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 commentJust so you know..
There is an instance in the Old Testimate where a donkey spoke. Numbers 22:28.
While I do not agree with Catholocism (for the most part). I do not agree with catachism and Mary being devine(like Jesus).
I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Just because you(mike, pp) do not believe there is a God does not mean you are right. God has revealed to me personally that He is real.
All of this rhetoric back and forth serves no purpose.
As for the funding of private schools. I think it is backward. Fund the child and let them and their parents decide where to use the money. If they choose to use the money for a private school then so be it.
As for the rhetoric....your all wrong and I am right.....:)
@El_Boorba
LOL!
@justlivin
You said, "I do not agree with catachism and Mary being devine(like Jesus)."
The Catholic faith does not teach that Mary is divine like Jesus. A 'Catholic' who taught people that Mary was Divine would be excommunicated as a heretic if they refused to stop teaching that.
On the other hand, Mary was sinless. And yes, Jesus was her savior. The way to understand her salvation, as opposed to ours is this: there was a muddy pit in the road. The rest of us fell into the pit, and Jesus pulled us out of it. But Mary... as she was walking towards the muddy pit, Jesus held out his arm to stop his mom from falling into it. So Jesus saved Mary too, but in a different way than the rest of us.
Your choice of school
....should not require me to pay.
The Bishop says "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."
How would we be "preventing" a parent from choosing the education they want for their child? They are free to choose the education they deem best (I went with the public Charter School here in Juneau). But WE should not have to pay for their child's education. I don't want to pay for their child's ballet lessons, music lessons, football playing, or any other education that they deem necessary for their child. It's THEIR child and THEIR responsibility. If you want private school for your child, pay for it yourself. Or, ask your church to help you out - that's what they do, right? Help out the poor?
@fromdustreturned
Every person's journey is fascinating and rich. Some people leave the seminary in good faith, feeling they cannot be intellectually honest and remain in pursuit of studying the scriptures. Others, like Karol Wojtwa and Joseph Ratzinger spend decades going much, much further and find only greater and greater warmth within. And the world, it keeps turning.... and turning....
@Persnickety Persimmon
I never said that a spectrometer measures the speed of light, but it is a tool used in the study of light, the distances between objects, measuring their speed according to the shift of the spectrum, and so on. Frankly, I don't have a clue as to precisely how the speed of light can be measured, and neither do you - although you may think you do. But really, you and I accept on faith that light travels at 186,000 miles per second because the scientific community, who we consider to be trustworthy, accurate, and to have no reason for falsifying information tells us it is so. But in truth... neither me nor you really has done the work to literally prove it to ourselves.
And I have never said we can't "know" anything. If you go back and read my posts, you will never find me saying that. But you have based so much of your posts on the evidence you falsely claim to possess. I have just asked things like:
- Please name the specific scientific experiment, scientific team, and hypothesis that was tested to prove that God does not exist.
- Please tell me the specific scientific research you have personally conducted to assure yourself that the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium.
- Please tell me the specific scientific experiment you have conducted to prove that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, including what peer reviewed journal you published your findings in, and what equipment you used, and the mathematical equations that you personally employed to test what you have been told about the speed of light.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that light travels at 186,000 miles per second and that the sun is made of hydrogen and helium, just as it's reasonable to accept the faith of the Catholic Church. In both cases we are believing something without proof, which is the definition of faith.
William, nowhere has this
William, nowhere has this discussion even hinted that anyone was saying that we are now supposed to worship talking frogs. The yound person said that it could be possible, but not likely for frogs to talk. It was not likely that someone could be raised from the dead. The Bible says Jesus did this. (Your personal decision to beilieve if this is legit or not). If God can, through a miracle, raise the dead, then is it remotely possible that God could make a frog talk? That is all the question is. The school says the boy is wrong. God can raise the dead etc, but a talking frog is impossible. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God doesnt think frogs should be used in miracles? "Yea verily and it was decreed that the frog was to be mute and as such all miricles - minus raining frogs - should be amphibian-less!" Oh, wait. Thats right! It says "All things are possible!" Something like that. Maybe God just forgot it or they lost the foot note over the years that says "All things except talking frogs are possible!"
The kid was right on, and had good sound logic and more faith than his close minded teachers. Big suprise!
