Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The silence is deafening.
    
    Mike

    Isn't it, though?  :-(
    
    -- Mike

    I give food to the local food basket. But that's only a drop in the 
    bucket.

    I do many things, although it seems so little, but out of humility I 
    don't wish to toot my horn over it.-:) The verse, "Don't let your left 
    hand know what your right hand is doing," or something like that comes to 
    mind.


    Peace
    Jim

    
    some years ago i was very close with an African-American man.
    we weren't lovers but (in gay-parlance) sisters. through a
    series of financial set-backs he went to live with another
    friend who had dropped out of regular socializing with other
    gays and had become quite involved with the Catholic Worker
    movement. this was my first introduction to this revolutionary
    church group.
    
    in the course of time, my "sister" who was a hard-core skeptic
    became converted to the Roman Catholic faith. throughout this
    process i learned more and more about administering to the poor.
    i worked in the kitchen preparing meals for the street people
    who showed up everyday at 5. i made sandwiches when we tried to
    do lunches as well. one day i saw someone pull a knife on another
    person in line!!...over free food. it did a lot to make me realize
    the depth of the oppression of the poor.
    
    i started out, as many of us do, idealistic but the brutality of
    poverty doesn't allow that for too long. i don't work the meals anymore
    (although i will probably again) now i give what i can and what support
    i can to those who do.
    
    i know there are others in this file who are doing or have done
    similiar things...there's never a lack of this sort of work. As
    Christian (i believe) we are especially called to this.
    
    i also believe it is important to share ourselves in the holy
    ritual of the eucharist with the poor...pray with them as well
    as feed them.
    
    peter
    

    Re: .5
    
    Aw, go ahead, Jim!  Let your light shine like that of a city on a hill!
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: .6
    
    Disillusioning and disheartening, isn't it?
    
    Thank you, Peter.  I'm familiar with what you've described.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

	Jesus spoke a lot about possessions and wealth.  The things Jesus
advocated concerning possessions and wealth are frequently ignored by
Christians.  The concepts Christ taught are uncomfortable and contrary to
the messages with which our culture saturates us.

	Some Christians indicate that one need not do anything about adhering
to these teachings of Jesus unless first God lays it one's heart to do so.
Ironically, many of these same Christians often insist that believers must
change some other aspect of one's life, and do so without the benefit of God
having first laid it on the believer's heart.

	Jesus pointed out the hindrance and encumbrance caused by possessions
and wealth.  He made no parallel statements about poverty.  In contrast,
Jesus is quoted as saying, "Blessed are the poor."

	The Bible always (read *always*, *ALWAYS*) takes the side of the poor
and oppressed.

	Perhaps we don't consider ourselves wealthy.  Perhaps we've become so
anesthetized by our material wealth that we don't truly understand how much
affluence surrounds us.  Perhaps we don't understand at whose expense our
affluence is made possible.  Or perhaps we redirect our gaze, pretending not
to notice.  Perhaps we wince a bit.  Or perhaps we mutter under our breath,
"There, but for the grace of God, go I."  Or perhaps we muddy the issue by
refocusing our attention on the salvation of souls.

	More later......

Peace,
Richard

	If the world were a global village of 100 people, over 70 of them
would be unable to read, and only 1 of them would have a college education,
over 50 would be suffering from malnutrition and 80 would live in what we
call substandard housing.

	If the world were a global village of 100 residents, 6 of them
would be Americans.  These 6 would have half the village's entire income;
the other 94 would exist on the other half.  How do you suppose the wealthy
6 live "in peace" with their neighbors?  Surely they would be forced to
arm themselves against the other 94...perhaps even to spend, as Americans
currently do, more per person on military "defense" than the total per
person income of the others.

	More later...

Peace,
Richard

    
    Boy, *that* gives you a different perspective!
    
    Carole

	An estimated 40,000 children die each day of starvation and
diseases largely related to nutritional deficiencies.  Hitler, with all
the facilities and power he had under his direction, could not exterminate
human beings at such a rate.

	Granted, a lot of this sinful situation is perpetuated by the
authorities of countries who divert food and medical relief away from
the poor and to the military.  We've all heard the horror stories of food
sent to feed the hungry rotting on foreign receiving docks.  We've seen and
read of farming families forced to flee their homes as a result of "civil"
war, only to die a slower death under the squalid and unsanitary conditions
of an over-crowded, under-staffed refugee camp.

	Such images are disturbing to us.  And thank God we are still disturbed
by them.  Thank God we are outraged by them.

Peace,
Richard

The American preoccupation with wealth is firmly established.

We're fascinated by the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."  We vicariously
"Runaway" with the flawlessly beautiful and the shamelessly extravagant.  Need
I mention the popularity of TV series depicting opulence such as "Dallas,"
"Dynasty," and "Falcon Crest?"

Many classic American motion pictures deal with the wealthy and the striving-
to-be-wealthy:  "How to Marry a Millionaire," "Gone with the Wind," and more
recently, "Reversal of Fortune," to name just a few.

The pattern is repeated even in some of our entertainment about the American
cowboy such as "Bonanza" and "The Big Valley."

The wealthy are generally perceived as fortunate or "lucky," while the poor
are often perceived as unwilling to work or "shiftless".  In this way, you
see, we may excuse our own inability to achieve wealth, but allow no such
excuse for the impoverished.

The poor are frequently perceived as a parasitic burden to society.  The
rich are seldom seen in such light.  Any negative feelings widely held
towards the wealthy usually bear an uncanny resemblance to envy.

It seems like we would rather live like the ones who do not store up their
treasures in heaven.  We would rather live like the ones who never have to
be concerned about their next meal or what they'll wear when the weather turns
cold, because they invariably have plenty of cash or credit immediately at
their fingertips.

