Haywood residents join Moral Monday march

By Mary McGlauflin | Feb 15, 2014
Rev.Walter Bryson (l), pastor of Shiloh A.M.E. Zion Church, Mary McGlauflin (center) and Rev. William Staley (r), pastor of Jones Temple A.M.E. Zion Church, were among over 20 Haywood County residents who participated in the Moral March on Raleigh on Saturday, Feb. 8th. The estimated crowd was over 80,000, well over the 25-30,000 rally organizers expected.

More than 20 Haywood County residents made the trek to Raleigh Feb. 8 because of their concern about the radical regressive turn North Carolina has taken since 2012.

Promoted as the largest mass moral march since the Selma to Montgomery march for voting rights in 1965, Saturday’s march drew between 80,000 and 100,000 people from across North Carolina and 32 other states — more than doubling organizers’ expectations.

The marchers were as diverse as their issues: young, old and in between; black, white, brown, yellow and red; straight and gay; people of deep faith and people of no particular faith. What they had in common was their concern about the regressive legislation passed in the most recent session of the North Carolina General Assembly.

From voter suppression and the repeal of public financing for judicial races to restrictions on women’s access to health care and refusal to expand Medicaid; from rejection of federal emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed to vouchers for private schools which cannibalize public school funding; from tax cuts for the wealthiest in the State to the repeal of the Earned Income Tax Credit for her lowest-earning citizens; and from the repeal of the Racial Justice Act to weakening of environmental oversight and inequitable treatment of immigrants and LGBT citizens, marchers had plenty to be concerned about.

John Vanderstar, a retired attorney living in Canton, said, “I am deeply saddened to see North Carolina surrendering to right-wing militants whose priorities are all wrong.”

Rev. Walter Bryson, a Waynesville resident who pastors the Shiloh A.M.E. Zion Church in Asheville, was among the 280 Western North Carolinians who rose at 2 a.m. to ride buses from Asheville to Saturday’s march.

“I was happy to be part of all the different people coming together and proud to see them working together for the common goal of looking out for each other,” Bryson said.

Another bus rider, Donna Dupree, of Balsam, said being part of a community of concerned citizens was one of the best parts of the trip.

"Different organizations and diverse people coming together to fight the regressive laws passed by Pat McCrory and his cronies in 2013," she said. "To stand up for the rights of North Carolina's citizens to be heard and for all to be treated equally under the law. I am inspired to fight even harder, do more. There is so much that needs to be fixed, but together we can move forward.”

Rev. Stan Smith, a retired Methodist minister from Lake Junaluska, said he felt a moral imperative to be part of this movement.

“I went to the march because here is a non-partisan effort led by church leaders to do what the Bible says about doing justice, loving mercy (compassion) and walking humbly with our God,” Smith said.

Bryson, Smith and Vanderstar are all members of the Forward Together Haywood People’s Assembly, a group which has applied for a charter to become an authorized committee of the NAACP.

The next meeting of Forward Together Haywood is 2 p.m., Saturday, Feb. 22 at the Pigeon Community Multicultural Development Center, 450 Pigeon St., Waynesville. Contact forwardtogetherhaywood@gmail.com for more information.

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Comments (15)
Posted by: Chuck Fiebernitz | Feb 15, 2014 09:18

Right wing militants? Regressive? Moral March? Well, just a little lesson here my fellow Americans.

The definition of moral is "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior, holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct and the goodness or badness of human character."




Posted by: Katherine Bartel | Feb 15, 2014 09:50

Over 900 people have been arrested in the Moral Monday protests this year--and many of them were ministers. As Dr. Barber said on Saturday, the effort to deprive the poor of health care is "mighty low." The effort to deprive citizens of the right to vote is "mighty low." The effort to make the rich wealthier and the middle class poor is "mighty low." Etc. For my definition of morality, I turn to Jesus, who said, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.” Matthew 25:40



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 15, 2014 12:53

            Not only does Jesus of Nazareth's admonition hold true, but OUR Founders recognized that it was a moral duty to support and abide by OUR Constitution and its Founding Principles.

            Most certainly  mccrory has instituted policies that are "regressive" and ill-liberal. Their Constitutionality is being challenged and rightfully so.

 

             C.Z.



Posted by: Linda Sexton | Feb 16, 2014 11:07

I thank Mary McGlauflin for reporting on this event.  It takes a lot of energy and determination for folks to get to Raleigh from here in Haywood County.  It is so important to stand-up for what you believe and I commend those who traveled so far to take a stand.  May others who do not want to have North Carolinian's look like regressive fools speak up and speak out.



Posted by: Chuck Fiebernitz | Feb 20, 2014 16:11

I applaud those Americans who went to Raleigh and exercised their Constitutional rights to stand up for what they believe in.