Fundamental difference
It is true that all of us can't be all things - we do accept the conclusions of others who work in their respective fields.
The fundamental difference is that you CAN reproduce the works of others in any scientific field if you so chose, and come to the same conclusions. You may differ to some degree regarding the supposed implications of a given work, but if someone maintains that light travels at 186,000 mps and publishes their methods, it is possible for me to go and reproduce their work if I so choose. My results, if I have reproduced their methods accurately and their methods were scientifically sound, should be the same.
Religious instruction and religious faith are rather the opposite. People who read the gospels are in no way required to come to the same conclusions; it is not a scientific process. In addition, all scientific evidence points to people not rising from the dead; to conclude that Jesus did so, or that Elijah never died, is to reject the body of scientific evidence and accept something because it is considered necessary to support a pre-chosen religious framework. The earliest and best manuscripts of Mark, considered the oldest of the synoptic gospels, do not contain the story of the resurrection; that appears in later texts. Many other earlier religions that pre-date Christianity have a sacrificed and resurrected God. From a scientific viewpoint, you have nobody rising from the dead, no early stories of the resurrection, and multiple other religions claiming a dead and risen God. The religious response to that is to say "Yes, but I still believe", which is fine, but it is a faith in direct opposition to evidence.
Thus, there are any number of religious views in the world, but only a single speed of light. Should someone suggest a different speed of light, he or she would be required to publish their methods and math, and these would be reproduced and tested. Scientific assessments DO change as additional data are gathered; religious faith does not, in terms of acceptance of the central tenet of the faith.
I may not consider some experiment determining the speed of light to be "credible", but if I reproduce it, and it shows the speed of light to be 186,000, then scientifically I have no choice but to accept it. Conversely, your acceptance of "credibility" on the part of Church teachings stems from an a-priori determination of Church credibility, and an a-priori determination that religious teachings from other traditions do NOT carry the same degree of credibility. This has nothing to do with scientific process or evidence.
No, we are not both believing
No, we are not both believing in something without proof. NO ONE possesses proof of God. Get this through your head. You seem to lack a fundamental ability to apply logic to this argument. The scientific community, however, DOES possess evidence--what laypeople would consider proof--of the speed of light, of evolution, of the composition of the sun (which is actually made up of more than just hydrogen and helium), and of every other scientific theory.
As for the experiment disproving God, show me the experiment proving God. There is none. You can't disprove something that has no evidence to begin with--the lack of evidence itself indicates its nonexistence. Science can't disprove god because there is nothing to disprove. Science can, however, explain the origins of myth, the psychological needs it fulfills, and the development of various belief systems. It can also determine the historicity of religious texts.
Have you read Hume recently? Or Descartes? Because you're trying to apply a ridiculously empirical argument (the only things we can truly KNOW are those which we, ourselves, verify) to put science on the same level as faith, which is empirically untrue if you have even the slightest exposure to the products of science. The fact that I am not a physicist in no way invalidates physical theories such as quantum theory and general relativity, due to the fact they have been experimentally verified by others countless times and have to be accurate in order for much of our technology to work.
Earlier, you took issue with the idea of a fairy-tale being regarded as equivalent to a complex, hierarchical belief system. And yet you're now committing a similar fallacy by equating a system of faith in which adherents must believe in something with no evidence (and sometimes evidence to the contrary) with an empirical system in which laypeople must only trust that those scientists aren't lying, which isn't faith at all so much as common sense.
Again, you are simply wrong. I have a background in biology, and your understanding of science as a whole is very lacking.
Where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless?
Please inform me becuase as far as I know it does not mention it. She was a woman just like other women. Although she was the mother of the Saviour, she was still just a woman. If she was sinless, explain Rom 3:23 For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All of the information I could find goes back to "the church teaches it so it is right" By church I mean Catholic church.
That does not hold well with me because of the past histories of the "church" and it's practices. Too many former popes were corrupt and "out for themselves". Which leads to getting doctrine from people and not from the Bible.
I believe the Bible is all anyone needs to become a Christian. The Bible says that a person should become as a child to understand. Are there other books that help in understanding the Bible? Yes, but as soon as the book goes against the Bible it should be discounted.
But I digress......
