I am the product of both private and public education. In Pennsylvania I attended two Catholic grade schools and a public high school. In these institutions I had some outstanding teachers, received a good education and made lifelong friends. I am in touch with teachers from both my secular and religious schools. A couple of my high school teachers even attended my celebration when I was ordained in Pittsburgh as the Bishop of Juneau. Public and private education served me and my parents well. I have encountered some great teachers in both secular and religious institutions as well as some “not so great” educators in these schools.
This past week I had the opportunity to testify before the Alaska State House Finance Committee in their hearing on House Joint Resolution 16. This piece of legislation is proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to state aid for education. In doing so, it will assist students throughout Alaska and their parents in making a choice in education. During my testimony, one member of the house committee responded that he had attended Catholic school and that his parents provided that education for him and his siblings, however, his mind was set and he would not vote in favor of this legislation. I replied that he was blessed to have parents who were able to make that choice and that he should not preclude other Alaskan parents from making the same type of choices for their children. I also said that while his parents were able to provide private education for him and his siblings, many families are not affluent enough to provide this choice for their children. I thought too of all those who struggle in his district who would be prevented from choosing their child’s schooling. I question why anyone would want to prevent a parent from choosing the education they deem best for their children.
I support the legislation that is currently before the legislature that would allow all Alaska parents to choose public or private education for their children by providing them the state funding to do so. Supporting this legislation is by no means a judgment upon a school district or type of education one receives, but rather supports parental involvement in making the best decisions for their children regardless of their economic status.
Parents are the first teachers of their children. Parents not only lay the foundation for their children’s academic achievement, but pass onto them who they are, where they come from, their cultural traditions, their purpose in life and their moral, ethical and spiritual beliefs, so that their children might grow up to be virtuous women and men. This is not only a parental right but a parental responsibility and they should have the broadest possible range of choices in choosing schooling that reflects, in their judgment, what will be best for their child.
Providing parents (especially low income parents) with a diversity of educational choices and the economic means to send their children state-supported traditional or alternative charter schools or to religious or secular private schools or to home school them, works for the common good of children, their families and the community. From my perspective, I believe that a diverse mix of public and private, for profit and non-profit institutions benefits every community.
Private schools of all kinds maintain the rich diversity of educational institutions in our country and our state. State support for private schools, especially religious ones is controversial. I am mindful of two decisions from the United States Supreme Court that offer these insights:
The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public school teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations. (1925 Pierce decision, U.S. Supreme Court)
And in reference to recent events in the state of Ohio that supported public funding that allows families a choice, the Court majority said:
In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. (2002 Zelman decision, U.S. Supreme Court)
From my experience growing up in Pennsylvania, I witnessed the public and private or the secular and religious education institutions working together to provide the best for children. For example, public school districts assisted with the transportation of students through the region and state laws provided for released time for religious education. It was clear that the community worked together to provide for parents and students what was best. Allowing parents a choice in their child’s education is good for students and a benefit to the community.
• Burns is the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Juneau and Southeast Alaska.
Comments (136)
Add commentGood in a mix
As a mix, seems good. Writing actual checks to religious schools, might be less good because of the governmental strings attached which, as we see with the contraception issue under Obamacare, can leave religious institutions subject to the ever changing whims of whatever party is currently in office.
A grab for tax dollars
Looks like the bishop is advocating to the legislature that tax dollars should be given to religious schools. As such, he's clearly engaging in political lobbying.
Why is the church tax exempt?
NO just NO
Until all these advocates for using state dollars for their school agree to following the same requirements as our public school system I can not support these schools. Her are a few things public schools are required to do that these private schools do not have to comply with:
full financial disclosure with independent audits open to the public; a board comprised of citizens elected not appointed by the schools affiliated owners; allowing their facilitates to be uses by the entire community during non-class hours; student testing with public release of the results; required to accept any child regardless of special needs; not allowed to removes students from the school due to poor academic performance. This is far from a complete list. However it illustrates a few of those things that need to be done by these private schools if the want public funding.
The State funding of education currently goes to school districts on the basis of students enrolled in the districts schools. Other than funding for school busing cost. The local district does not receive funding for students who attend any school outside of the districts; i.e private schools. The local, borough, contribution to schools is predicated on the school districts budget request and included nothing for private school students. You pay no property taxes for cost at any private school. No doubt changing the State Constitution to allow funding of private schools will results in higher property taxes and a larger State Budget for education.