I applaud y'all and yet, I do not believe in one thing you are protesting.

I guess to the "Party of Hate" that makes me a regressive right wing militant fool.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 20, 2014 19:36

Mr. Fiebernitz, you are correct highlighting the article was slanted.  The adjectives used are chosen by someone who is anti-Republican and/or anti-conservative.  I was recently told that the Mountaineer will not typically slant "news articles".  However, this is clearly one that missed that objective as it was in the "news" section.  (Similar to the one that called on the public to unite against one of the Republican Representatives.)

 

Here is a procedural practice I might offer to the Mountaineer: if this "news story" promotes a Democratic/Liberal objective, let a Republican/Conservative write it.  Same would apply for an article meant to "promote" a Republican point of view -- let a Democrat write it.  That should cause some interesting writing exercises and flush out the bias that's seemingly flowing into your publication.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 20, 2014 19:43

For example, here is an alternative way to write the 4th paragraph:

Marchers listed several issues for which they were concerned: Voter ID laws, removing public financing for non-partisan judicial races, public financing of birth control, Medicaid reform, resuming the normal unemployment benefit levels, vouchers for school choice, tax reform....

 

Now that I just did that exercise, I call major BS on the Mountaineer for including this kind of article in the "news section".  This is opinion.  It's very biased.

 



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 20, 2014 19:52

Here is a text from the Editor of the Mountaineer.  Please chime in on how this Morale March article found in the new section hits the mark...

 

"We at The Mountaineer strongly believe a community newspaper that's doing its job provides not only factual news stories about important community events, but offers an interpretation as well. We take a traditional view that opinions need to be kept out of news stories and reserved for the page where they are clearly marked as such."

 

http://themountaineer.villagesoup.com/p/who-writes-our-views/850243



Posted by: Chuck Fiebernitz | Feb 20, 2014 22:32

Mr. Zimmerman,

Your reference in your post to "OUR Founders recognized that it was a moral duty to support and abide by OUR Constitution and its Founding Principles" is heart-warming.

It's also gratifying to know you are concern about the violations to our Constitution.

With that said, let me address a fact for you. Recently, President Obama's Administration announced an effort that would make George Orwell spin a few turns, when his Federal Communications Commission named an act of sending "researchers" to monitor newsrooms and grill editors and reporters over their editorial choices the "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs."

CIN. How appropriate it's pronounced "sin." And I am sure he is not thinking of not only doing this for

Fox News. wink, wink.

The mainstream media's relentless left-wing bias is maddening. This,  however, is scary - not the idea that the Obama Administration is planning to place federal officials in newsrooms. Government wants to control things.

That's what they do. No, what is scary is a mainstream media that would be apoplectic if a Republican administration did the same while being content to roll over when Obama threatens their freedom.  

What is truly worrisome, though, is that the news of this study broke over two weeks ago and the American media is still not screaming holy hell.

Just wondering, will the Moral March include President Obama's attempt to clearly deny freedom of the press, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, on it's list of items to protest?

 

 



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 21, 2014 09:39

                     As reported in a right-wing nut-job site:"The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry."

                         It is about time. First off, We the people own the airwaves.  We have the right to insist that those that use public owned airwaves do not missuse them by fomenting hate or intollerance. A number of years ago an anchor for Fox refused to report a story. She knew the people and the circumstances and what the station wanted her to say on air was wrong. She was fired. She sued. She lost. Since then rupert murdock owned faux news has used this as a license to peddle one untruth after another. Along with "lush limpballs", etc, etc. Print media is by and large excempted by the 1st. Still. Any untruths can be prosecuted. Such has not been the case with OUR public airwaves.

              Again WE own the airwaves. Those persons that want to use OUR assets to subvert US can and should be denied such use. They can instead use private airwaves that are not FCC regulated. SIRUS, etc.

              C.Z.

                      



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 21, 2014 09:47

              Of course the Mountaineer had a duty to report on the actions of the citizens.

From the Virginia Declaration of Rights:"XII That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments."

 

                       C.Z.



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 21, 2014 09:53

                      The writer printed nothing non-factual in paragraph 4.

                       It is not biased nor slanted. Truth is truth.

                       C.Z.



Posted by: Scott Lilly | Feb 21, 2014 11:19

"voter suppression" - There is no law to suppress voting.  It is OPINION that requiring to identify oneself to vote will suppress voting.  This should be referred to as "Voter ID laws".

 

 

 

"repeal of public financing for judicial races" - This is a negative statement.  It can also be stated positively as "improving the State budget by transferring costs of non-partisan judicial races to the campaigns of the candidates."  Or just neutral: "judicial race financing reform"

 

"restrictions on women’s access to health care" - What restrictions exactly?  Can't a woman walk into any hospital and receive heath care regardless of her ability to pay?  I am not aware of any law that says women cannot have access to heath care.  Or did the writer over-simplify this item if her intent was to refer to something about abortion?