Respectful Disagreement
My boys have brain washed my niece with the world of pokemon. Much to the enjoyment of all 3 of them. She asked her mother which pokemon created the world. To which my sister responded "WE don't believe in that. WE believe in the Big Bang". To which I so wanted to respond, "WE don't ALL believe in that. Some believe in Jiggly Puff", trust me it sounds better if you sing it like Jiggly does. I didn't say it, not my place to override mom. My boys are older and hold their own beliefs.
My point is that while I consider the Big Bang to be fantastical, I would not scold my sister or question her intellect. I have heard a lot of scientists believe or speculate. But I have not seen any documentation of double blinds done recreating the Big Bang. There are just about as many cable shows finding evidence proving biblical references as there are proving the other side, if not more. I hold none of us will know the truth until our time has come to an end. I contend, even if I am wrong, I was happier than I would be believing there is no purpose and no future.
@Ivmykyk: please, just stop.
@Ivmykyk: please, just stop. Double-blind studies only apply to human studies--it's obvious you don't even know what a double-blind study is. You can't "recreate" the big bang in a double-blind study, and in fact the evidence for the big bang comes from several observations about the universe (its rate of expansion, background radiation, distribution of matter, shape, etc.) and mathematical models.
More importantly, you base your opinion on what is on TV?! Are you joking? Are you trying to be satirical, or are you seriously saying that because there are more shows about the Bible on TV than the big bang that it's more valid? Do you not understand that television programs exist to entertain and garner ratings, not to reflect the scientific state of the world?
I don't mean any offense, but your mode of thought is what is wrong with the world.
Not equivalent
Finding a cable show that presents evidence of biblical references (I am assuming you mean archaeological finds such as the existence of Jericho, David, or other historical figures or places) is not the equivalent of evidence supporting the existence of the Divine or divine creation. It is also not the equivalent of some sort of data set that opposes the singularity hypothesis of universal origins; there is a considerable body of evidence supporting the Big Bang theory.
What I find staggering and what makes me go look for the chocolate chip cookies (a la Oliver Wendell Jones) is the question of the origin of matter/energy.
Journal references please
Your not providing any more proof of your belief system than you demand from those of admitted faith. Observations are not hard data. By you own words it is hypothesis, still not fact. The reference to TV was more a point there is proof of anything for those who are looking for it.
Honestly I think ya'll are off your nut if you think changes in the flu strain proves fishes evolve into dogs. And an protozoa into an elephant.
“Even in our own faith, we have questions and answers, interpretations, debates. In Christianity, in Catholicism, in other faiths, the same thing — debates, interpretations. That is the beauty. It’s like being a musician. If you found the note, and you kept hitting that note all the time, you would go nuts. It’s the blending of the different notes that makes the music.”
Rabbi Albert Lewis
I think he might be onto something.
Beg pardon??
Observations ARE hard data!! By definition!!
We observe a set of data x, and attempt to explain the processes a,b,c that produced x.
Do you want references for the singularity or evolution? They are two completely distinct processes and subjects.
@lvmykyk
I'm just as happy leaving you to your "truth" as you are believing in it; however, when your "truth" butts up against scientific evidence in an attempt to shape public policy, that's when we have a problem.
I am not looking to convince you of something or change your mind. I am simply stating that matters of faith should be kept out of the public square and off the law books. If I want to believe Zeus sits on Mt. Olympus and messes with humans in order to alleviate his boredom, great. If I try to get Congress to pass a law saying that virgins shouldn't be allowed to be alone with livestock because it might be Zeus in disguise, then I'm guessing there might be some fallout. I doubt those who don't believe in Zeus want their tax dollars going to enforcement of that law.
I am not trying to make light of your faith. I take it very seriously that otherwise moderate humans are able to dismiss good public policy because someone higher up in their church tells them to. I find it extremely dangerous that matters of faith "guide" our elected leaders. I find it even more dangerous that the more progressive or moderate members of the same faith do not speak out against the trends to deny a woman's basic and essential human right to be in control of her own body, to name just one example.
You might not feel you have a choice in your faith, but that is not the same as not actually having a choice to, say, change your skin color (going back to your example).
Ivmykyk
Observations are, indeed, hard data...
Also, evolution doesn't involve protozoa turning into elephants or fish turning into dogs. This is a caricature used by know-nothings who want to pretend they know something about evolution.
