Newspapers / The Yancey Journal (Burnsville, … / Dec. 10, 1970, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Yancey Journal (Burnsville, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
\mu u rn* Jl> faHEMBW<Ey UKORgI ESTABLISHED 1936 ' EDWARD A. YUZTJK - EDITOR & PUBLISHER CAROLYN R. YUZIUK - ASSOCIATE EDITOR MBS PATSY BRIGGS - OFFICE MANAGER FLOYD GEOUGE - PRODUCTION PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY BY YANCEY PUBLISHING COMPANY SECOND CLASS POSTAGE PAID AT BURNSVDLI£ f N,C. . THURSDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1970 NUMBER 50 SUBSCRIPTION RATES $3. 00/YEAR CUT OF COUNTY SS.OO/YERR SENATOR i SAM ERVIN ☆ SAYS * JflpM WASHINGTON - - ft is paradoxical that at the very time when many American educators are advocating greater aca demic freedom a new battle looms over the insistent cfemand of some religious groups that church school activities be fi nanced out of the public treasury. ftideed, in his March 3rd Education Message to the President seemed to sanction this idea and urge that Fed eral monies be used to finance Ihe parochial school system. This challenge to the principle of separation of Church and state should not be lightly dismissed, because Federal funding of church-owned or church-controlled educ ational institutions has a "money" appeal to many parents who send their children to sectarian schools and who are chafing at rising educational costs. Many feel that a "little Federal money" would do no harm, and might help the education^ » meet the financial crisis of this age. Those who ac cept such arguments, howev Cl , danger that when religious activities become state-supported, religion suiters a mortal blow. Moreover, State support of a church and its activities is bad because it violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The church that depends upon tax money for the support of its endeavors—rather than upon the volun tary gifts of its adherents—loses spiritual strength, and what begins as governmental aid ultimately runs the full cycle of governmental control. Touring my service in the Senate, I have strenuously op posed the use of tax money for the support of religious insti tutions and their activities. As a matter of fact, I have se - cured Senate passage of a proposal on four occasions—twice in the form of amendments to education bills and twice in the form of separate bills—to make it certain that Federal courts should have jurisdiction to determine the constitution ality of grants and loans of Federal tax money to religious institutions. Regrettably, the proposal never did get throigh the House because the Judiciary Committee of that body chose not to act upon it. After I waged these battles, however, the matter went to the United States Supreme Court and in its Hast decision (1968), the Court laid down the principle that as far as the First Amendment is concerned, a private taxpayer can bring suit in a Federal court to challenge the validity of grants and loans of Federal tax money to religious denominations. So the Court ruling has now goie beyond my proposed bill in support of the principle of separation of church and state. The fact that the F’resident has recently urged Congress to reconsider the use of tax funds to finance parochial schools indicates that the battle is not over. In saying this, I wish to make it abundantly clear that I believe that religious education ought to be encouraged This should be done through private contributioiß and not tax contributions. I would hope that for the good of our churches and of our country that Congress and the Administration will not em bark upon a new Federal aid program for the support of re ligious institutions and their educational activities. To do so is certain to stir up much dissension and strife throughout this nation, and raises the prospect that our nation will be come embroiled in quarrels among religious denominations seeking to get their "hand in the public till. " 888 Warns Os Fraud (Cont'd from page 1) Truth-In- Lending Act in that tiiey do not disctose all of the terms of the credit arrange - ment> as finance charge, an nual percentage rate, etc. Finally the Bureau suggests that interested students should always check with the 888 on the company or schools before signing a contract or paying any money. Comment from the Capital t UNDERCOVER RUMORS AND REPORTS !\ A by Vant Neff Behind-the-scenes bijack story you probably won't see in the regular news coverage: it is re ported that Jewish hostages among the kidnapped plane pas sengers were subjected to one humiliation after another. True, they were not physically as saulted, but they were the vic tims of untold emotional stress. When new troops of Palestinian Liberation Front guerrillas took over guard watch, the Jews were marched outside the planes and forced to stand in the Arab des ert, while the guards spat at them and near them. The mood of the captors was ugly, remind ing the Jews of their centuries long heritage of oppression at the hands of various people. For the most part, the hijack victims were not Israelis but American vacationers including women and small children. Tim injustice of hijacking in general haß aroused the ire of the civilized world, but the alleged behavior of the Palestinian troops in this particular instance was uncon scionable. * * * Frivolous financial note from Pakistan: the beggars are organ izing a labor union, and plan branches