Church actions would speak louder than words on welfare

YOUR columnist Chris Moncrieff (Yorkshire Post, February 19) must be challenged. He berates the Archbishop of Westminster for having the temerity to express criticism of the coalition’s welfare reforms.

Mr Moncrieff seems to take the view that “most people” would support the changes being implemented, and then, more bizarrely, suggests that the Archbishop does not have the right to criticise the reforms as he has “not cleared up” the (historic) sexual abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Church.

In response to point one, from where does he get his opinion on other peoples’ opinions? Has he conducted some sort of public survey on the subject? I think not, it is his opinion he is expressing, not that of the public. I strongly suspect that his opinion is firmly based on prejudice and good old “claimant bashing”, not on evidence.

As regards the second point, I am really struggling with this. Is he really, seriously suggesting that anyone in charge of an organisation is not entitled to hold/express an opinion, if that organisation has been guilty of some historical misdoing perpetrated by anyone within that organisation? So following Mr Moncrieff’s “logic” the chief executives of HBOS, RBS, Barclays, etc. are not entitled to express any view on government policies.

From: David H Rhodes, Keble Park North, Bishopthorpe, York.

A bishop and an Archbishop are throwing their weight behind poverty-stricken families and demanding the government does more to help. Why not start locally and the clergy themselves visit these families making firm recommendations on how to reduce unnecessary cost? This could establish those who are genuine and eliminate the scroungers.

Most churches have a hall which could be put to use by having speakers come and offer financial advice etc. As poverty tends to be in communities, groups could be set up to provide child-minding centres so others can go job seeking. Basic nutritional cooking classes and many other ides for self-help could be provided also.

I feel if we see practicality and involvement from the church then we may be less likely to see what they say as sanctimonious claptrap.

Why is it that food banks appear mainly to have quality brands of goods when supermarket own two-for-one branded items would swell the coffers remarkably?

From: David Quarrie, Lynden Way, Holgate, York.

NOW the Church of England has joined the Roman Catholics in complaining about and objecting to the Conservative Party’s ideas and policies on reducing the vast sums of UK taxpayers’ money spent on welfare and social benefits, something has to be done to reduce the 50 per cent of Government spending going on welfare items.

This country is virtually bankrupt, and must stop foreign aid payments, vast welfare expense and try far harder to collect taxes from companies employing crafty tax avoidance lawyers. If these Church folk are genuinely concerned about the poor, the destitute, the unemployed, the shirkers, those who refuse to work, they have enough wealth between them to give a lot of food and financial and social help themselves.

They could better use their near empty churches, buildings, property and sell much of their golden statues, crosses and other items, and lead for a change instead of bleating whilst their own organisations are in need of reform.

There is still a “safety net” for the genuine cases.

From: J Hutchinson, Kirkbymoorside, York.

SAYEEDA Warsi puts forward an argument for Muslims and other religions to integrate peacefully but the article is accompanied by a photograph of two women wearing burkas (Yorkshire Post, February 22).

We are told that the veil has nothing to do with the Islamic religion but is a purely cultural choice.

In the light of this and the fact that they are considered alien, obtrusive and totally unnecessary by the majority of the indigenous population, should they be worn on the streets of England? Perhaps Muslims could voluntarily stop wearing them and take a step forward towards being truly British.

When France had the courage to ban the veil there were 
protests but these did not last long, why? Could it be because immigrants know how well off they are to be living in Europe whether they choose to integrate or not?

Why else would millions leave their beloved countries to come and live in the heartlands of western Christian culture?