon Rader, Secretary
March 12, 1999
Bishop George W. Bashore, President
Council on Bishops

Dear Bishop:

We thank the Council for their reply to our letter of August 25, 1997. We acknowledge that the Discipline is clear and unambiguous in its call for total abstinence from all alcoholic beverages by all members of the United Methodist church, lay and clergy. However, that fact fails to mean what it once did in a day when 60% of the American People cannot name even half of the ten commandments and that nearly as many people think Billy Graham preached the Sermon on the Mount as know that it was Jesus. (George Barna at the U. M. Congress on Evangelism in January, 1999.)

Ignorance of both Scripture and the Discipline is widespread among members of the United Methodist Church. Further, all of us are constantly bombarded by different forms of proalcohol advertising, That makes it important for the church to speak clearly and loudly on this issue lest many of our members be deceived into thinking alcoholic beverages are absolutely harmless.

The problems associated with beverage alcohol are many and are well known to members of the Council.. They are why Wesley insisted on total abstinence from them when he wrote the General Rules. In the past our Board of Temperance was referred to by the industry as their most dangerous enemy. Today, it is questionable that the industry even knows the United Methodist Church exists (only 20% of the general public even knows our name). To protect our own people, if for no other reason, the Council must take the lead against the beverage alcohol industry, better classified as merchants of misery.

We respectfully ask that the Council take the following action:

1) Formulate a statement, as the Council has done on other subjects in recent years, clearly identifying the perils of using alcoholic beverages and the inescapable obligation of the United Methodist Church to mount an offensive against this diabolical practice.

2) Urge each Bishop to encourage all clergy in his or her Episcopal area to preach a sermon, at least once a year, denouncing the use of alcoholic beverages as being detrimental to the individual and society and a negation of the glory of God.

3) Urge each Bishop to make clear to the Annual Conference(s) over which he or she presides that our church views the consumption of alcoholic beverages as being inimical to Christian principals and values.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick

cc: Bishop Sharon Rader, Secretary

January 18, 2001

Bishop William Oden
President of the Council of Bishops
P O Box 600127
Dallas, Texas 75360-0127

Dear Bishop Oden:

The United Methodist Church has established a large number of Colleges and Universities. General Conference, last May, expressed our concern about United Methodist schools when it stated: “United Methodist colleges should provide an environment suitable for pursing a higher education in a Christian atmosphere”. We are in total agreement with this statement by General Conference. We have long felt that a church college or university is expected to be administered differently from a secular school creating a different atmosphere. We are sorry to report that, unfortunately, this is no longer true at a number of United Methodist schools.

The U. S. Department of Education reports that over thirty percent of women students leave college before the end of their third semester because of alcohol related problems. As for the men, over forty percent of the male graduates never get over the drinking patterns formed while in school. In spite of these well known problems far to many United Methodist schools fail to follow church policy as regards alcoholic beverages. Parents sending their children to a United Methodist School have a right to expect a policy on alcoholic beverages different from that of a state school. We find it shocking that some (fortunately not all) “United Methodist” schools permit the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in spite of the known problems that come from their consumption and that their use has been described as evil ever since John Wesley wrote the General Rules in 1739.

Last May General Conference clearly reaffirmed our 260 year old policy regarding intoxicants stating that our colleges and universities should “uphold abstinence from drinking alcohol as a viable and faith-filled option, and that those institutions provide programming and social events that foster such environment.” Those “United Methodist” schools which permit drinking on campus, permit the actual possession of alcoholic beverages in student housing of all kinds, permit its use by student organizations and by other groups clearly associated with the school are in clear violation of long established church policy including the above statement by the 2000 General Conference. Such activities clearly fail to uphold “abstinence from drinking alcohol”.