Again, please stop. You clearly know very, very little about evolution and science in general, so I don't know why you have such a high opinion of your own views. It's pretty arrogant to think you know more than the people who actually know about the subject.
If you want to know about evolution, you need to read "Origin of the Species." Seriously. To understand evolution, you need to understand natural selection. And if I point you to an actual journal article (which are very easy to find on your own, being that evolution is the basis for all modern biology), you'll either not read it or not understand it.
I'll summarize:
1) Species produce offspring similar to themselves.
2) Offspring have small differences from one another and their parents, some of which are heritable traits.
3) Organisms produce more offspring than can survive.
4) Organisms with beneficial traits will survive more often than those without.
5) With a higher rate of survival, eventually the organisms with the beneficial traits will completely displace the others.
But of course the above is completely illogical and just CAN'T be happening because LOL ZOMG MY DAD WASN'T A MONKEY!!!!!1
Where does raven fit into all
Where does raven fit into all this?
Just kidding. I put that merely to point out that you are having this conversation only because you are in a country that allows freedom of religion and speech and you are in the culturally accepted majority religion (Christianity not catholicism). If you were in asia, well we wouldnt even be having this discussion because they are too laid back and polite to go there. Buddhism is nice that way. In the Middle East you would probably be killed. Maybe the christians really have it all wrong but were better publicists and the norse gods were correct, or the tlingit creation stories with Raven were right. You think you are right becuase you are surrounded by people who believe the same thing. The Buddhists in Asia are not so convinced. If it works for you, great, but dont tell everyone else they are wrong because you really dont know. You are merely parrotting back that which is a factor of your paradym. Its a big world out there and its full of complexity.
If like evolve like
Where did the original dogs, cats, and fish come from? The bang? Thump? Whoomp? I am really kidding and by no means am I trying to insult you. I just think this has gotten into the realm of silly.
It is sad that you need to put others down. You never just share how you feel or your belief, it always comes out as an attack. Just an observation that makes me feel like you are not very happy. I am really sorry. I truly hope that you find some healing and peace, no one should be unhappy. Through our own happiness we can be kinder to others. I still have to work on that, so if I have hurt you I am sorry.
There are no "originals"
there is only a continuum of organisms. You'd have to write a set of criteria defining, for example, "dog", and then examine the available fossil record to find the point at which a given series of developmental forms produced something you would define as "dog".
Catfish, dogfish, and well,
Catfish, dogfish, and well, pre-fish. Oh, and dont forget talking frogs...
State funded faith schools
Faith schools are a disaster in the UK.
Without a separation of Church and State over there, all citizens subsidize what essentially become religious recruitment camps that teach creationism over evolution, spiritual justice over temporal responsibility and the concept that belief without evidence is perfectly reasonable, even laudable.
Thankfully, that will not occur over here with organizations fighting to build up Thomas Jefferson's wall between government and religion, thereby preserving the wisdom of our secular Constitution. I suggest people interested in the separation of Church and State, sign up and support one.
It's no secret where I stand with religion in general and faith in particular. From a birdseye perspective, I see it all as packs of lies. And schools should not teach lies, be it lakes of fire for children who disobey Yahweh, or Streets of Gold and Virgins for those who obey Allah's will. And I've never been a fan of comfort by way of lies.
Lastly, this whole idea that just because something isn't known, one gets to insert "Jesus" or Yahweh as the answer, is ludicrous. What's wrong with saying, "I don't know?" That's the reasonable answer. And I'm unaware of any civilization in human history that ever ran itself asunder by becoming too reasonable.
Carry on.
Mike
Bingo!
That is why I find the whole Big Bang, Evolution so fantastical. It is really no better proven and defined. Am I disputing the "truth" of it? Maybe some, but not arguing my truth is the only truth. Just showing the other side of the coin.
If only the smarter higher thinking people can grasp it. Must be at least half a load. There are a great deal of "church leaders" espousing only they are wise enough to know the truth too. I am just saying science and religion both are very similar in some ways. I know that is troublesome for some. I respect that.
