Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 4, 1995 TAG: 9507060019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
It looks as though Congress aims to prevent this before too long, but that will not be the first time they have acted un-American. Congress, as well as many others, do not seem to get the point that the very thing that makes the flag glorious as a symbol for our country is that it, as well as the country, is founded upon the principle that citizens everywhere have the right, the freedom to express themselves, even against the very government that gives them that power.
This country and its flag are all about freedom. This freedom that has been protected throughout our history with such Supreme Court cases as Tinker vs. Des Moines School District, which held that wearing black armbands was a form of speech and that such speech, according to the Constitution, must be protected. The court called it `` ... this kind of openness that is the basis of our national strength and of the independence and vigor of Americans who grow up and live in this relatively permissive, often disputatious society.''
The Supreme Court also protected our freedom in the case of Spence vs. Washington, which was about flag desecration. In this case, the ruling said, in part, ``It is firmly settled that under our Constitution the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'' The court obviously knows what this country is about. They are Americans.
There are many other problems with prohibiting flag desecration, such as whether or not wearing red, white and blue boxer shorts is evil. But the main point is simply that the flag is venerable exactly because it represents the freedom that all Americans have - even the freedom to be un-American. In short, do something American this Fourth of July: Write to a senator, and tell them a thing or two about freedom. I'm going to write mine on red, white and blue stationery.
MATTHEW LUCAS
CHRISTIANSBURG
The silly selling of the lottery
IT WAS my understanding that when the Virginia Lottery was inaugurated, the legislature ruled that the program could be ``promoted'' but couldn't actually be ``advertised.'' The lottery folks are to be commended on the ingenious method they found for circumventing that order.
Obviously, they searched long and hard to find the worst advertising agency in the world, one which could produce television commercials so bad that they cannot be construed as advertising. But as a regular customer of the lottery I resent any portion of my $1 going toward these silly spots that make no sense, are less than sophomoric in their attempts at humor, and quite often are downright obnoxious. Surely, they don't convince anyone to buy a lottery ticket, so they also don't promote either.
TOM JOYNES
LEXINGTON
The preaching of secular humanism
REGARDING your June 21 editorial ``In the name of Jesus Christ'':
I disagree with your editorial writer who stated that Patrick Henry High School isn't a Christian school. The only way I could agree with you would be if you stated that secular humanism is the agent that's controlling our public schools, which shouldn't be. Secular humanism has been declared a religion by the Supreme Court. And there is no failure to teach and promote that religion. In fact, this is what you attempt to do in your editorial.
The first 127 colleges built in this country - Yale, Harvard, Princeton, etc. - were Christian schools. They were to train ministers and to give glory to Jesus Christ. Some nationalities, such as Jewish, didn't even come to this country until the 1800s. Jesus Christ mandated all Christians to go into all the world and win every soul to the Lord, starting with schools in Roanoke, our counties, states, nation, world and the uttermost parts of the Earth.
CHARLES R. HAYNES
RADFORD
Cox Cable can't justify its greed
THE LATEST price increase announced by Cox Cable (June 26 article, ``Cox Cable raising its rates to meet inflation'') is after three prior adjustments in less than two years - September 1993, July 1994, and February 1995.
The Federal Communications Commission has determined the September 1993 increase was unlawful, and has ordered Cox Cable to give refunds to Roanoke County subscribers. According to Cox Cable's own figures, the alleged overcharge was 21 cents a month, totaling some $125,000 per year.
Roanoke city and Vinton subscribers will not get a refund, and will have to continue paying the excessive rate because no one in these two jurisdictions complained. Cox Cable has told the Regional Television Committee that it will not make a comparable refund voluntarily.
Does Cox Cable think its highly advertised, nominal charitable contributions justify greed?
WILLIAM A. COOK JR.
ROANOKE
by CNB