We know there will be individuals who will protest a United Methodist school acting like one and prohibiting the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by the students, faculty and administration. They will tell you that such a policy only drives student drinking underground, that you have a better control of student drinking by not prohibiting it. Get real. These same people have no hesitation to the school prohibiting other things such as cheating on examinations. Which does more harm both to the student and to society, the student cheating on an examination or using alcoholic beverages? The students know that the administration can and will prohibit anything it really objects to. Another objection you will hear to a United Methodist school acting like one is that it will, horror of horrors, cause the school to lose gifts, especially from wealthy alumni!!!! The answer to that is "So what. The price of their gift is too high. The ethical standards of the United Methodist Church are not for sale to anyone." A Christian college or university is supposed to provide positive moral guidance as well as intellectual guidance. Without such guidance a church school is no different from a secular one.

Most members of the Council of Bishops sit on one or more Board of Trustees of United Methodist owned or affiliated Colleges and Universities. We would ask that the Bishops examine the policy on alcoholic beverages of any United Methodist College or University on which they are a Trustee, to see that the schools policy on alcoholic beverages conforms to that of the United Methodist Church.. The independent Committee stands ready to support any serious effort to free our institutions of higher learning from this terrible blight.

For the committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

cc: Bishop Sharon Rader
Secretary of the Council of Bishops
750 Windsor Street, Suite 303
Sun Prarie, Wisconsin 53590

August 25, 1997

Bishop Emerito P. Nacpil
President of the Council of Bishops
P O B 756
Manila
The Philippines

Dear Bishop Nacpil:

The United Methodist Church has established a large number of Colleges and Universities. A church college or university is expected to be administered differently from a secular school creating a different atmosphere. We are sorry to report that far to often this is no longer true at United Methodist schools.

While some United Methodist schools follow church policy as regards alcoholic beverages there are far too many who fail to do so.We are concerned that some United Methodist Schools permit the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by their students in spite of the known problems that come from the consumption of beverage alcohol. The U. S. Department of Education reports that over thirty percent of women students leave college before the end of their third semester because of alcohol related problems. As for the men, over forty percent of the male graduates never get over the drinking patterns formed while in school.. Parents sending their children to a United Methodist School have a right to expect a policy on alcoholic beverages different from that of a state school.

We know there will he individuals who will protest a United Methodist school acting like one and prohibiting the possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages by the students, faculty and administration. They will tell you that such a policy only drives student drinking underground, that you have a better control of student drinking by not prohibiting it. Get real. These same people have no hesitation to the school prohibiting other things such as cheating on examinations. Which does more harm both to the student and to society, the student cheating on an examination or using alcoholic beverages? The students know that the administration can and will prohibit anything it really objects to.

Another objection you will hear to a United Methodist school acting like one is that it will, horror of horrors, cause the school to lose gifts, especially from wealthy alumni!!!! The answer to that is "So what. The price of their gift is too high. The ethical standards of the United Methodist Church are not for sale to anyone." A Christian college or university is supposed to provide positive moral guidance as well as intellectual guidance. Without such guidance a church school is no different from a secular one.

Most members of the Council of Bishops sit on one or more Board of Trustees of United Methodist owned or affiliated Colleges and Universities. We would ask that the Bishops examine the policy on alcoholic beverages of any United Methodist College or University on which they are a Trustee, to see that the schools policy on alcoholic beverages conforms to that of the United Methodist Church.. The independent Committee stands ready to support any serious effort to free our institutions of higher learning from this terrible blight.

For the committee,

Howard Lydick, Chairman

Return to Table of Contents

Bishop George W. Bashore, President
Council of Bishops
March 12, 1999

Dear Bishop:

During the past year the tragic and totally unnecessary deaths of university students at tax supported institutions because of the consumption of alcoholic beverages has forcibly brought to the attention of the public the fact that alcoholic beverages are deadly.. We have seen comments in the written press and heard comments on national TV that if the problems with alcoholic beverages are to disappear that the culture on the campus of American Universities must change.

