Speaking of things that make me cranky, read this…

A letter to the editor written by one of the inmates of my fair state:

3/7/05 LETTER: Helping poor is not the job of government
Monday, March 07, 2005, Greenville, NC Daily Reflector

In the Feb. 13 Public Forum, we find Nicole Scarboro taking President Bush to task for his proposed budget cuts which will affect the poor. Criticism of his faith and his supporters is thrown in for good measure, I suppose. Allow me to retort.

Blaming the president for poverty is simply a red herring swimming in an ocean full of nonsense and poor logic. The real issue is, what are we to do about the poor– each of us, individually?

I'll not have anyone waving their moral finger in my face about the duty of the government, because it's not Uncle Sam's job.

Let me be clear. The Bible does not teach, in a way, that the government should help the needy. The Bible urges individual believers and the church body as a whole, to help the poor. This is precisely why our forefathers didn't establish welfare programs 200 years ago. They knew it was wrong for such government intrusion.

I'm sorry that there are children born into poverty every day, I really am. But instead of blaming the president, we need to put the blame where it belongs. On the senseless out there pro-creating, when they clearly can't afford children. Maybe they should keep their pants on; that's my position. Seriously, is there anything as immoral as having kids you can't afford to feed? Whether it's Third World starving nations or teenagers in the "hood," it's wrong. Wrong, indeed.

Over the last 20 years, our government has been trying to rein in welfare spending because we know it doesn't help. The previous 20 years proved it: The more Uncle Sam gives, the more poor folks there are. Let individuals help poor children, let government spend zero. This is what the truth does sometimes – it hurts.

WILLIAM M. WALSTON
Winterville

Obviously, I was incensed by this lout. I took keyboard in lap and dispatched the following missive, which on second reading is OK - good, not great. It does get my point across and throws his words back at him.


3/10/05 LETTER: 45 million church-goers say otherwise
Thursday, March 10, 2005, Greenville, NC Daily Reflector

I infer from William Walston's rant (Forum, March 7) that he is a Christian. He says that he “won't have anyone wave their moral finger in his face about helping the poor.” He says it's “not Uncle Sam's job” but is the church's job. We must all presume that he tithes to his church. Thanks Bill. Or perhaps he meets John Galbraith's definition of a conservative: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

Other Christians have a different view. The National Council of Churches, representing 45 million mainstream Christians, including Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians and many black churches, doesn't agree with Walston.

Here's what they say about the Bush budget: “The Bush administration's FY2006 budget is morally misguided and misrepresents the true values of the American people. It suggests that we value military might and war spending more than the poor, families and strong, viable communities. It favors permanent tax relief for the wealthy and corporations at the expense of further burdening the poor, families, and communities with economic despair. Congress must act boldly and creatively to oppose budget cuts in human services.”

So let's sum up. Walston would appear to be mean-spirited, possibly selfish, and certainly wrong – not just in the view of this liberal Christian, but in the view of the 45 million represented by the National Council of Churches. Sorry, Mr. Walston. It appears that you're wrong, but that's what the truth does sometimes – it hurts.

BRUCE BERBERICH
Greenville

The Daily Reflector is amazingly liberal - especially for a southern newspaper. What's really remarkable is that they publish all of my letters - they must be really desperate.