
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 22, 1993                   TAG: 9312010328
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

PAYING TOO HIGH A PRICE

LIBERAL POLITICIANS (such as Mary Sue Terry, Don Beyer and Bill Dolan) and the liberal media are attacking what they call the "religious right." What is this so-called religious right that the liberals hate?

Liberals label as "religious right" the Americans who accept and support traditional Judeo-Christian ethics. Therefore, the members of this religious right are orthodox Roman Catholics, orthodox Protestants, and orthodox Jews.

Thirty years ago, almost all Americans agreed that Judeo-Christian ethics provide the measuring stick to determine right and wrong. They agreed that the murder of humans, before or after birth, is wrong. They agreed that sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong. They agreed that homosexual behavior is wrong. They agreed that people should treat their bodies as temples of God. And they agreed that people - as individuals, groups and nations - should recognize and honor God.

Many Americans reject the Judeo-Christian measuring stick now, and we are paying a high price. There has been a huge increase in violent and nonviolent crimes, sexually transmitted diseases, teen-age pregnancy, teen-age suicide, divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, and drug abuse. Every year, more than 1.5 million Americans are murdered before birth. And the scourge of AIDS makes its impact. Our nation is unraveling at its seams.

The evidence is in. The verdict is without a doubt. The religious right is right. The religious left, represented by such people as Terry, Beyer, and Dolan, is wrong.

They should admit the truth. We must return our nation to the Judeo-Christian ethics on which it was built. That is what the religious right is trying to do.

CHARLIE L. LINKOUS

RADFORD

Groups with narrow 'family' agendas

THE PROBLEM is that any group can claim the word "family" for its own purposes. It was reported this month that the international cult known as The Family has engaged in widespread sexual abuses of young children. Simply calling themselves "family" doesn't make it so.

Also this month, The Family Foundation, an anti-abortion lobbying group, announced that most of Virginia's state legislators are "anti-family." Their report implies that most Virginia voters supported "anti-family" legislators. Given their narrow definition of what constitutes "family values," I suspect The Family Foundation would consider most Virginians to be "anti-family!"

Families come in all shapes and sizes. What they share is the belief that genuine love, tolerance and understanding are the essential components of any family unit. The Family Foundation and The Family cult should reassess what it is they truly stand for.

GWENDOLYN BANGURA

ROANOKE

Schedule set by administrators

CONCERNING Philip Walzer's articles in the Sept. 14 issue of the Roanoke Times & World-News entitled "Professors not often in class," "Faculty stars seldom shine for undergraduates" and "How much research really matters?":

I'm outraged over the manner in which these articles were written.

First, Walzer is apparently blaming professors for not teaching many classes and getting paid large sums of money for their teaching. However, would any person in his or her right mind decline $50,000 a year to do something they enjoy? Of course not. He should focus blame instead on administrators who decide how much money to pay professors and what their schedules are going to be.

Second, Walzer focuses a lot of his evidence on the idea that professors are getting paid for only a few hours of lecturing. He seems to have forgotten that it takes a few hours to prepare for a lecture, and a number of hours to grade all those wonderful tests and papers that are used to evaluate whether a student is learning something. Being a freshman at Virginia Tech, I know that professors have office hours and they usually keep them so they can help students. Guess what? This also takes time.

Finally, I find Walzer's graphs to be somewhat misleading. Four of my seven courses are taught by professors, and I'm just a freshman. Of my other three courses, one is presided over by a professor who is aided by four graduate students and the other two are taught by graduate students who teach just as well as my professors. Walzer should try interviewing more students, since they are the ones most directly affected.

DAVID J. DART

BLACKSBURG

by CNB