The Readers' Forum

In support

The Feb. 12 letter "Because of the foresight" criticized Rep. Virginia Foxx for her stance against a bill that would preserve up to 50,000 acres of land along the Blue Ridge Parkway. I write this note in support of Foxx's position.

The letter writer thought that the $75 million required was a worthy expense, but I beg to differ. The fact is that the government gets its money (eventually that is) from the taxpayer. We as the taxpaying citizens of this country do not have this money to waste. We are so in debt, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for our irresponsible spending.

The millions required for this purchase are a great deal of money even if they were the only expense incurred here. This money would be just the first of much more money to be spent here. The National Park Service is underfunded for the number of acres it is responsible for already. Additional land purchases would only make this issue worse.

This purchase would also take this acreage off the tax books for the local and state governments cutting their revenue.

So once again, I think Foxx is correct in her assessment of the situation and that it would be fiscally irresponsible to waste more money on such a purchase.

TONY GAGLIARDI

East Bend

Worthy ideas

I was disappointed to see the paper pick up the article about "condescending liberals" ("Conservatives want to know: Why are liberals so condescending?" Feb. 14). It doesn't seem worthwhile to talk about "condescending liberals," as there are plenty of condescending conservatives. It seems more important now to discuss the worthiness of ideas.

If a condescending liberal and a condescending conservative can come up with a worthy idea to solve a problem, I think most of us would be glad to vote for them whether or not they are condescending.

And if they have the ability to respect each other and combine ideas, then we should have a national holiday for both of them.

MARGARET CHILDRESS

Advance

Restoring democratic power

In his analysis of the Supreme Court decision that gives corporations and unions freedom to spend all the money they want to sway elections, columnist Donald Kaul ("Democracy: Going, going, gone", Feb. 4) concludes that the court has written "a finish to the experiment in democracy we've been conducting for 220 years." Unfortunately, our power as American citizens to gain passage of legislation crucial to our interests has been evaporating for some time.

The ability of corporate lobbyists to mold congressional legislation to their own needs stems from Congress' almost pathological dependency on campaign cash provided by the large corporations. Any legislation that affects the economic interests of oil, gas, coal, drug, health insurance, credit-card corporations and big banks has been modified by legislators to please these power groups.

While the Supreme Court decision allows unions to give money to influence elections, unions will never come anywhere near the massed might of corporate money.

We Americans can try to restore some of our democratic power by giving our support to the Fair Elections Now act introduced into the Senate and the House. Under this legislation, candidates who give up all private donations receive full public funding for their campaigns once they reach a certain threshold in small contributions of $100. Qualified candidates would receive Fair Elections funding in the primary and, if they win, in the general election at a sufficient level to run a competitive campaign.

STANTON TEFFT

Winston-Salem

No laws barring expression

In response to guest columnist Steve Corts ("Freedom to pray should not be hindered, limited," Feb. 6), who attempts to demonstrate that the Founders allowed prayer on government property while preserving the separation of church and state:

When Thomas Jefferson allowed a congregation of Baptists to use a government facility as a meeting place, the separation of church and state was not violated; the meeting was not an official government function. When prayer is introduced into the business of government, the separation of church and state is violated. Jefferson knew the difference; there really is no quandary here.

In America, there are no laws barring free and open expression of one's religious faith whenever one chooses. I see churches locked and sitting empty six out of seven days of the week; no law requires this, it is the choice of the pastor and his or her congregation.

I would be at the head of a very angry mob if I thought government was attempting to restrict an individual's rightful expression of his faith. The odd twist in the separation issue is that the Founders acted to insure that religion would not, again, infringe upon the business of government, as in the Salem Witch Trials and the Spanish Inquisition; just two of many examples of this throughout history.

Keeping the church out of government and the government out of church allows both institutions to remain strong and free and open to criticism -- a gift of profound importance from our Founders.

GARY BOLICK

Clemmons