No no no no
Islander is right. Not only will this cost all of us but we'll have less control than ever...you think the JSD has a heavy admin-teacher ratio? At least they have oversight and an elected board. A private school can do whatever it wants with salary, conditions, etc.
Guess what public schools will look like if they must accept special needs children and others can deny them?
Really...picture what the public schools will look like. Picture where the best teachers will go. Picture what our society would look like after a generation.
Bad idea, sir. A bad idea for America and Alaskans.
Faith schools want the choice to indoctrinate kids
at tax payers' expense.
This is an experience I copied from a friend:
Let's look at a multiple choice test from a faith school (5th grade). Kids had to rate whether likely, unlikely, certain, impossible. Here's how her kid answered:
1. You will see your teacher next Saturday. (unlikely)
2. The sun will set tonight. (likely)
3. You will meet a talking frog. (unlikely)
4. Flowers will grow in the spring. (likely)
"Of his answers above, he was told that 2, 3 & 4 were wrong. He was told that the sun setting was certain, talking frogs were impossible, and flowers growing were certain.
He explained why he answered them the way he did. He said, 2) the sun won't go anywhere tonight, but forget about that, it's still not certain that the earth will rotate, it's highly improbable that it won't but still not certain.
3) again, highly improbable but not impossible. (his exact words to me were "if it's possible for jesus to come back from the dead, then it's possible for frogs to talk")
and 4) is along the same lines as 2, however it's still not certain, if every nuke on the planet were set off at the same time there would probably not be too many flowers in the spring.
However, if he puts these answers on a test, he will get them marked wrong.
Now for the contradictions part. This is a school that teaches as fact that Jesus was resurrected after 3 days dead. That a cracker turns into flesh, and that this man has walked on water, and even turned some of that water into wine. Any time I ask a catholic about these things I'm given the "well .. it's possible that it did happen" or "you can't prove that it didn't happen" .. "yes it was a miracle"
My point it how can they possibly teach kids that all of these things jesus did happened, but talking frogs are to be classified as impossible. that god stopped the sun from setting one day, but that the sun set is certain.
My son tends to catch contradictions that they're being taught, and he has no problem talking about them to me, but I'm not sure many kids would catch them and I'm pretty sure that a lot of kids would not be able to point them out to their parents because their parents probably affirm the same contradictions.
They're teaching them that blatantly "magical" things are possible, so possible in fact that they actually happened, in one class and then teaching that things, which, in reality are leagues more probable than magical miracles, are in fact, impossible."
Mike
@MikeDziuba
It comes down to the credibility of who is doing the speaking. If twenty centuries of saints and teachings were attesting to talking frogs, and if the body of people which taught that doctrine were the basis of Western Civilization as we know it - then I would be a fool to simply discount them. When, across multiple centuries, Mother Theresa, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis of Assissi, St. Augustine, St. Nicholas - when they all attest to the same truth with living witness, well, that is something to think about. Meanwhile, who is running around talking about talking frogs except for you? You are creating a paper tiger that does not exist.
You are equating the Catholic Church with people who run around making bizarre claims about miracles out of thin air, and not backing them up with anything. But what do you do with a million priests? With Catholic Churches on every city in every continent? With the Pope who sits in Rome, running his own state and influencing affairs around the world? With all the Masses written by Mozart? With the Sistine Chapel painted by Michaelangelo? With the hospitals, orphanages, and shelters? With the martyrs? With the unbroken chain of teachings and apostles all the way back to Christ? Give me anything comparable to this when it comes to talking frogs, and yes, I would at least think about it carefully.
Your argument of Catholic doctrines being no better than wacky fairy tales does not pass the test of plausibility. In other words, your argument is like a movie where the tires screech on a dirt road. Doesn't make sense. Here we have the Catholic Church, operating hundreds of the world's best universities, and with an unrivaled tradition of education and humanitarianism - and you discount their beliefs with contempt. As though even the smallest child would know they are not true. But your attitude does not make sense since thousands of bishops, priests, leaders, Catholic politicians, and professors are far more educated than you - and they faithfully attend Mass each week. This is not to say you must accept their dogma, but your whole stance, the way you profess your unbelief by actually deriding the beliefs of these good people as crazed fairy tales, is the actual bizarre element. When you find yourself comparing the beliefs of tens of thousands of PhD's, professors, scientists, leaders, and bishops to talking frogs... the problem may just be your own beliefs.
JuneauWilliam, we disagree.
First, it matters not who is speaking be they a pope or 5th grade student. Credibility of a claim is based on evidence, not personality.