From the beginning the United Methodist Church has stood for abstinence from alcoholic beverages. Over the past two hundred years the church has established a large number of colleges and universities. A church college or university is expected to be administered differently from a secular school, thus creating a different atmosphere from that of a state supported institution. Unfortunately, this is not always true.

While some United Methodist Colleges and Universities are faithful to church doctrine there are, some which are not. Our name is useful in attracting students to these schools but United Methodist Doctrine is NOT WECCOME by the administration of these "United Methodist" Schools. Indeed some, notably those in Virginia, are in open revolt against United Methodist Doctrine (Newscope December Il, 1998) as concerns alcoholic beverages. One of our leading Universities, SMU, has for several years refused to follow church doctrine. This situation at a United Methodist School is intolerable. Parents sending their children to United Methodist school have a right to expect a church school to follow church doctrine, otherwise they would send their children to a less expensive tax supported college or university.

Most members of the Council sit on one or more Board of Trustees of United Methodist owned or affiliated Colleges and Universities. We ask that the Bishops examine the policy on alcoholic beverages of any United Methodist College or University on which they are a trustee to see that the schools policy on alcoholic beverages conforms to that of the United Methodist Church. Specifically: there is no consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages by anyone on University property or consumption at any university function either on or off campus, and no consumption or possession on affiliated property such as fraternities and sororities or on other leased or registered housing units. The Independent Committee stands ready to support the Council in such an effort.

For the Committee,

Howard Lydick

cc: Bishop Sharon Rader, Secretary

Return to Table of Contents

A & E re 18th Amendment

On learing that Arts & Entertainment network planned to rebroadcast the BBC "documentary" "Thirteen Years That changed America" it was decided to add our letters to BBC and to the A & E TV Network to the Home Page. This is because of several factual errors in the program. They are:

1.) BBC claims prohibition started in Kansas. It started in Maine.

2.) BBC claims National Prohibition was submitted "to the vote" in 1918. It was submitted in 1917.

3.) BBC claims we got the 18th Amendment when Congress voted for it in 1919. Congress is without authority to change the Constitution. By itself. It may only submit changes to the states.

4.) BBC claims no other country has or had prohibition. Today it exists in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Also, many of the other Moslem nations forbid alcoholic beverages to their citizens but permit it to be used by foreigners.

5.) BBC claims it was not against the law to drink or to buy liquor. This ignores the state laws that made the purchase or posession of alcoholic beverages a crime.

6.) BBC claims Prohibition left a "stigma" on alcohol. The Christian Churches put the stigma on alcohol.

7.) BBC claims hypocrisy was the heart of Prohibition.

This is both a lie and an insult to millions of Protestant Christians. Those interested in more details will find them below in our letters of October 3, 1937, to Arts & Entertainment and July 29, 1997. to BBC. It was felt that both BBC and A&E would he more responsive to an individual than to a committee. For that reason the letters went out under the chairman's name rather than the Committee.

As of 10-28-97 the response of, A&E to the letter and my answer to them have been added.

HOWARD LYDICK
ATTORNEY AT LAW
413 RIDGEHAVEN
RICHARDSON. TEXAS 75080
214-235-4360

October 9, 1997

Arts and Entertainment Television
235 East 45th Street
New York, New York 10017

RE: Thirteen Years That Changed America

Gentlemen:

I understand that you plan to rebroadcast the BBC "Documentary" entitled "Thirteen years That Changed America" on November 16, 1997. I must ask that when you do so that at the start of the program you advise your listeners that it contains a number of factual errors. Failure to do so will be to deceive the American People. It is NOT a documentary. It iS a proliquor propaganda flm MASCERADING AS AN UNBIASED DOCUMENTARY.

When I heard of the program and that it was produced by BBC I had expected to see a fairly even handed presentation of Prohibition. Instead what I saw was a program that I would have thought had been written for and prepared by the Distilled Spirits Institute if I had not known it was filmed by BBC. I am inclined to wonder if the U. S. liquor people did not contact their counterparts in Great Britain suggesting a program like this on the basis that it would be more likely to be accepted as fact if made by BBC. This "documentary" is full of half truths, quarter truths and outright falsehoods (in polite society, others would say they were lies).

