Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: FRIDAY, August 26, 1994 TAG: 9408270026
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Your newspaper has the annoying liberal tendency to redefine legitimate voter desires as ``special-interest squawking,'' when it runs counter to your egalitarian desires and socialistic recipes for society as a whole.
The supposed anti-crime bill was a classic Washington legislative sham. The bill as reported out was a huge billion-dollar wish list of bad ideas that wouldn't have a chance when judged individually on their own merits. The assault-weapons ban, which constitutes a major attempt to erode basic constitutional rights, should be considered as a single issue due to the sheer constitutional magnitude it represents.
What would be your position on a bill that provided tens of billions of dollars in social spending to fund some of your favorite social causes, but also contained a clause that ``re-defined'' some information as non-news that couldn't be legally reported in print? Would you accept that social funding in exchange for limitations on reporting certain governmental news items?
Would you, in all your social paternalistic glory, trade a small but certain piece of your hallowed freedom of the press for the equivalent of midnight basketball, dance lessons and other unspecified prevention programs?
I presume I'll see you at the filibuster!
JOHN P. KEMP ROANOKE
GOP honors the wrong people
REGARDING Roger Bush's June 25 letter to the editor, ``North is right for the times'':
Doesn't the Republican Party have any honest men, who haven't been involved in any illegal activities, who are eligible to run for office? Bush refers to 20 years ago when Erlichman and Haldeman committed crimes for the man they were serving. Well, they were prosecuted, and Nixon had to resign.
Oliver North committed illegal activities, and he's made a hero. Sure sounds like double standards to me.
Remember the Nuremburg war-crimes trial? Those military men followed orders, too. But they were tried, convicted and put to death or in prison. Was North following orders or was it his own doing, to make a name for himself so that he could be a good Republican candidate?
CARL R. PADGETT SALEM
Assumptions on shaky ground
FREDRICK WILLIAMS' Aug. 11 letter to the editor (``Pro-choice on shaky moral ground'') asks: ``On what moral ground does the pro-choice movement condemn the murder of abortionists?''
Ethics is a matter of maintaining peaceful and cooperative relations with your neighbors. If you want to maintain peaceful relations, don't kill, steal, lie or break agreements. This is objective. As Shakespeare wrote, ``It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave, to tell us this.''
Who is my neighbor? All persons. Is a fertilized human egg a person? Not yet. Personhood requires a functioning brain at least as large as the brain of a cow.
What of the soul? Religious faith is a subjective choice; there is another revelation down the block. When does the soul enter the body? Give me some objective evidence.
Anti-abortionists think they have the high moral ground. What they have are arbitrary supernatural assumptions.
JOHN B. HODGES BLACKSBUR
No truth at all in cartoon's depiction
YOUR Aug. 12 Benson cartoon on the Opinion page depicts Nazi troops shaving the head of a woman, and the adjacent panel depicts The Citadel police(?) shaving the head of Ms. Faulkner. Comparing the Nazi German regime with The Citadel is beyond even the loose standards of truth evidenced on your Opinion page. Shame on you.
I'm not a South Carolinian, nor did I attend The Citadel. My strong objection is based on a deep respect for freedom, truth and responsibility.
TOM W. JOHNSON CHRISTIANSBUR
Health-care opinion took wrong path
I READ with interest the plight of the Roanoke couple who shared their woes with Hillary Rodham Clinton (Aug. 10 news article, ``Roanokers enjoy a day of fame''). Having the opportunity to seek health coverage after losing a group plan, and having pre-existing conditions, I can empathize.
However, these people who Ms. Clinton used are poor examples in my estimation. According to this newspaper, they owned a group health-insurance plan comprised of themselves, a part-time employee and a customer. This is most irregular, as part-time employees may not be eligible for group coverage and the customer certainly is ineligible, having no employer-employee relationship.
These people didn't need to associate with each other to secure health insurance, unless there were other motives. There are a number of fine companies offering group health insurance to only one person, usually self-employed business people, and there are many fine companies offering individual health-insurance policies. Group carriers don't routinely cancel because of claims, and most individual carriers offer guaranteed renewable contracts.
It appears to me that the unfortunate couple, their insurance provider or all of them made extraordinary decisions, and probably would have never been in their present situation had they taken another path.
ROBERT B. STEPHENS HUDDLESTON
The evidence is to the contrary
IN LARRY Necessary's Aug. 13 letter to the editor (``The evolution theory is not sacrosanct''), he contends that evolution is incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics. However, his definition of the second law - ``any system, without intelligent direction, will degrade to a more random state'' - is wrong and should be replaced with: Disorder inevitably increases in an isolated system. The earth's surface receives energy, particularly solar. It isn't isolated, so increasing order doesn't violate the second law. Lose the sun, and many complex systems, humans included, are doomed.
Misrepresenting the second law is a common tactic used by those opposing evolution. Knowing that all scientific theories, including those collectively called the ``theory of evolution,'' are constantly researched and refined, these individuals also often argue, illogically, that our imperfect knowledge of evolutionary processes supports biblical creation. All this belies a desire to define truth by vote. Contrary to Necessary's statement, evolution isn't the biologist's ``pseudo-religion.'' Rather, as scientists, we accept evolution because of overwhelming evidence, the vastness of which he wantonly disregards.
I respect Necessary's right to his opinion, but is any scientific theory impinging on the Bible a religious view? By this coincidence alone, is its validity lessened?
RICHARD M. KLIMAN RADFORD
Not all Christians have closed minds
IT IS WAY past time to end the myth that all Christians are anti-science or that none can grasp God's ability to create the universe on any time frame he chose. We're not all convinced that creation, as described in Genesis, must only be interpreted according to some preacher's narrow point of view. I have no trouble accommodating a 15 to 20 billion-year-old universe, a 4 1/2 billion-year-old Earth, and a 3 million-year-old human race with God's limitless abilities.
I only want to assure my friends, neighbors, Christians and all others that Christianity doesn't automatically close our minds. If you know a small-minded Christian, it's no more significant or representative than if you know a brunette Christian, a short Christian or a fat one.
ROBERT S. TERRY BEDFORD
by CNB