Peace,
Richard

Matthew 6:19-21
    Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust
    consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves
    treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where
    thieves do not break in and steal.  For where your treasure is, there
    your heart will be also. 

Matthew 6:24-33
    No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the  one and
    love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You
    cannot serve God and wealth.  Therefore I tell you, do not worry about
    your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your
    body, what you will wear.  Is not life more than food, and the body more
    than clothing? ... Therefore do not worry, saying, "What will we eat?"
    or "What will we drink?" or "What will we wear?"  For it is the Gentiles
    who strive for all these things; and indeed your heavenly Father knows
    you need all these things.  But strive first for the kingdom of God and
    his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 

I once heard someone say, "The best thing you can do for the poor is to
not become one of them!"

I would take exception to this statement; in its present form, anyway.

However, it might be more acceptable to me were it changed to, "The best
thing you can do for the poor is to not become one of them *involuntarily*!"

Being poor without having chosen to be so can be a miserable existence.
Imposed poverty procures no prestige, power or privilege, at least, not
in the ordinary sense.  Imposed poverty often offers the most unglorious
of anxieties, accompanied by a pervasive sense of futility.

But, oh!  What a difference in perspective rethinking (repentance) makes!

Christ calls us to simplify and become unburdened and unhindered by the
demands that having "stuff" inevitably makes of us.

Personally, I've not embraced "Lady Poverty" as Francis of Assisi did, but
by American standards I've flirted with her quite a bit. ;-}

Relevant Scripture passages:
Mark 10:23-25 (NRSV)
    Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will
    be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"  And the
    disciples were perplexed at these words.  But Jesus said to them again,
    "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!  It is easier for
    a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich
    to enter the kingdom of God."

Luke 14:25-33 (NRSV)
    Now large crowds were traveling with him; and he turned and said to
    them, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and 
    children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my
    disciple.  Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my
    disciple.  For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first
    sit down and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to
    complete it?  Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able
    to finish, all who see it will begin to ridicule him, saying 'This
    fellow began to build and was not able to finish.' ... So therefore,
    none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your
    possessions."

Peace,
Richard

        A reading of Proverbs 31 tonight gave me a fresh insight into
        the purpose of the law:

         31:4  [It is] not for kings, O Lemuel, [it is] not for kings
        to drink wine; nor for princes strong drink:
         31:5  Lest they drink, and forget the law, and pervert the
        judgment of any of the afflicted.
        ...
         31:8  Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such
        as are appointed to destruction.
         31:9  Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause
        of the poor and needy.

        The purpose of the law is -- to protect the afflicted, the
        oppressed, the condemned, the poor, and the needy!

        Oh Lord, you are so wonderful that we hardly even know you! 
        Your thoughts truly are so far above ours!

        Bob

    Poverty has many different characteristics other than exclusively being
    without material substance. There are those who are poor in character.
    They are the ones who just don't fit in, no matter where they go.
    There are those who are poor do to lack of reason and resourcefulness
    to keep themselves from being poor. You could give these people all the
    money needed to live comfortably and they would still end up
    struggling to make ends meet. 

    The thing I often see when it comes to people helping the poor, is that
    they expect to see a person, due to consequences other than their own,
    are poor. In other words their looking for people like themselves who
    just happen to be poor. The problem is that when they finally meet
    the poor, they find that the poverty is a result of inner poverty of
    the person, more often than the consequences of life. 

    The most important aspect of helping the poor that a person needs is to
    understand and know their own poverty. You can not effectively help the
    poor with an ego. You must have humility, compassion and wisdom. All
    three are the products derived from faith in God. If you know God,
    you'll see him in the faces of the poor, but you'll understand your own
    poverty. If you don't, the poor will make you uncomfortable, and you'll 
    be a bigger burden for them, than any help.

    Of all the people we recognize as being the most helpful to the poor,
    like St. Francis, Mother Teresa, etc. Their faith in Christ, produced
    the Humility, compassion and wisdom that made them successful in dealing
    with the poor. 

    I know, I've worked in a homeless shelter for the past year and a half.
    I didn't expect to see poverty the way I've seen it. If not for my
    faith in Christ, I would have quit, cause the problem of poverty is
    more than I'm able to rationalize. There is no answer really, and the
    statement that Jesus made, "the poor you will always have with you,"
    slaps you in the face when you first come to grips with it.

    Peace
    Jim

    PRAYER:  God, in Your mercy help us to follow Christ in the spirit
    of poverty and to contemplate You in the heavenly Kingdom.  Amen

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, some of the figures concerning the
people living in poverty are as follow:

o  Two-thirds of poor Americans are white

o  40% are children

o  11% are elderly

o  11% of whites are poor

o  32% of blacks are poor

o  28% of Hispanics are poor

o  12% of Asians, Pacific Islanders are poor

Poverty is defined as a family of four earning $13,359 or less (1990).
There are more poor people in the United States than there are people
in Canada.

Richard

    re: -.1
    
    "o Two-thirds of poor Americans are white
                       .
                       .
                       .
     o 11% of whites are poor"
    
    Did I miss something, this doesn't add up!
    
    Thanks,
    Brian
    

>    "o Two-thirds of poor Americans are white
>                       .
>                       .
>                       .
>     o 11% of whites are poor"
    
We can solve this as an equation:

	W = number of white Americans
	P = number of poor Americans
	PW = number of poor white Americans

	PW = (2/3) * P
	PW = (11/100) * W

	(2/3) P = (11/100) W
	P = (33/200) W

In 1987 the population of the United States was 243.4 million, of which 205.8
million were white.  If the above percentages were true for 1987 then
22.6 million whites were poor (11% of 205.8 million) and 34.0 million people
were poor (33/200 of 205.8 milion).  This means that 30.2% of non-whites
were poor.