 

"refusal to expand Medicaid" - Also known as "Partnership for a Healthy North Carolina" with reforms to Medicaid to improve care, customer service, and results.  But hey, that doesn't sound "mean and nasty" now does it?  Or just "Medicaid Reform" if you wanted to be impartial about it.

 

"rejection of federal emergency unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed" - This could be described as "measurably improving the unemployment situation in North Carolina by cutting the temporary unemployment extensions that were put in place when the economy was in a recession."

 

"vouchers for private schools which cannibalize public school funding" - Cannibalize public school funding?  Says who?

 

"tax cuts for the wealthiest in the State" - Is the writer trying to refer to tax reform which reduced state income taxes 25%?  Or is the writer attempting to introduce class warfare here?

 

"repeal of the Earned Income Tax Credit for her lowest-earning citizens" could be described as "reducing the redistribution of income by changing the EITC"

 


"weakening of environmental oversight" -- "weakening" is a SUBJECTIVE opinion.  I see it as "focusing".

 

"marchers had plenty to be concerned about." -- Says who?  There was another column in this paper describing the conservative opinion that marchers had little concern and more politicking.  That piece was appropriately in the OPINION section as one would expect.

 

As a NEWS piece, the article should have LISTED the issues -- not ADVOCATED the issues.  The article attempts to persuade opinion sympathetic to the cause.  That's something other than reporting the event.

 

That being said, of course 20 people going to Raleigh is worthy of a news story.  I do appreciate knowing we have local representation in state events.



Posted by: Allen Alsbrooks | Feb 21, 2014 13:52

I've never experienced the "lot of energy and determination" it takes to ger to Raleigh. All I have to do is head east on the I-40 and drive. It takes me all the way to Raleigh. I will admit getting from Greensboro to Burlington can be a bit tricky...but I lay the blame there on Replacements, LTD being right there and I have to stop. Other than that...it's smooth driving and a direct route.

oh... Wait.  never mind ::rolls eyes::



Posted by: Charles Zimmerman | Feb 23, 2014 09:46

                     Courts have alreddy struck down similar voting laws as unconstitutional, in other states. There is no federal requirement to show ID to vote. The requirement to prove any person has a right to be represented is met when they register to vote. "All persons" having been registered previously should not be burdoned with regulations that would negate their previous registration. Nor should any taxpayer be denied representation having proved they did in deed pay taxes. "No Taxation Without Representation"! Nor should OUR voting precincts be burdoned by having to take the time and expense to verify the legality of  people's identity in order to vote. As it is the obligation of OUR government to equally protect the assummed innocence of "All persons",  voters are assummed to be innocent until proved otherwise.

              A woman's legal right to abortion was brought to the colonies with English common law. It was recognized that a woman had the right to abort her fetus up to first kick otherwise known as "quickoning". Common Law was adopted to OUR Constitution by the 7th Amendment. 14th Amendment clarified the issue by restating the Founding Intent of equal protection of Naturally inherent or otherwise inalienable rights staring at birth whereby the "Social Contract" begins. Because of action by NRA(National Religious Association) abortion was deemed illegal in about 1875. This group caused God to be put on OUR money and eventually caused prohibition. Roe vs. Wade negated all abortion laws and "returned liberty to it's rightful place" as Jefferson once stated. Most of the oppressive anti-woman, ill-liberal laws passed by mccrory have been deemed unconstitutional in other states.

            Refusal to expand Medicaid and cutting employment bennefits hurt "the least among US".

             Vouchers requiring taxes being used to support religious schools is a settled issue. Again OUR courts have not allowed taxes to be used to support the religion of one group over another(s). "No Taxation Without Representation"! Nor may any school violate any students "equal title to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience".(A Remonstrance and Remembrance Against Religious Assessments in Favour of the Teachers of the Christian Religion").  We the people determined that OUR tax dollars be used to provide public education administered in a particular fashion while equally protecting "All persons". Any funds removed from OUR public schools to provide education not administered in like fashion is a violation of the public trust.

            Taxes not levied in due regard to equal protection which requires that "All persons" must pay tax in proportion to earnings are an abomination. "Flat taxes" shift tax burdon unto "the least of US" by means of consumption instead of earnings.

             As WE the people as well as OUR "posterity"(Virginia Declaration of Rights) are all effected by OUR environment, environmental laws are a neccessity as polution can be shown to do harm to "All persons".

             OUR "free press" has an obligation to inform US to any attacks on OUR Liberty. It is their first duty.

             C.Z.



If you wish to comment, please login.