Very early in the program it states: "In 1880 Kansas became the first Americans to vote in a dry state." Right at the end of the program it refers to "Kansas, where prohibition was born." These two statements are false, Statewide prohibition began in, Maine in, June, 1851.

The program tries to claim that World War One is what brought about prohibition. It stated: "The First World War in Euroope which proved the turning point." Later going on to state: "In January, 1918, Wheeler capitalized on the mood and submitted National Prohibition to the vote." Wrong The Senate voted for Prohibition on August 1, 1917. The House approved a modified Amendment on December 17, 1917. The Senate concurred on December 18, 191!7, thus sending the Amendment to the States for ratification. I should point out the Congress which submitted the Amendment was ELECTED IN NOVEMBER 1916....., six months before we entered the war!

The program further stated: "In 1919, in the euphoria of a victorious war, over two thirds of Congress voted to ban alcohol. Prohibition, the 18th Amendment, was now part of the U. S. Constitution. " Absolutely false. Congress has no such power. It may only submit a proposed amendment to the states for consideration.

One individual, at the end of the program, states: "I think Prohibition has had one great benefit. It has taught other people that Prohibition is a mistake. Had it been different in this country people might have experimented with it elsewhere." This falsely implies that the prohibition of the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages exists NOWHERE ELSE. At this time you have Prohibition in Saudi Arabia and Iran. In many of the other Moslem nations you have what Americans would consider an odd form of Prohibition in that alcoholic beverages are forbidden to their citizens but they may be sold to and used by foreigners.

The program stated: "The problem was with the wording of the Prohibition Act which outlawed the making , transporting and selling of alcohol. ... It was never against the law to drink. Nor was buying liquor a crime. The risk was with the person who sold it." False. Although the 18th Amendment, in itself, was limited to what is stated, the program intentionally ignores the many state laws in support of Prohibition which provided criminal penalties for the posession and consumption of alcoholic beverages. In Kansas tht continued until the 1949 Legislature.

The program also stated; "The ideal of a sober nation was just a mask. The real face of America could be found in the gutter. An underworld supplying a wet America. Behind the dry facade the nation was drinking. Hypocrisy was at the very heart of Prohibition." That statement is an unmitigated intentional lie and a deliberate insult to millions of American Protestant Christians. I am 68 years old, a 4th (at least) generation member of the United Methodist Church. I do not use alcoholic beverages and have NEVER used them. As with other immoral activities, those who indulge in them refuse to believe there are those who do not.

The program also stated: "Prohibition left a stigma or, alcohol. Even now more than one third of the country claims never to drink liquor." Another false statement. The "stigma" attached to liquor is brought about by Christian Churches, not Prohibition. John Wesley, the Episcopal UIV Priest who founded what is today the United Methodist Church classified "...buying or selling spiritous liquor or drinking them" as evil when he wrote the General Rules for membership in the Methodist Societies in 1739. Other Protestant Churches had similar positions long before any one had ever, thought of such a thing as the 18th Amendment.

It would make this letter to long to go into the many distorted presentations in the program. So I will stop with noting that it is no accident that a very large segment of time was given to New York City & Chicago while virtually ignoring the rest of the nation.

Yours truly,

Howard Lydick

Return to Table of Contents

A&E TELEVISION NETWORKS

Dear Mr. Lydick

Thank you for your recent comments regarding programing on A&E. We at A&E take particular pride in programming and were disappointed to learn that you were unhappy with the content of PROHIBITION: THIRTEEN YEARS THAT CHANGED AMERICA.