				-- Bob

Note 275.20  I had to read it twice myself.

    "o Two-thirds of poor Americans are white

2/3 of the all the people who are poor are white.
                       .
                       .                       
     o 11% of whites are poor"

11% of all whites make up the above 2/3 of all poor people.

Article 1800 of clari.news.religion:
Path: nntpd.lkg.dec.com!news.crl.dec.com!deccrl!decwrl!uunet!looking!clarinews
From: [email protected] (DAVID E. ANDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.group,clari.news.gov.international,clari.news.religion,clari.news.trouble
Subject: Group sees breakthroughs in feeding hungry
Keywords: poor, special interest, non-usa government, government,
	organized religion, religion, starvation, trouble
Date: 15 Oct 91 23:00:07 GMT
Lines: 65
Note: (adv 630 pm edt)


	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The bad news, Bread for the World said Tuesday, is
that a half billion people are in a constant state of hunger. The good
news is that there have been ``significant breakthroughs'' in feeding
them.
	``The principal barrier to overcoming world hunger,'' the Christian
church group said in its second annual report on the state of world
hunger, ``is neither lack of resources nor lack of knowledge, but the
failure to put ideas that work into practice.''
	The report was issued as nations around the world marked the U.N.-
sponsored World Food Day on Oct. 16.
	Despite much to be positive about, the report still points up some
bleak realities: ``More than half a billion adults and children are in a
constant state of hunger. An estimated 1 billion people -- 20 percent of
the world's population -- live in households too poor to obtain an
adequate diet for active work life.''
	According to the report, hunger worsened in a number of areas and it
cited the Persian Gulf War as one of the ``10 greatest setbacks for
hungry people in 1991.''
	It said the war, which severely affected not only Iraq and the
surrounding region also was felt in much of Asis and Africa as foreign
workers in Kuwait and Iraq lost their jobs and returned home.
	Other setbacks in combatting hunger also included the current global
economic recession, which in the United States led to a record
enrollment of over 23 million people in the Food Stamp program and
increased poverty in other industrialized nations.
	The report also cited continued economic decline in most of Africa
and much of Latin America; war, refugees, drought and continued
political turmoil in the Horn of Africa; civil wars in liberia, Angola,
Mozambique, Sri Lanka, El Salvador, Cambodia, Afghanistan and the
Philippines that are affecting tens of million of people.
	Natural disasters -- floods in China and Cambodia, the cyclone in
Banladesh -- left millions of people homeless and hungry.
	In Peru, cholera, poor crops, economic deterioration and guerrilla
warfare, have left 12 million Peruvians -- 52 percent of the population --
in poverty.
	The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet economy and the
loss of Soviet aid to Cuba, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Vietnam, Cambodia and
Laos has heightened hunger in those countries, the report said.
	``We are seeing that militarization, poor economic and political
decisions, natural disasters and great inequalities of wealth and power
are the primary causes of hunger, not population growth or the lack of
food,'' said Marc Cohen, research director for Bread for the World
Institute on Hunger and Development and editor of the report.
	``We know what causes hunger,'' added Don Reeves, director of the
institute. ``We also know what ideas work to reduce hunger. The
challenge is for people to step forward and help put more of these ideas
that work into action.''
	The report also identified 10 ``ideas that work,'' ranging from the
food banks and food pantries of such groups as Second Harvest in the
United States, providing food aid that is more than a Band-Aid, such as
the partnership between CARE and the government of India to implement a
child survival program, using intensive grassroots organizing techniques
to create political power for the poor, working for policy frameworks
that combines new agricultural technologies with support for small rural
enterprises.
	The report said there is no single cause, hence no single cure, for
hunger.
	``Government policies that are humane and just are needed as well as
a combination of individual, corporate and oarganizational efforts,''
said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World.
	``Lowering the interest rate on Third World debt by 1 percent could
help hungry people as much as holding dozens of Live Aid concerts,'' he
said.
 adv 630 pm edt

re Note 41.133 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> He [Robertson] said Quayle ``was addressing the fact that people will smirk at
> somebody who says there is such a thing as right and wrong and that we
> should have moral standards.''

        One of the saddest things about the superficial level of
        political and moral debate in this country is people can wrap
        themselves in the flag, or the bible, or the standard of
        "family values" and simultaneously brand their opponent as
        "anti" those things.  Very few will poke beneath the surface
        and ask the tough questions of consistency.

        I am still bitter that it was the conservatives, led by
        Ronald Reagan, who belittled Jimmy Carter's attempts to bring
        notions of right and wrong and moral standards into the
        public arena.

        Bob

According to a survey conducted by the "Stewardship Journal," seventy
percent of the evangelicals who responded believe that if poor people
become Christians, their beliefs will lift them out of poverty if they
simply follow biblical principles regarding work and the use of resources.

87 percent of the respondents indicated that they felt the primary goal of
human relief efforts should be to "spread the gospel and convert people."

In a sociology course I tool a couple years ago, we learned that most
people believe the reason people become wealthy is because they're "lucky,"
and that the primary reason people are poor is because they're lazy.

Peace,
Richard

Mother Theresa of Calcutta claims that poverty in the United States is
worse than poverty in India.  Even though poverty is more acute in such
countries as India, the masses are able to share a commonalty in their
poverty.  In the United States, the poor live in the midst of the one
of the wealthiest nations in the history of civilization, and are viewed
by many as failures, bums, drug addicts, alcoholics and rejects of society.
It is this mentality which the homeless person must confront on a daily basis.

Many homeless persons were reared in dysfunctional families and many feel
very acutely the rejection and marginalization from society.  This
mentality leads to low self-esteem and often the loss of hope.  Hopelessness
and isolation are the most difficult obstacles the homeless confront.

The average age of the homeless person in the United States in 34.