Secondly, the faith school exam was real, it exists and the logic of the parent is sound.
Thirdly, keep thinking about the first point.
Mike
@JuneauWilliam: you
@JuneauWilliam: you understand that Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and a plethora of animistic and polytheistic belief systems are far older than Christianity, right? Age has nothing to do with validity. After all, the geocentric model of the solar system is older than the heliocentic model.
And dude, if you think Catholic priests running around the world forcing people to adopt their belief system is also evidence of its correctness, then I don't know what to say. Maybe you think that white supremacy was okay when everyone was on board with it, but I don't think popularity equates to validity, either.
@MikeDziuba
Why doesn't it matter who is doing the speaking? A basic principle in a court of law is to establish the credibility of a witness. Are you personally claiming to 'know better' than those who established our justice system? A court of law is a place of evidence - and yet it is a place where the credibility of witnesses is constantly brought into play. Mike... why is this... if... 'it matters not who is doing the speaking?'
;)
@Persnickety Persimmon
While a religion's age may have nothing to do with its validity, it does have something to do with the way we address our disagreement with that religion's premises. To regard any of the great faiths you have just mentioned as being on the level of 'talking frog' fairy talkes is inconsistent with their age, their impact on the human race, and the truths which may lie folded deep inside of their language which is only trying with fingertips to grasp truths at the limit of human understanding.
Also, I'm not sure whose post you are replying to, but I certainly made no claim that Catholic priests were 'running around the world forcing people to adopt their belief system.' LOL. I did mention that the existence of a million priests indicates we might possibly be talking about something a little more meaningful than talking frogs.
Peace.
The credibility of a witness
The credibility of a witness is brought into play in the courtroom because eyewitness testimony (which is the least credible of all forms of evidence, FYI) needs to be validified. It is also because the courtroom is a place of rhetoric just as much, if not moreso, than evidence. Lawyers are trained to win arguments, not prove facts.
As to the spread of Christianity (particularly Catholicism), you used the fact that it is widespread as evidence of its validity. It is actually evidence of its tenacity. Christianity has spread in large part because indigenous peoples have been forced to adopt it, not because it is "correct."
@Persnickety Persimmon
That's right, because testimony needs to be validified.
Testimony -> New *Testament*
This is a book of testimony with eyewitnesses. And those original witnesses in most cases were gladly martyred rather than go back on their testimony. For the next 20 centuries, saints living pure and holy lives, have walked in our world, passing on that original testimony, with living witness to the truth, from one generation to the next. Based on their credibility: I myself, along with millions of PhD's, scientists, lawyers, judges, presidents, bishops, and leaders, consider the Catholic faith to be reasonable, and the testimony of the Gospels to be credible.
If you don't agree, that's cool. Not a problem at all. It's a free world. But it's not logical to go to the next level, and place oneself above all of these saints, PhD's, judges, and scientists - and to claim their belief in the Catholic faith is no better than believing in fairy tales about talking frogs.
The New Testament is a book
The New Testament is a book with a number of unverifiable claims that were cherry picked by a group of individuals at the Council of Nicaea to fit their interpretation of Christianity. Many claims are not corroborated by secular sources, and those that are often paint a different picture of the events.
It's no different from any other religious text. The Koran is a testimony. More recent, too. As is the Book of Mormon. Hell, Scientology as well!
I'll hand it to you, though: you've got the rhetoric down. If this were a court case, you'd likely do very well, because you're convincing. But that doesn't make you right.
Also, dude, are you even familiar with other religions? Every major religion has its adherents living "otherworldly lives of holiness." Not found in other religions? I guess you're unfamiliar with Theravada Buddhist and Jainist ascetics, Zen monks, Sufi Mystics, Hindu Brahmins, and so on.
But please, continue. I guess the less you know about other religions, the easier it is to believe in the correctness of your own. If you want to believe your religion's adherents are more "holy" than those of other religions, fine, but it is entirely incorrect.
Yeah because the "Good Book"
Yeah because the "Good Book" doesnt have any reference to God speaking through non-human forms...
Validated testimony
So who is it exactly who validated the supposed eye-witness reports contained in the New Testament? Who decided those particular accounts were sound but others were not and thus left out of the canon? Were they infallible? Third-party objective observers with no vested interest in the outcome?