The decision to air a particular program is a long and arduous task, through which we attempt to appeal to a broad audiance. Through it is our intent to elicit a positive reaction from our viewers, it is impossible to appeal to everyone at all times. While we will take your comments into I consideraton, A&E is very proud of its reputation as a responsible programmer and as such we stand by our decision to telecast the program.

As always, we encourage your comments regarding A&E and carefully consider each suggestion. Our viewer line (212-210-1340) is open from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday to Friday or you may write us in the future.

Terry Bennett
Coordinator, Viewer Relations

235 East 45th STREET
NEW YORK, NY 10017 (212)661-4500
A&E NETWORK - THE HISTORY CHANNEL - A &E HOME VIDEO - A&E MONTHLY - H-TV PRODUCTIONS

Return to Table of Contents

October 28, 1997

Arts & Entertainment Cable Network
235 East 45th Street
New York, New York 10017

ATTN: Terry Bennett

Dear Mr. Bennett:

Thank you for your letter regarding my comments on PROHIBITION: THIRTEEN YEARS THAT CHANGED AMERICA. It appears that you thought I was concerned with the approach (anti-Prohibition) taken by BBC. That is incorrect. I was concerned about the factual errors presented in the program. There were a a number of them. As you probably get a a large volume of mail and are are without the the storage capacity to keep everything you may no longer have my original letter. I am, therefore, enclosing a copy of it. I ask only that you put a disclaimer at the start of the program pointing out to the viewers that there area number of factual errors in this documentary by BBC.

Yours truly,

Howard Lydick

Return to Table of Contents

July 29, 1997

Atlantic Productions
Gable House
3rd Floor
18-24 Turnhum
Green Terrace
London, W41QP

ATTN: Clive Maltby and Charlotte Moore

Gentlemen:

I was able to see your program "Thirteen Years That Changed America" when it was broadcast on July 27, 1997. I was very disappointed in it. Coming from BBC I was expecting a reasonablly balanced presentation on the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Instead I saw what I would have thought was a program written for and prepared by the Distilled Spirits Institute if I had not known it was filmed by BBC.

As with so many "documentaries" prepared by the American commercial television networks you begin with incorrect information. PROHIBITION DID NOT START IN KANSAS!!! As a native Kansan I would be glad to take credit for it but I can not. Prohibition began on June 2, 1851, when Governor Hubbard of Maine signed the first effective law outlawing the sale of alcoholic beverages. This progressive legislation was soon followed by other states. They were: 1852 Minnesota, Massachusetts, Rhode Island,and Vermont; 1853, Michigan; 1854 Connecticut and 1855 Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, New York and New Hampshire. In addition such legislation was considered, but failed of enactment by the legislatures in five other states: Illinois, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Following 1855 the slavery question dominated all political discussion.

You were correct in that Kansas did adopt the Prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages in 1880 and that amendment to the Kansas Constitution was repealed in the 1948 election. What you did NOT show was that it was a close election. Although 17 at the time I was active in that election from the time the legislature submitted the amendment in 1947 thru to the election in November 1948. After the votes were counted I remembered all to well the statement by one of our national leaders, Dr. D. Leigh Colvin, that he was concerned regarding the outcome of the election as he was afraid that our people were over confident.

Your program clearly implied that World War I caused the adoption of the l8th Amendment. That is clearly wrong. It was submitted in 1917. Every member of the House of Representatives who voted for the I8th Amendment had been elected in, 1916,....the previous year and a time when America was at peace. This point also applies to the one third of the Senate that was chosen in the 1916 election.

Your program centered on New York City, Detroit and Chicago. It may come as a shock to you, but those three cities are NOT ALL OF THE UNITED STATES. By spending so much of your program on those three cities you automatically distorted the picture of Prohibition as regards the United States. I know that New York City thinks it is the entire nation, but it is not. Its views are often very different from the rest of the nation. Senator Barry Goldwater was quoted in either 1962 or 1963 as saying something to the effect that everyone would be happier if Long Island could be pushed over to Europe (as that is where their political views were). I can no longer quote the Senator verbatim.