It is estimated that 23 percent of the homeless population nationally is
made up of U.S. Veterans.

According to a 1990 Children's Defense Fund study, families with children
represent more than one third of the homeless, while one out of every
four homeless persons in urban areas is a child.

"When I give food to the poor thay call me a saint.  When I ask why the
poor have no food they call me a communist."

					- Dom Helder Camara

	"The reason we're fighting the war on drugs is because
		we lost the War on Poverty!"

					-- Sargent Schriver

re Note 275.31 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        It has struck me that a generation ago folks were wondering
        how to eliminate poverty, whereas now the goal is eliminating
        welfare.

        A generation ago the reformers were trying to eliminate
        racism;  today they're trying to eliminate affirmative action
        programs.

        A generation ago everybody was concerned with improving the
        quality of our schools;  today it seems that everybody is
        trying to reduce the amount of money spent on schools.

        A generation ago justice for the worker was preached from our
        pulpits;  these days the preaching is for justice to be
        administered to the criminal.


        At least we reduce our problems to ones that are much easier
        to solve! :-{

        Bob

You know I can't resist!!
    
    
ZZ        It has struck me that a generation ago folks were wondering
ZZ        how to eliminate poverty, whereas now the goal is eliminating
ZZ        welfare.

This is not true.  The goal is to streamline welfare and give it to those who
really need it.  By the way, what right to we have to incur debt for our 
children to have to pay off?  And I'm all for streamlining the military
    too.

ZZ        A generation ago the reformers were trying to eliminate
ZZ        racism;  today they're trying to eliminate affirmative action
ZZ        programs.

Evil to the core, unfair, promotes discrimination legally, illegal...but you 
know this already.

ZZ        A generation ago everybody was concerned with improving the
ZZ        quality of our schools;  today it seems that everybody is
ZZ        trying to reduce the amount of money spent on schools.

Because it has been proven that private schools can run more efficiently and 
effectively on less money...why shouldn't it be done in the public schools?
Why is congress now getting brow beated for wanting to cut costs and promote 
more choice and better quality.  I'll never understand this mentality that 
throwing money at something will make it better.  By the way, the teachers 
unions are the bad guys here, not the congress. 

ZZ        A generation ago justice for the worker was preached from our
ZZ        pulpits;  these days the preaching is for justice to be
ZZ        administered to the criminal.

Unions served a great purpose years ago.  Unions are now operated by the mob
and other bad elements in society.  I would hope you are not an advocate for 
the status quo!


ZZ        At least we reduce our problems to ones that are much easier
ZZ        to solve! :-{

Bob, our children will most likely find alot of our societal problems will be
much lighter because of these changes...not the other way around.

       
Jack

        

| <<< Note 275.33 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| This is not true. The goal is to streamline welfare and give it to those who
| really need it.  

	Jack, it depends on who's version of welfare is being discussed. The
repubs won't be streamlining as much as cutting, the dems will streamline. 

| Because it has been proven that private schools can run more efficiently and
| effectively on less money...why shouldn't it be done in the public schools?

	Jack, there are fewer kids that attend a private school to begin with.
That might have a lot to do with what you stated above. But is cutting school
lunch programs gonna help? Nope. Is cutting loans for better education gonna
help? Nope. What about this equipment we are going to need to bring the schools
into the 90's? It ain't gonna happen.

| Why is congress now getting brow beated for wanting to cut costs and promote
| more choice and better quality.  

	You need to finish the sentence Jack.... and better quality for those
who can afford it.

| I'll never understand this mentality that throwing money at something will 
| make it better.  

	On this we agree. But your standard answer to something that has a
problem is to eliminate it. Maybe if we fixed it, the school system will work
correctly. 

| By the way, the teachers unions are the bad guys here, not the congress.

	Both have a part in it Jack. Tenure should not come into play when it
involves teaching. A teacher could be in a school system for years, and not be
any good. Yet she/he will keep their job. On the other hand, cutting money from
schools is not gonna promote better education. Moving the money to new
equipment and such is what should happen. 


Glen

    	re .32
    
    	Kind of says a lot about the effectiveness of the liberal responses
    	to all those problems that we've experimented with over the course
    	of the last generation!

re Note 275.33 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

> I'll never understand this mentality that 
> throwing money at something will make it better.  

        I'm sure you won't -- and I can't understand the mentality
        that by cutting money from something you make it better --
        yet that is almost exactly the current conservative
        gospel.

        The point, of course, is neither to throw nor withhold money
        -- the point is to address and fix problems.

        Nevertheless, many still believe in voodoo.

        Bob

re Note 275.35 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	re .32
>     
>     	Kind of says a lot about the effectiveness of the liberal responses
>     	to all those problems that we've experimented with over the course
>     	of the last generation!
  
        Get the blinders off of your eyes, Joe!  Those problems
        existed 40 years ago, that's why so many labored so hard to
        address them!  Forty years ago our nation lived the
        conservatives' ideal -- and we had generations living in
        poverty, and schools that were falling behind other nations,
        and an apartheid system only a shade better than South
        Africa's.


        It says a great deal more about where the moneyed interests
        see their advantage lies.  (And if you don't think money plays
        a major role in political campaigns, I have this bridge....)

        The rich aren't helped when poverty is abated;  the rich
        benefit financially when welfare is eliminated.

        The rich aren't helped when the schools that the majority
        attends get better;  the rich are helped financially when the
        spending on schools goes down.

        The rich aren't helped when social justice is addressed for
        the worker;  the rich aren't generally from the classes
        suffering from discrimination.

        Bob

    	Whoa, Bob!  I didn't mean to hit a nerve.  I thought the sarcasm
    	was evident.  I guess I owed you a smiley on that reply.

re Note 275.38 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	Whoa, Bob!  I didn't mean to hit a nerve.  I thought the sarcasm
>     	was evident.  I guess I owed you a smiley on that reply.
  