And PP, just as a slightly tongue-in-cheek aside - any Zen monk who claims for himself or herself an 'otherworldly life of holiness' is a dork! On the other hand, a Zen monk who says "Yeah, I have a piece of paper somewhere that says I've taken the precepts...oh...wait...I used it when I went to the bathroom...never mind..." - that person might be worth something. :-p
Absolutely no
This is so wrong that a religious institution should be supported by tax dollars. By definition religious institutions are PRIVATE. Use private funds to promote private values.
Not evidence
Evidence presented for the war-god Yahweh actually existing:
1. Apostles- not evidence
2. 20 centuries of saints- not evidence
3. Ph.Ds- not evidence
4. Lawyers- not evidence
5. Doctors- not evidence
6. Scientists- not evidence
7. Judges- not evidence
8. Presidents- not evidence
9. Bishops- not evidence
10. Leaders- not evidence
11. Politicians- not evidence
12. Professors- not evidence
JuneauWilliam, you aren't very good at this are you? Please refer back to what I stated earlier: First, it matters not who is speaking be they a pope or 5th grade student. Credibility of a claim is based on evidence, not personality.
Mike
Dear Bishop Burns
As a property owner, I already support your church, as well as every other church in this town, because you do not pay property taxes.
That means I help support an institution that teaches kids that an all-powerful magic man in the sky sacrificed his only son to save his creation (man) and then has his followers literally eat of his son's body and drink of his blood (cannibalism). I help support an institution whose leaders raped children and then were moved to another town so they could do it again. I help support an institution that ex-communicates someone for using birth control, but has yet to ex-communicate a single pedophile priest - not one single rapist has been kicked out of the church. I help support an institution that would rather have human beings die of AIDS than to tell them it's okay to use condoms.
So, in response to your plea for even more financial support, my answer is not just no, but hell no.
@MikeDziuba
Hi, Mike -
None of those people were presented as evidence for the existence of God. But with all of those highly educated people (judges, scientists, PhD's, etc.) all believing in God, it is perhaps not reasonable for you to be equating their beliefs with talking frog fairy tales. You are free to disagree with the faith of these judges, scientists, and PhD's... but since they are so highly educated, it is hard for you to claim their faith is so simplistic. There must be something about the Catholic faith with enough substance to have earned a place in the lives of these people. They could certainly all be wrong. After all, highly educated people have believed many wrong things throughout the years. But with a great and noble faith, it is not possible to equate it with talking frog fairy tales for several reasons:
1. The same people we are talking about (judges, leaders, PhD's) do not believe in talking frogs, but they do quite sincerely accept the Eucharist. This indicates a fundamental difference between talking frogs and the Eucharistic faith.
2. You are the only one talking about talking frogs, whereas millions of people and twenty centuries of saints attest to Christ. This indicates another fundamental difference between talking frogs and Catholicism.
3. When you can cite people who give up their favorite foods, move across the world to evangelize talking frogs, and who join communities of life dedicated to talking frogs, again then we can talk a little more seriously about them. I might still disagree, but at least now we have something of substance to talk about. Your image of the Catholic faith is one where there are lists of claims being made and nothing to back them up, where the truth is there are millions of people living whole lives in the Catholic faith, devoting themselves to it, and right or wrong, this is a more substantial subject than talking frog fairy tales.
@spiff
Hey, spiff, check this out:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2484745/posts
@Persnickety Persimmon
Hi, Persnickety...
The Bible is testimony, and the whole reason there is a judge/jury in court to deal with testimony is that for all its value, someone has to make a judgment on the testimony - whether to trust it, how to apply it. People don't just turn in testimony and a machine spits out the answer to the case. The Bible is in a similar position insofar as it is testimony of real people to what they really experienced while they lived with Jesus Christ. Just like in a court where there are many sides to a story, in the Bible we have 4 Gospel writers. Besides that, there were at least 30 other accounts of Christ's life written. As the government of the United States was established by the founding fathers, the authority of the Catholic Church was established by Jesus Christ. In exercising this authority, the Church established by Christ has defended, clarified, and passed on his teachings for the past 2,000 years.
Also, many religions have good men, and many have scoundrels... but only the Catholic Church has authentic saints. A Mother Theresa has not ever come from another religion or non-religion. She was much more than a great humanitarian, she was a saint.
@fromdustreturned
The Bible does not need to be validated like some parking ticket. The validation of the Gospels was the martyrdom of the original Apostles who had begun as cowards, doubters, greedy business men, but who ended their lives dying in witness to Jesus Christ.
A talking frog is not as hard
A talking frog is not as hard to believe as learning gospel from a burning bush...
