Volume 93, Issue 95

Wednesday, March 29, 2000


Maybe parents should get a detention

Confusing acceptance with tolerance

CASA vs. CFS - the battle rages on

Column shows deviancy, hypocrisy

Art is a work of pure genius

Attack obscured in generalization

Sailboat much like Stonehenge

Diverse or just confused?

Column shows deviancy, hypocrisy

Re: "Dr. Laura prescribes bad medicine" March 22

To the Editor:

It is the year 2000. Perhaps it is even more astonishing that unresearched and "blatantly false" diatribes are printed in a post-secondary institution's student publication.

As is often the case with most of Dr. Laura Schlessinger's detractors, instead of discussing the point of view, you have attacked the person. This is a bad strategy to begin with, but even more so when you do not have the facts correct.

Two definitions to consider (taken from Webster's Collegiate Dictionary) that will be explored in my letter: "hypocrite" – a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion and "deviant" – deviating from an accepted norm

To begin, Laura Schlessinger holds a PhD in physiology – she is a doctor. There is no need to "use this designation loosely." What Dr. Laura is not, is a hypocrite.

Secondly, in order for her to be a hypocrite, she would have to practice life differently than she preaches. Since she lives in a married, two-parent, heterosexual household, where there is always a parent home when her son is at home, she is not a hypocrite. Doing something differently now than one did in the past does not make one a hypocrite. If that were the case, then both you and I and everyone else in the world would be a hypocrite as well.

Thirdly, she is not homophobic – if you actually ever listened to her radio program, you would know that.

Finally, it is true that homosexual behavior is deviant, by definition. Since less than 10 per cent of the population is homosexual, it is not the norm. Incest can be described as deviant behaviour, but so can not having a phone in one's household – if it is not the norm.

You could have easily used my comparison as an example, but instead conveniently chose something to which readers would have a strong, negative emotional reaction in order to support your accusations.

Dr. Laura is a religious, upstanding, moral person whose goal is to protect children and the family unit.

If you disagree with that philosophy, fine. But if you cannot argue the point, then it is best to keep yourself "Bound and gagged" lest you, in turn, be accused of hypocrisy.

A. William Anthony
London resident

To Contact The Opinions Department:

Copyright The Gazette 2000