        Well, never mind!

        Bob

    It's always been easier to destroy than to build.  It's always been
    easier to give less than to give more.  It's always been easier to
    say that wealth is the product of diligent labor and that poverty is
    rooted in laziness.
    
    Richard
    

    Sorry Richard...it's just that I'm working four jobs right now and I
    don't like being lectured to on the tube by the likes of lord Clinton
    when I come home cross eyed and tired.  Secondly, the insistance that
    government is the best mode of curbing poverty is in my mind
    flawed...as we have plainly seen over the last thirty years.
    
    -Jack

          <<< Note 275.40 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>    It's always been easier to
>    say that wealth is the product of diligent labor and that poverty is
>    rooted in laziness.
    
    	Does the fact that "it's easier to say" make it incorrect?

    Lady Byrd Johnson is correct.  It is human nature for one to take as
    much as they can.  I have seen people a few years ago take the buyout
    package (at the time was 1 year)....and for about ten months did
    absolutely nada to find a job or pursue their career further.  It is
    comforting to know you have a paycheck coming in and there is nothing
    to worry about.  
    
    There are many on AFDC who truly need it.  There are also many on
    welfare who simply do not...and we all know this so let's address this
    issue and stop pointing fingers.  There is nothing meanspirited about
    driving people to self reliance and excellence.  This rhetoric from
    Clinton et al is absolute nonsense.
    
    -Jack
    
    

    
    > It is human nature for one to take as much as they can. 

    I don't know about human nature, but it's certainly the nature of
    capitalism. The point is, the rhetoric is completely out of proportion
    from the problem. One hundred percent of the system is condemned for
    the abuse of a small fraction of the recipients.

    > This rhetoric from Clinton et al is absolute nonsense. 

    I'm no Clinton "yes man," but I think this just blindly parroting the
    ultra-right wing party line. Help me out. Give me an example of the
    nonsensical rhetoric. My recollection is that his administration was
    far ahead of the field in crafting constructive welfare reform. Maybe
    it wasn't the "burn the witch" approach the rugged individualist, pull
    yourself up by your bootstraps, man's gotta do what a man's gotta do
    conservative would like, but certainly not the bleeding-heart picture
    you paint either. 

    So what's the rhetoric you're talking about. Illuminate me and I just
    might agree with you, but so far all a here are PC buzzwords.

    	Eric

    Sure.  Richard Gephart in my view is the most guilty of all.  His royal
    elitist highness gave a speech in DC about two weeks ago on the
    meanspiritedness of the GOP and welfare reform.  I took exception to
    these remarks because as majority leader, this man approved of the
    wreckless welfare policies of the past 15 years.  Don't be fooled...the
    abuse and pilfering of the welfare system has been absolutely
    phenominal...the most mismanaged welfare system imaginable.  And he
    gets on the tube and lectures me about charity???  I find this
    insulting to the average American intelligence.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If you are working four jobs right now you have to ask yourself
    the question why are you working four jobs rather than complaining that
    someone else may be getting something without working for it.
    
    Why are you denying your presence to your wife and family by working
    four jobs?
    
    I'm not asking these questions to be critical nor do I pretend to know
    the right answer.  It is a question that needs to be asked though. Are
    material goods that important?
    
                                   Patricia

    Thanks for your reply.

    First of all using terms like "his royal elitist highness" already
    sets a vitriolic, spiteful and, quite frankly, cheap tone to any
    reply. Before you've even stated your case you've put me in a defensive
    frame of mind and diminished the respect I might have given your
    arguments. For what it's worth I feel the same way when someone refers
    to the Speaker as The Emperor Newt, for example.

    Secondly, I asked for examples of Clinton's rhetoric that you see as
    "nonsense." I'll be the first to admit that Clinton's policies fell
    victim to his own party's. The bleeding-heart liberals, as you call
    them, thought his plan was too conservative, and the Republicans did
    what every opposition party does, rejected it out of hand as inadequate.

    > Don't be fooled...the abuse and pilfering of the welfare system has
    > been absolutely phenominal...the most mismanaged welfare system
    > imaginable. 

    I keep hearing this, but I've never seen it backed up with real
    research. It's usually just popular folk "wisdom."

    > And he gets on the tube and lectures me about charity???

    I don't know who "he" is, but chances are "he" isn't lecturing you
    personally. Most likely you are just one of hundreds of thousands of
    viewers. :^) 
    
    Eric 

    Patricia:
    
    A question that is certainly worthy of an answer.
    
    There are a few factors here.  Back 8 years ago when Michele and I did
    our family planning, Micheles desire was to have three children and be
    able to stay home until the children were in school.  This was our
    thought out family planning.  I repeat this because I consider myself
    an average person on the intellectual scale.  The plan was timed by God
    as Michele had four miscarriages; however, we now have the three
    children we had hoped for.  I can't emphasize enough...Common Sense and
    Family Planning...it can be done by the average Joe but doesn't seem to
    be the norm for alot of people.
    
    Consequently, Michele is now home with the children.  I am of the
    belief that anything is possible if one puts their mind to it.  What I
    actually do is the following over and above my family time...
    
    1. Digital
    2. Deliver papers to the whole towns of Merrimack, Hollis, Mont Vernon,
       and part of Amhearst.
    
    I consider the routes three separate jobs as they whole towns.  This
    starts Thursday night from 5:00 P.M. to midnight (bagging and doing Mt.
    Vernon.  Then Friday night after Digital I do Merrimack and Hollis. 
    Saturday morning I finish Amhearst.  
    
