ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, November 13, 1996 TAG: 9611130027
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-12 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
AFTER WATCHING about five hours of Election '96 on television, I was very sad and disheartened to see what I already knew: In this so-called land of opportunity, very little has changed on our national political scene.
It has become apparent to me that citizens in the United States have little or no serious interest in seeing blacks and other minorities elected to major political offices.
I acknowledge that there are a chosen few representatives of minorities who succeed, but you cannot disregard the overwhelming dominance of whites in major offices in our government.
I find it very hard to explain to my children and other young blacks in our community the importance of voting when we only see the same wealthy white Americans being elected to the same offices - be they senators, governors, representatives or president - over and over again.
This situation brings to mind the old saying, ``As much as things change, they still remain the same.''
VINCENT V. PANNELL SR.
ROANOKE
Evolution or not, we are accountable
MANY PEOPLE feel considerable uneasiness regarding evolution for various reasons. Some think it's degrading. ``[I]f man is not a unique creation of God, he is of no greater value and has no greater moral standing than an animal or any other living thing,'' wrote Cal Thomas in his Oct. 30 column, ``The evolution of the pope.''
Although we may have some moral responsibilities toward apes, such as not to treat them cruelly for no reason, we don't hold apes morally accountable for their behavior. If an ape were a danger to humans, we would try to (re)train it or restrain it, but we wouldn't blame it for its misbehavior. Only things that are capable of making choices based on reason and laws are morally accountable. Similarly, although we clearly have moral responsibilities toward babies, we don't hold them morally accountable for their behavior.
Suppose humans were evolved from earlier life forms; in particular, that humans and apes had some common ancestor millions of years ago. Would that undermine human moral dignity and accountability? I don't see why it would. Even if humans were evolved from things that couldn't make choices based on reasons, it doesn't follow that humans can't themselves make choices based on reasons and laws. Clearly they can.
Certainly we are grown from beings who cannot make choices based on reasons and laws - namely, 1-year-olds. But that doesn't keep us from being able to make such choices.
Growing up means acquiring new capacities - moral beings can grow out of nonmoral beings. Evolving means acquiring new capacities, too - moral beings could evolve out of nonmoral beings. Being evolved (ultimately) from primordial slime wouldn't mean we are still slime, any more than being conceived from sperm and egg means we are still sperm and egg.
Whether we are morally dignified and accountable beings depends on what our capacities are. We, unlike other animals, are accountable to God's laws because we have the capability to understand and obey them.
JAMES C. KLAGGE
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Virginia Tech
BLACKSBURG
Wide vs. narrow election victories
I AM CONSTANTLY amazed at what I read in The Roanoke Times (and the sad part is that I pay good money to subscribe for this amazement).
Take the headlines on Nov. 6: "Clinton re-elected easily" and "John Warner wins narrowly." Bill Clinton won by only 8 percentage points while John Warner won by only 6 percentage points. What constitutes the difference between an easy victory and a narrow one? Is it 7 percentage points? And if seven is the magic number, is this a nationally recognized bench mark or just an arbitrary one derived by either the liberal media or the anti-conservative Roanoke Times?
Why is it so hard for you to just report the news and not give us your slanted opinion?
RONALD K. KREMPELS
ROANOKE
Alcohol is more dangerous than pot
I WAS so sick of seeing those commercials about President Clinton and smoking marijuana. So what if he did try it one time, or more than once for that matter? Big deal if he said, ``If I had it to do over, I'd inhale.''
Marijuana may be illegal. But in my opinion, it's far less damaging and lethal than alcohol. Of course, it's OK to have several glasses of wine or a few martinis with dinner. And in front of our children no less!
I've seen the effects of alcohol on several of my family members, and it's by far the most lethal of the two. If anything should be classified as a drug, it should be alcohol. I believe it has ruined more lives and killed more people than marijuana.
My point is this: If you have ever had a drink of alcohol, then don't criticize anyone for just trying marijuana. The only difference is that one is illegal.
LISA POFF
VINTON
LENGTH: Medium: 98 linesby CNB