@JuneauWilliam: circular
@JuneauWilliam: circular logic. The only saints are Catholics because the Catholics say so. You know this isn't a valid argument. You also know that Mother Theresa was not such a saint (in a secular sense), believing that keeping people in poverty was a good thing and doubting her own faith.
Actually, your response to dust is also circular logic. The Bible does need to be verified--sorry, but it can't verify itself. And in fact much of it has been verified and/or discredited. From Old Testament myths that derive from the myths of older traditions, to New Testament events that simply did not happen (the resurrection of Jesus, for instance, which is likely a myth derived from the resurrection of contemporary gods within the Roman Empire like Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis, and possibly Mithras).
Martyrdom
Martyrdom-not evidence
Cowards-not evidence
Businessmen-not evidence
Dying in witness-not evidence
Again, you aren't very good at this are you? ;)
Mike
Education Fund Dividend same as Permanent Fund Dividend
To see how the Education Fund Dividend is the same as the Permanent Fund Dividend, go to http://www.alaskapolicyforum.org/2012/02/what-is-school-choice/
@kpawsuh
Regarding the burning bush in the Old Testament, this enters a much greater topic (debated for centuries by multitudes of great minds) over which sections of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively. On the one hand, many passages meant to be taken figuratively are mistakenly taken literally by many people. On the other hand, to explain away the whole Bible as figurative has the effect of neutering the miracles which are to demonstrate God's power at work.
@Persnickety Persimmon
The great part about doubting her own faith is that Mother Theresa persevered. St. John of the Cross rightly compared spiritual dryness to the weaning of a child from nursing. To remain steadfast in our faith without the benefit of consolation is a wonderful gift that leads to growth and maturity. Think of the pain the baby experiences when he wants to suckle at the breast but is not allowed to. This is a step in his healthy development. Mother Theresa's doubts are akin to this.
The Bible is validated by the unbroken chain of witnesses, martyrs and saints who have preserved and handed on the faith of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. It is the Catholic Church which gave us the Bible, and it is based on the authority of the Catholic Church that we accept the Bible as the Word of God.
@MikeDziuba
Nobody has to believe in the Catholic faith, but to compare the Catholic faith to a simple very stupid fairy tale is 'jumping the shark.' If the Catholic faith is wrong, then it is at least magnificent, complicated, and wrong. But there is no room to simply hold it to be a silly fairy tale.
I would suggest that the recognition of the Catholic faith by so many lawyers, doctors, scientists, and other highly educated people does indicate that the case is not so simple or ludicrous as frog fairy tales. In light of this, while none of us has to accept the Catholic faith, we would be hard pressed to belittle it considering the intellectual calibre of the people who take it seriously. Rather, we might find ourselves saying that we simply feel an honest disagreement with it - but to compare it to a trivial, simplistic, farcical fairy tale does not really hold water in light of the hundreds of thousands of judges, scientists, PhD's, bishops, etc. who are comfortable with the teachings of Catholicism.
In addition to this, other than you talking about frog fairy tales in a chat room, where else in the world are substantial portions of humanity living entire lives based on these talking frogs? Whereas in the Catholic faith there are a million priests, thousands of hospitals, churches in every city, scholars pouring over teachings, and the pope in Rome as a moral force influencing world affairs. None of this means we must believe in the Catholic Faith. We are free to disagree. But it also means we sound a little bit silly comparing the faith at the heart of all of this to talking frog fairy tales. I think it's fair for someone to say they don't agree, but the way in which they disagree must be stated on par with what they are disagreeing with. Merely calling the Catholic faith a fairy tale is like trying to kill a raging rhinoceros with a tooth pick. Go ahead and mount an attack on the faith of the Church if you will, but make it intellectually devastating, philosophically substantial, and spiritually worrying. Mike, I gotta tell you bro, I'm down with following wherever the truth leads... but I'm calling you to be your best, and to mount a real challenge. I'm fine if you disagree with the teachings of the Catholic Church. But you kind of 'jump the shark' when you compare it to a talking frogs fairy tale - meanwhile, all the doctors, PhD's, judges, bishops, and scientists who are Catholic are comfortable believing the teachings of the Catholic Church.
JuneauWilliam, not evidence
Great minds- not evidence
Intellectual calibre- not evidence
Global behemoth- not evidence
Highly educated- not evidence
Lots of churches, hospitals- not evidence
Scholars- not evidence
This is getting tiresome. Come back with evidence, sir.
Mike