I get my back up when all Christians are lumped into one pile of narrow minded hate mongers. That is wrong and it is bigoted. Just as wrong as claiming all Jews are miserly and all Muslims terrorists. I don't accept that. Hate is wrong whatever the guise. I think there is more than a kernal of truth to all belief systems. We are more similar than we are different, we are just too self important to listen to one another. Peace won't be found by trying to forcing others to think like us. Not by saying believe what you want but don't ever speak it. But by embracing the music, enjoying the jam.
lvmykyk, dogs cats and the big bang
The atoms in your body or our pets' bodies did not come from the big bang. It took a while for stars to form after the big bang. It is in the furnace of stars where the elements that form us were born. As Lawrence Krauss says, "forget Jesus, stars had to die for you to be born." And the evidence says he's right.
All the elements like iron, oxygen, carbon, etc., erupt from dying stars that explode their "guts" into the universe.
And you thought a protozoan evolving into a monkey was silly. Cosmological evolution tells us where the earth itself came from! Check out the book Universe from Nothing if you like.
You are literally stardust lvmykyk.. Some think that the universe is "out there, in outer space" and that is missing the point. The universe is in your body, in my dogs' bodies. We are it, and it is us.
And someday, when our own star, the Sun, explodes (in a few billion years), the earth will be vaporized and all our atoms will spew out and perhaps someday coalesce into some distant matrix that gives rise to a lifeform that will discover the same laws of science we've discovered. Or not.
The universe, through us, woke up. No gods required. No mind altering substances needed either. It's really just about the most poetic thing I know, and it can be fact checked. That's plenty of beauty for children to be exposed to as opposed to say, talking snakes and human sacrifice, wouldn't you say?
We are incredibly lucky to be alive. Make the most of every day or enjoy the jam, as you say.
Mike
"I get my back up when all
"I get my back up when all Christians are lumped into one pile of narrow minded hate mongers. That is wrong and it is bigoted. Just as wrong as claiming all Jews are miserly and all Muslims terrorists. I don't accept that. Hate is wrong whatever the guise. I think there is more than a kernal of truth to all belief systems."
My response to the above is that, to a certain degree, all Christians (and "all belief systems") are lumped together in that they accept on faith and in the face of evidence to the contrary, a certain worldview. Pointing out that those beliefs are in direct contradiction to reality is not hate-mongoring, it's reason. It's rational debate.
"We are more similar than we are different, we are just too self important to listen to one another. Peace won't be found by trying to forcing others to think like us. Not by saying believe what you want but don't ever speak it. But by embracing the music, enjoying the jam."
I'm in full support of your sentiment and want to enjoy the jam as much as anyone. I am simply unwilling to sacrifice my liberty and my reason to do so. In the same way living without your faith makes life seem empty, I would not want to have to embrace what I consider to be a lie in order to be part of the band.
Simply beautiful
Thanks for that incredibly stunning vision of life, Mike.
spiff
Thanks to you, PP and kpawsuh, for taking on JuneauWilliam. I've run out of fresh ways to discuss things with him/her.
Mike
Jam with me
I am not asking anyone to embrace my faith. There are not many who do, certainly no institutionalized religion embraces all of what I believe to be true. But that is ok too. I just don't like my liberty to express my faith and appreciation being taken away because someone else is uncomfortable. I think we need to get over ourselves.
Honestly, what is next uniforms? Maybe that is a good idea because some peoples idea of fashion is offensive. Seriously, crocs? Booty shorts? I call for a ban on muffintop. Buy a bigger size people!
Just a joke to illustrate my point. We need to be more tolerant.
The hate monger refered to the label some would assign to Christians as a whole. Not the act of disagreeing with the Christian viewpoint.
@lvmykyk: dude, seriously,
@lvmykyk: dude, seriously, what is wrong with you? Listen to yourself. Because you, personally, don't understand evolution it must be "at least half a load"? How nice it must be to have such a high opinion of yourself that anything beyond your understanding MUST be BS, because how could you possibly not get it?
Tell me, do you know how a computer works? Do you think if a computer scientist explained it to you and you didn't understand, it would be "half a load"?
All the science is out there for you to look at yourself. This isn't a case of some church leaders intentionally withholding information or using it to fit their agenda, this is a case of you being too lazy/stupid to understand something you apparently have strong opinions about.
I find your arrogance extremely offensive, and I sincerely hope you aren't raising your children to hold these backwards, anti-knowledge views.
Actually PP, they are
Actually PP, they are intentionally withholding information or using it to fit their agenda too. Just sayin...