Considering all the people still living who were of age during the 18th Amendment your Ziegfield Girls (who were presented as representing the general populations view at the time) were in fact a grossly disproportionate part of the population....... but then you could count on them to oppose Prohibition. They are an obvious plant placed in the video to parrot the views of the beverage alcohol industry.

You did mention that the State of New York gave up its efforts to control a lawless New York City. Later statements implied that this was true in every state which is clearly false. Many states did make serious efforts to enforce the Prohibition Laws. Your program failed to mention the many state statutes which also forbade the sale of alcoholic beverages. In my home state of Kansas the statutes also prohibited the posession of alcoholic beverages.

The so called "St. Valentines Day Massacre" was given a prominent place. Why? It was just one bunch of murdering criminals shooting another group of murdering criminals. Who cares unless you can catch the first group and hang them so that society will then be rid of two groups of men who are willing to kill anyone that gets in their way. To imply, as you did, that it represented much of what was going on in the United States at that time is clearly wrong.

You mentioned that President Hoover pledged to appoint a Commission to study the 18th Amendment. You did not later mention the Wichershal report or its conclusions. Could that be becasue it stated. "The commission is opposed to the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Prohibition was the central political issue in the 1928 Presidential Campaign. The Amereican people had a clear choice and they voted dry overwhelmingly for the various members of Congress and for President. Herbert Hoover not only carried the northern and western states but he carried four former Confederate States as well (Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Virginia), states the Republican Party had not carried since the Union Army stopped counting the votes in those states.

The 1932 election is mentioned and the differing positions on repeal of the 18th Amendment by President Hoover and Governor Franklin Roosevelt. What you failed to note is that when Governor Roosevelt was running for the 1932 nomination he ran in the southern & western states as a dry. I refer you to THE AMAZING STORY OF REPEAL by Fletcher Dobyins, copyright 1940, page 147. "As he was governor of a wet state and as he would need the votes of the wet states if he was nominated for the presidency, he declared that he was personally for repeal. He made this declaration in the fewest words possible, and without argument. He then adopted unequivocally the six-point program of the dry leaders of his party and never wavered in its support until he was safely nominated." (emphasis is mine).

You omitted one extremely important fact regarding the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. That is the extreme pressure which President Elect Roosevelt used to get the Congress to submit the proposed Twenty First Amendment to state conventions for ratification rather than to the state legislatures as had been the procedure on all prior amendments and on all subsequent amendments. That method permitted those pushing for repeal to use the very difficult economic conditions as an emotional issue in the selection of members of the state conventions. Had the Twenty First Amendment been submitted to the various state legislatures it probably would have never been ratified. Certainly it would not have been ratified in less than one year.

I also noted that you failed to say anything about the consumption of alcoholic beverages AFTER the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. Could that be because federal government statistics show per capita consumption of alcoholic beverages did not reach the pre-prohibition level until 1970....37 years after the repeal of the Eighteen Amendment?

There are 10,600,000 Americans who, like myself, live in areas where alcoholic beverages may NOT be sold legally. I have no fully accurate information geographically, but would estimate that at a minimum twenty five per cent of the land area of the United States forbids the legal sale of alcoholic beverges. Then there are the millions who live in wet areas who do vote against beverage alcohol when ever the question does come up for a vote. Your program stated that over thirty per cent of the American People do not use alcoholic beverages. That being true did you really think you could put on this pro-liquor propaganda and not have anyone recognize it for what it is? Your effort on behalf of the alcoholic beverage industry would do credit to Joseph Goebbels or any one of the three American Commercial Television Networks. I am very disappointed to find that BBC would present as an objective program one that is obviously one designed to present only one side of a controversial issue. I had thought better of BBC than that.

Yours truly

Howard Lydick

Return to Table of Contents

Links to Other Related Sites:

WCTU - Womens Christian Temperance Union

Center for Science in the Public Interest

Concerned Methodists