    These routes require a certain perseverance.  I hook them on the
    mailboxes, I keep my window open and drive in freezing weather, I am
    constantly on the wrong side of the road, and I did 3,900 in repairs
    last year.  Nevertheless, it has been a blessing from God these last 3
    years and Michele has been able to stay home.  Incidently, these routes
    open quite frequently...the work is there and is available.
    
    So, to tie this in with welfare...I am in a situation where I have alot
    of freedom to move about and do what I have to.  There are single
    parents that simply do not have the latitude...I realize this. 
    However, there are alot who can do it and choose not to.  By the way, I
    am able to spend time with the family Saturday afternoon, Sunday
    through Thursday morning when I'm not at Digital.  What I don't like to
    hear is a politician...after taxing me to death telling me I'm mean
    spirited.  I find this statement condescending and all it does is make
    me resent the system even more....mainly because the system is
    government run, inefficient, and fosters dependence.
    
    -Jack-who-is-average

    Jack,
    
    What would be the tradeoff if you did not do the paper routes?
    
    Obviously you and michelle feel that it is important for a mother to
    spend plenty of time with the children.  Why do you not feel it is as
    important for a father to spend plenty of time with the children.
    
    Why do you feel your children need a mother full time and welfare
    children do not need a mother full time?
    
                                         Patricia

         <<< Note 275.49 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Why do you feel your children need a mother full time and welfare
>    children do not need a mother full time?
    
    	The welfare children *DO* need a fulltime mother.  What they
    	also need is a breadwinner father.  But since society has
    	decided to condone and even encourage the absence of the
    	breadwinner father, the next choice for breadwinner falls
    	(or should fall) on the shoulders of the mother (and not on
    	you and me.)

   ZZ    Obviously you and michelle feel that it is important for a mother to
   ZZ    spend plenty of time with the children.  Why do you not feel it is
   ZZ    as important for a father to spend plenty of time with the children.
     
    Yes.  We believe it is very important for mom to be home if she can be.
    I think alot of working moms would agree to this.  Even the courts tend
    to believe that the mother can offer a better nurturing on a daily
    basis than the dad.  Of course this is probably in most cases but not
    in all.  
    
    I also believe it is very important for dad to spend plenty of time as
    well...and I spend all my free time with them.  I don't go out after
    work.  I go right home and play hide and seek and all those fun things
    that kids like.  But my personal belief is that it is better for mom to
    be home when the kids get home from school, etc.  Again, this is my
    opinion but I think there are alot of working moms that would like to
    do this also.   
    
   ZZ     Why do you feel your children need a mother full time and welfare
   ZZ     children do not need a mother full time?
    
    Welfare children do need a full time mother...that is the sad part
    about the whole thing.  What I am saying however is that it is not up
    to the state to be a surrogate dad to take care of the family...this is
    not the states responsibility.  It is the responsibility of the church
    and private organizations...and then the state only gets involved when
    we need them...kind of like a broom.  You take it out of the closet
    only when absolutely needed...then you use it and then put it away.  
    We needed government during the great depression.  They should have
    been put away years ago and only used when things got dirty...only to
    immediately be put away again.  Look at government as a tool...an
    inadimate object...USE THEM but don't depend on them.  This is the road
    to perdition for this country.
                                  
    -Jack

	Joe, has society really done this, or is it that in a lot, if not most 
of the cases, fathers don't take responsibility for their kids? I don't think
society embraces this, or you would not have people out there hunting down
deadbeat dads. I think what society HAS done is realize there are single family
households.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Republican Governor Weld is pushing the deadbeat dad issue and has done
    it successfully.  I have not seen very much at all done on the federal
    level.  You may recall I listed an article stating that the AFDC broke
    African American tradition and protocol.  When a woman had a baby out
    of wedlock, the grandparents either took in the child with the single
    daughter or the two parents (father and mother) made them marry.  This
    concept was destroyed in the 1940's when the AFDC started assuming the
    role of family.  It was dismissed as nonsense in this file.
    
    -Jack 

                   <<< Note 275.52 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, has society really done this, or is it that in a lot, if not most 
>of the cases, fathers don't take responsibility for their kids? 
    
    	And why don't fathers take that responsibility?  It is my 
    	belief that social trends over the last 30 years or more have 
    	encouraged the fathers to drop their sense of responsibility
    	in this area.  Social changes have almost empowered the father
    	to skip out.  It is more than just a single law or a single
    	issue that does this.  It is more than just the "divorce 
    	culture" that we have fostered.  It is more than just the
    	Murphy Brown syndrome.  It is more than just the feminist
    	movement (yes, I see that as contributing too.)  It is more
    	than our disposable lifestyle attitude that makes it so easy
    	to abort a child.  It is more than all these things wrapped
    	together.  It is a whole societal mindset.
    
>I don't think
>society embraces this, or you would not have people out there hunting down
>deadbeat dads. 
    
    	That is a relatively recent development, and one step to bring
    	the fathers back to their responsibilities.  And I'll add that I
    	think it is a positive step, so that my response to this item is
    	not misconstrued.
    
>I think what society HAS done is realize there are single family
>households.
    
    	More than recognize it.  What we are doing now is trying to 
    	condone it.  Justify it to appease a societal conscience that
    	sees the problems such arrangements ***GENERALLY** and
    	statistically face.  It is evident that this is not the
    	best family structure, but as a society we must now scramble
    	to accommodate and even foster the genie that we cannot push
    	back into the bottle.

	Joe, if 2 adults find they should not have been married, they get a
divorce. Bingo, single family home. If a father decides to split and not take
any responsibility, bingo, single family home.

	In one, the father supports the kid, in the other, the father is a
deadbeat dad. While yes, they are both considered single family households,
they are both at oppisite ends of the spectrum. One IS being supported, while
the other one is not. 




Glen

    
    > And why don't fathers take that responsibility? 

