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 commentLOL - fromdust.....
So if my belief in Antarctica existing is only because I have faith, does that make all of my friends who have been there Saints, since they have told me about it?
I shall have to call them at once and tell them, they will be so pleased to have been instantly elevated to sainthood simply for having gone on a unique vacation! Of course, since I've not called them before, and have not personally been to their homes, I don't know that they have phones or are not living in the woods...........
Good Grief!
It is pretty interesting how
It is pretty interesting how hard it is to kill off ancient misogynist views. We like to think we're such a progressive society (except for Calypso) and have conquered sexism, but it's just become subtler. Instead of telling women their place, flat out, they try to enact policies that will simply result in women being in their "place." Instead of seriously accusing women of having mental/emotional deficiencies, they now simply make sexist jokes and claim they don't mean it.
But maybe the fact that Rush Limbaugh has lost his advertisers and eaten his words means that we're on the verge of killing these paleolithic attitudes once and for all? I don't see how these clueless dinosaurs can stay in office for much longer if they continue to alienate half the electorate (more if you count all the brown people they're also alienating).
one true statement....
Of course, junowilliam did make one true statement....
"the knowledge at the center of Theology will never grow"
pp - I agree
and I can only continue to hope that you are right, and talk with the people I know who have backwards views.....
Have a good weekend.
@p - You have a female
@p - You have a female friend?
In your perfect, socially engineered world, of course government supplied or government mandated contraceptives make everything nice and tidy. Those pesky, unwanted masses of tissue cause so many problems.
However, not everyone thinks like you. And those that don't aren't wrong or stupid or intolerant or however else you wish to label them.
Some Americans have what we call "faith" and with that faith comes certain parameters that the faithful must follow or that they choose to follow.
Nothing more, nothing less. America's Constitution allows for the free exercise of religion and we have a conscience clause that allows for the faithful to live their convictions, free from government mandates.
The end game of this mess that Obama has stepped in is to put an end to Catholic hospitals and the other social agencies run by the church, and I'm sticking to it. They happen to be competition to his dream of total government control of the healthcare system. He never imagined that Americans of all faiths would rally and stand together.
See ya in court...
And by the way, Target sells a month of birth control pills for $9. Or go to a public health clinic and get them for free. Or drop by Planned Parenthood and they're probably almost free or free there. So your argument that they're expensive and not available is mute.
Hey Calypso: how does it feel
Hey Calypso: how does it feel to be on the wrong side of every issue as society progresses? Slavery, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, interracial marriage, sexual equality, and, coming soon: gay marriage!
(also, an irrelevant point is a moot point, not a mute point, but I do wish you'd make more mute points)
A conscience clause???
Where?
@dust - what? p, I'm not on
@dust - what?
p, I'm not on the "wrong side of every issue as society progresses". Look at some polling data and you'll see that the majority of Americans agree with me. And no fair just guessing which side I'm on because you don't know.
A better question would be how come the progressives have such a hard time convincing Americans that their social engineering agenda is so wonderful?
moot, smoot...thank you for pointing that out.
From your post:
"America's Constitution allows for the free exercise of religion and we have a conscience clause that allows for the faithful to live their convictions, free from government mandates."
My question - what conscience clause? Are you referring to the same conscience clause that allowed the Muslim judge in your earlier story to lecture a defendant that the man who assaulted him for impersonating Muhammad was justified? That was a perfect example of a "conscience clause" allowing "the faithful" (nice merging of phraseology) to live his convictions free from government mandates.
Swimmer~
We need some cool saint names...
Maybe Saint Frigidaire?
I want to be a saint in the church of Emacs...Saint Ignucius...
(geek joke)
And of course we have a winner
with no coherent response from Calypso.
fromdust the saint....
Fromdust - Saint names for everyone! I have been scuba diving in New Guinea and seen giant cuttlefish - so if you haven't been there or done that, and therefore have only my sainthood to believe either of those things exist, I could be Saint GuineaCuttle!
Calypso - Really?
"Some Americans have what we call "faith" and with that faith comes certain parameters that the faithful must follow or that they choose to follow."
The key phrases in your sentance are "the faithful" and "choose to follow"
Since I am neither one of the "faithful" nor do I 'choose to follow' - then your parameters do not apply to me. And this is what the 'faithful' never seem to understand.
@swimmergirl
You said, "So if my belief in Antarctica existing is only because I have faith, does that make all of my friends who have been there Saints, since they have told me about it?"
Answer: No.
@Persnickety Persimmon
Christianity was a great advancement for the status of women. Before Christianity, a Roman husband could divorce his wife at will, as well as to have her imprisoned or killed. Also, monogamy was only enforced for women instead of men also. Christianity lead to the age of Chivalry where men would throw their cloak in water and hold doors for women, etc. The change in status of woman from being on object of property which could be thrown away to a person where every gentleman would hold a door open and allow the woman to pass first was due to Christianity.
@blackdog
You are right blackdog, on both sides.
@fromdustreturned
You said, "Under your framework, my "faith" that an oxygen molecule has eight neutrons is on the same level as your "faith" that Jesus rose from the dead. "
Dust, faith is "belief without proof." I'm not getting into 'levels' and all this stuff you are trying to pull into it. The fact is you have no personal proof or verification that an Oxygen atom has 8 neutrons, but you (and me) believe it. You can separate that into religious faith and non-religious faith if you want - but it's still faith. Just as a German Shepherd and a Doberman Pincer are two different kinds of dogs - but they are both still dogs.
The main idea is: you believe plenty of stuff without having proof of it. And I'm not backing down on that. You have no proof of the number of neutrons in an Oxygen atom. As a matter of fact, you can't even personally say you have personally verified that atoms have neutrons. Even nuclear physicists can't verify what the astronomers are saying about space... and the astronomers can't verify what the biologists are saying... as mere mortals, we just don't have the time in our lives to test absolutely everything. Therefore, much of what we know is determined by small pockets of highly specialist people in a particular field and then trusted by everyone. I'm basically fine with that, and I would guess that most scientific information is highly accurate, but don't confuse that with yourself personally possessing anything but faith in scientific knowledge about what you have been told about the internal structure of atoms or information about such things as the speed of light, the composition of stars, and the existence of phenomena such as quasars, blue stars, and red dwarfs, etc. We have made some truly awesome advancements in the last 100 years, but just 200 years ago, we did not even understand the concept of pasteurizing our milk. I think in time we will come to know much more about atoms and black holes, but my guess would be that we are in for several more scientific revolutions that will overturn current thinking (and render many current science textbooks out of date) in the mean time. Therefore, lots of stuff we 'know' about science will become obsolete. Nobody should be walking around talking like they are living lives based on pure science, where every single thing they believe is completely backed up by proof because that is not true.
What is realistic:
- we know lots of correct science
- we are going to keep refining our scientific knowledge
- we all believe things without having any proof for them