Catholic tradition teaches dignity
I write [on behalf of myself, Robin LaMoria, Sue Ford and John Reid] to raise our collective voice in answer to Leonard Pitts Jr.’s question, “Who speaks for the poor?” [Opinion, Jan. 31] After our disbelief at reading Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer’s words — in reference to his comparison of people who receive public assistance to stray animals who keep reproducing — we were outraged. As Catholics, we are challenged by the values of our Catholic social teaching. Three values come immediately to mind.
First, the dignity and respect of all people: Recognizing that all people, created in God’s image, are sacred and worthy of respect and dignity. In this regard, poor and rich are equal.
Second, the call to community: This calls us to accept our responsibility to uphold the dignity of all people by helping to assure all have access to basic needs — food, health care, safe housing, education and basic freedoms. These needs are not the privilege of the rich and middle classes.
Third, a special option for the poor: We believe that when we legislate policies and prepare budgets in our homes, institutions and in legislative bodies, we first ask how these policies impact people who are poor. Does it make their situation better or worse?
Where is the dignity and respect for others in Bauer’s remarks? We can only repeat that we are outraged by his comments and hope his comments spark others to speak out and act with and on behalf of those who are struggling.
— Bobbie Beaudreau, Edgewood
Removing poverty, not through social Darwinism
Leonard Pitts Jr. is on to something, although he doesn’t analyze it far enough. The Bible says — I think I remember that it was Jesus — you have the poor with you always.
The intellectual elite at one time — in’20s and’30s — believed that social Darwinism would, with public-policy implementation, eliminate or make this [poverty] problem manageable. It was called “eugenics.” However, that idealistic solution was abandoned by the elite when Hitler actually applied it — to the horror of the world.
There is no doubt that basic ability is a factor, along with environment — probably 50 percent each — and as Pitts says, “Jim Crow” affects some areas if not all, as to explain why the poor are poor and its effects.
If our people ever achieved a consensus of the view that helping the poor become educated and responsible through training and incentives — while we stimulate investment — we could all move forward together to make a better life for all. Although Pitts uses this polemic to knock one Republican official, maybe the light of truth and reason will creep into our zeitgeist and not pit one faction against the other.
— John E Woodbery, Monroe