all through the coun try. (Begging is a business there.) Next time you're traveling to Pakistan and are approached by a panhandler, please remember that part of e— _ r —./ you put in his palm may go into a union treasury, and never be used by the "poor" beggar at all! * * * One strike after another! And no one really wins! I fear that the General Motors walkout is no exception. Examine the facts: 350,000 workers idle and without their normal incomfe. Thousands more in related industries—tire, seat belt and auto accessories makers —felt the parch of non production. (I can't imagine that the unionists—men with families to feed and bills to pay—could possibly enjoy the situation.) Half of the nation's automobile output halted. Delayed car deliv ery—and if you're on the list for one, you may wait and wait, and then pay more for it. That's the cost of a strike. The United Auto Workers Union, the UAW, made a bid for an overall $9 to sl2 billion wage increase over the three year contract. No one objects to an earned raise, but higher pay for the same work only means higher prices for all of us, on almost everything. The high dollar demands made by UAW leader Leonard Woodcock and his union associates at the GM • • ■ '.» «**. f y f-♦ »■ *'f / *%. V?- "V- 1 w ■‘*7**V bargaining table —40 to 50% pay jumps—can't be matched by the rest of the population. As the inflationary trend accele rates, the raises won't mean a thing, and the workers won't really be much ahead of the game. And the rest of us will be in the hole. * * * Talking about inflation, the Red-dominated Czech authorities are so fearful of their citizens traveling to the West and not returning that they have raised the fares a prohibitive 275%. Their apprehension about defec tion is quite understandable, in view of Jhe great numbers of dis illusioned Czechoslovakians, in cluding a number of diplomats, who have quietly "disappeared" into the free world. Bluntly speaking, I hope that the liberty loving Czechs won't be dissuad ed by the rising cost of freedom. S Remember pledging alle giance to the flag in school? It's a different scene now. Times have changed. A young man old enough to know better—nine teen—wore the American flag aS' a poncho. His elastic concept of civil liberties landed him behind bare. The judge sentenced him to four months and fined him $250. This boy Isn't alone in his counter-cultural reaction against our American traditions. A na tional magazine displayed a full color picture of a model in bed, draped in flag-patterned sheets, with pillow cases to match. The American Lag is parodied in bi kini bathinr suits. Trouser patch es. Shirts. Ties. Obscene films. And what-have-you. Must we ac cept this abuse? Wouldn't we be well-advised to return to the val ues and standards on which our country was founded—a love of liberty and a healthy respect for law, order and tradition? * * * If you had invested, directly or indirectly, in Uganda, the Su dan or Somalia, to help these fledgling African nations get a foothold in the ipodem industrial world, you might be in for a costly disappointment today. Recently, the governments of these developing countries con fiscated a great percentage of foreign companies doing busi ness there. Many of these firms are American. Now the problem is compensation. Who pays the rightful owners for their invest ments and financial losses? (Or does anyone?) Nationalized in dustry may be nice for the new born nations today, but what will they do tomorrow when they need further investment and ad vice? Once bitten, twice shy. Americans, look out! * * * Texans pride themselves on growing things bigger and better than the rest of us. Texas Con gressman, Senator John Tower, has introduced a bill which promises to balance our coun try's one-sided labor legislation. Senator Tower obviously isn't impressed with the activities of the National Labor Relations Board, and to my mind, he’ is quite correct. The NLRB, a politi cally-appointed, five-man group, is supposed to rule impartially on employer-worker disputes, but the consistently pro-labor leader pattern of its decisions has caused many a snicker in Washington. Now, Senator Tower has suggested replacing the NLRB with Federal Courts in order to give all participants in labor controversies a fair shake. My vote for labor law reform — and quick termination of the prej udiced NLRB—goes to the Tow ering Texan. The acceptance of his proposal may put the union chieftains' noses out of joint, but they've been on a winning streak far too long. Isn't it time for the "little man"—you and I and the union rank-and-file member—to have a turn? * * # Another dose of one-sided jus tice meted out by the Nation'-1 Labor Relations Board: a hand ful of women unionists —mothers who had to work to make ends meet —returned to their jobs dur ing a strike. The union levied heavy disciplinary fines against them amounting to SSOO each. In cidentally, they earned some thing like $1.75 an hour. Their sympathetic employer protested against the excessive fines and attempted to represent the wom en against the union. The NLRB said, "No!" Decisions such as this—pro-big union, anti-little in dividual—are typical of the NLRB. But it doesn't serve the best interests of society, the workers, or our economy, in my opinion.
The Yancey Journal (Burnsville, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Dec. 10, 1970, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75