    Generally speaking, fathers do take responsibility. The fact that there
    are deadbeat dad's in our society doesn't mean this is *condoned* by
    society any more than society condones and encourages armed robbery or
    tax evasion.

    I agree we should, as a society, do more to prevent broken homes and
    unwed childbirth. However, once a home is broken or a child is born out
    of wedlock, I don't think we should blazon a scarlet "A" on the
    mothers. All citizens are part of our society whether we like them or
    not; whether they are single or married, fertile or barren, sinner or
    saint. The question is, what to we who control the power of society do
    to make our society, as a whole, a better one. I don't think a survival
    of the fittest model is the way to go.
    
    Eric

                      <<< Note 275.56 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

>    However, once a home is broken or a child is born out
>    of wedlock, I don't think we should blazon a scarlet "A" on the
>    mothers. 
    
    	Are you suggesting that I said we should?

                   <<< Note 275.55 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	In one, the father supports the kid, in the other, the father is a
>deadbeat dad. 
    
    	I think you'll find that a lot of deadbeat dads are ones that 
    	are shirking their divorce settlement responsibilities.
    
    	And divorce is much too easy to do today.  No-fault divorce
    	has been a boon to the statistics.  A whole class of business
    	has grown around it.  It is socially acceptable.
    	acceptable.  

    Just as an FYI, a close woman friend of mine here from DEC has not
    received child support from her estranged husband for 5 years.  He
    hasn't visited his son for quite a few years either.  He is simply a
    jerk and there are alot of them out there.  
    
    Even though this women has done perfectly fine on her own and simply
    wants the guy out of her life, he's a bum and should be cast into jail.
    
    -Jack

If one of the brothers or one of the sisters has not enough to eat and one
of you says, "I wish you well; keep warm and eat well," without giving him
or her any of the necessities of life, then what good is it?  Faith is like
that: if good works do not go with it, it is quite dead.

James 2.14-17

    re .56

    There has been a lot of talk about the lack of shame and the lack of
    stigma placed on unwed mothers. Someone even waxed nostalgically of the
    days when an unmarried pregnant teen was sent away the gestate and
    give birth; in essence shunned by the family and community. So, yes the
    scarlet letter mentality has been put forward as a positive thing. I'm
    not singling you out personally, but I thought you sympathized with
    the stigma and shame sentiment of single parenthood.

    Eric

    
    > And divorce is much too easy to do today.
    
    Conversely, perhaps marriage is much too easy... 
    
    	Eric

    Richard:
    
    Your quote holds alot of validity.
    
    What irks me is again the people who are using you and I.  They had a
    special on 20/20 about people on the run from justice who are
    collecting welfare checks....many many people Richard.  I don't like
    paying for this.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, that was Dateline. :-)  But something you seem to forget was that
out of the names handed to the Welfare department in Cleveland, 85% of them had
nothing to do with criminals. AND, in MA they are stopping it altogether. 



Glen

    Right...which is exactly my point.  Let's clean up the 15% right there. 
    There's a good chunk of money.  Then let's look at the remaining 85%
    and see whose abusing the system there!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 275.65 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Right...which is exactly my point.  Let's clean up the 15% right there. 
>     There's a good chunk of money.  Then let's look at the remaining 85%
>     and see whose abusing the system there!!
  
        Jack,

        For as long as I've been aware of such things (longer than I
        wish to remember!), I've been hearing of welfare cheats being
        caught and prosecuted and efforts being taken to eliminate
        the problem in the first place.

        I suspect that a lot of the "overhead" in the welfare system
        is due to procedures to follow regulations aimed at
        preventing as much fraud as possible.  (You wouldn't need
        much bureaucracy if all you did was hand out checks to
        whomever came asking for them!)

        So people *have* been working at cleaning up welfare fraud
        since the inception of the welfare system.  As with any human
        enterprise, it will never be 100% perfect, and one shouldn't
        insist on perfection (which is very different than striving
        towards perfection).

        Even charities that minister to the needy have a certain
        percentage of loss to people who are really not needy, and
        they have at least some "overhead" (which very well may be
        volunteers) who spend some of their time trying to discourage
        such loss. 

        Both the volunteer organizations and the government agencies
        should be commended for their successes more than they are
        condemned for their failures, for the successes are far more
        numerous than the failures.

        (But of course, the successes don't make good news reports
        and don't encourage lively participation in talk shows.)

        Perhaps the conservatives and the Republicans really do want
        to reform welfare rather than eliminate it entirely, but they
        sure don't sound like that most of the time.

        Bob

	Jack, if there are 100 criminals that the police are looking for, that
would mean 15 people are abusing the system. I do wish they had given the
amount of people they were looking for.



Glen

    The thing of that story the other night is that the welfare department
    would not cooperate with local police to catch the criminals...and that
    was un-nerving to me.  The welfare is still being paid and the police
    are unable to incarcerate wanted people.
    
    What I would be willing to see is the stipends saved from cheats go
    toward offering a better program aimed at getting people off AFDC
    assistance.  Offer scholarships and grants to local colleges...not just
    training programs but accredited schools.  This is what will really
    help people on welfare.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, it just hit me. You want government to stay out of your hair, but
you want them to stay in the hair of others. Funny how that works....

	Btw, remember, it was Cleveland that did this, and Cleveland has now
changed it's policy. I think Bob's note says it best.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    I would like them out of everybody's hair but I have also conceded that
    this will not happen.  Government is following a tradition that dates
    back all the way to Pharoah!
    
    -Jack

    .63
    
    Yeah, there are a few welfare cheats.
    
    What you aren't being told by 20/20 (or Dateline) is that over 50% of
    the people who engage the welfare system do so only temporarily and are
    off welfare within a year.  At least that's what was being taught in that
    liberal (not!) academic institution, UCCS, a few years ago.
    
    By any chance do you know what portion of your tax dollar goes to
    making the present welfare system possible?
    
    Jesus had some interesting teachings concerning wealth and its
    distribution, a consideration curiously absent from this discussion.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	Spending $1 billion on missles creates 9,000 jobs.
		The same amount spent on education creates 63,000 jobs.

						-- Utne Reader

    Richard:
    
    Jesus directed his comments toward individuals within the church. 
    Jesus always gave us the choice on how faithful to be.   Government
    mandated charity is not of choice but rather by decree.
    
    Under the law however, the Jews were required to give love offerings
    over and above tithes.  The example of Ruth comes to mind; being under
    the law was allowed to glean from a field that belonged to Boaz.
    
    Under a theocracy, this is great.  Under a democracy, it is forced
    charity.   It may be the right thing to do...but it is still forced
    charity.
    
    -Jack

    Who is your neighbor, Jack?  Who is your neighbor?
    
    Why are you watering down Jesus' teachings?
    
    Richard
    

    ZZ    Who is your neighbor, Jack?  Who is your neighbor?
    
    My neighbor is the poor man who was beaten up and left for dead on the 
    street.  
    
    ZZ    Why are you watering down Jesus' teachings?
    
    I reject this insinuation.  Jesus did not direct his message to the
    Roman government.  His message was directed to individuals and the
    local church.
    
    Richard, do you believe in the separation of Church and state?
    
    -Jack

    The U.S. is not the Roman government, though in some ways it is highly
    occupational.
    
    Jesus was addressing those who would hear him.  I reject the notion of
    qualification.
    
    By the way, how's that poor battered man you helped doing now?
    
    Richard
    

	Jack, I'm glad you see the gov will be in our hairs from time to time.
But I think you missed the point. You ONLY scream when the gov is in YOUR hair,
and seem to invite them into others. 

    	re .62
    
    	Agreed.  Even our churches and synagogues have become mere
    	marriage factories, churning out inferior products.

          <<< Note 275.71 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

>    Jesus had some interesting teachings concerning wealth and its
>    distribution, a consideration curiously absent from this discussion.
    
    	You mean the parable of the servant who didn't steward his
    	master's talents wisely?
    
    	You're right, Richard.  Jesus held a special place in his heart
    	for the poor.  But he probably would not have condoned the poor
    	stewardship practices of our current welfare system.

    I meant the sermon on the mount (Matthew) and the sermon on the plain
    (Luke).
    
    Richard
    

    	What did they have to do with welfare (this discussion) or
    	wealth distribution?

re Note 275.71 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Jesus had some interesting teachings concerning wealth and its
>     distribution, a consideration curiously absent from this discussion.
  
        Please quote!

        Thanks,
        Bob

"Give to everyone who asks you for something, and when someone takes what
is yours do not ask for it back.  Do for others what you just what you
want them to do for you.
Luke 6.30-31

"No!  Love your enemies and do good to them.  Lend and expect nothing back.
You will have a great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High God.
Luke 6.35a

"Give to others, and God will give to you.  Indeed, you will receive a full
measure, a generous helping, poured into your hands -- all that you can
hold.  The measure you use for others is the one God will use for you.
Luke 6.38

"Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is pleased to give you
the Kingdom.  Sell all your belongings and give the money to the poor.
Provide for yourselves purses that don't wear out, and save your riches
in heaven, where they will never decrease, because no thief can get to them,
and no moth can destroy them.  For your heart will always be where your
riches are."
Luke 12:32-34

There's lots more.  But let's see how these get watered down firt.

Peace,
Richard

    Okay...I'll start.
    
    There is nothing there I can dispute Richard.  What I've been saying
    all along is the mode of distribution is corrupt...and yet people
    insist that because it has always been done this way, we should
    continue to do so.
    
    You know how in your closet you have old dirty rags you use every so
    often to clean a paint thinner spill or put on car wax?  Well this is
    my opinion of what government should be like.  A tool to use only when
    needed and summarily put away or disposed of once we can see the light
    at the end of the tunnel.   And none of this....PRAAIISSE ROOSEVELT...
    shouted from the rooftops.
    
    The idea is for the recipient to see Christ as savior...instead of our
    Federal Government.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 275.84 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| What I've been saying all along is the mode of distribution is corrupt...and 
| yet people insist that because it has always been done this way, we should
| continue to do so.

	Jack, there is one basic flaw with this. People aren't saying that
anymore. Newt was on the Today show talking about welfare reform. He said 90
something % of the people want to see it changed. I think it was 96-8%, but I'm
not 100% sure. And people have been saying welfare reform for a while now Jack.
This has been pointed out to you several times over the past few months, and 
each time you end up admitting that it has changed, yet you still write what you
did above. I don't quite understand your way of thinking sometimes Jack. (I'm 
sure the feeling is mutal.....heh heh)



Glen

    Glen:
    
    I don't care what Newt says...it is still corrupt and has a long way to
    go.
    
    I don't recall changing my tune on this one.  I have always said the
    church should be the primary surrogate for charity.
    
    -Jack

    
| I don't care what Newt says...

	I'm gonna frame this one. :-)

| it is still corrupt and has a long way to go.

	I'm glad to see that you just didn't say get rid of it as usual. 
    


Glen

Publish Date: 05/02/1995

POVERTY IS WORLD'S LEADING CONTRIBUTOR TO ILLNESS AND DEATH, SAYS  
U.N.

GENEVA (AP) -- Poverty is the greatest underlying cause of death,  
disease and suffering worldwide, the United Nations said Tuesday in  
its first survey on the state of the world's health. More than half  
the world's 5.6 billion people cannot get the most essential drugs,  
and about a third of the world's children are undernourished,  
officials said in summarizing the 120-page World Health Report.