The United States Supreme has now heard arguments about what has been proposed and successfully tested as the "school voucher program". This program gives parents a chance to take their children out of failing schools and place them on those which will give them a good education. The public schools are obviously not, in the main, getting the job done. A top flight education requires money. Along comes an offer to allow and assist the parents of children in failing schools to find and pay for that desired decent schooling for their children.

The problem: The good schools are private and mostly parochial. This according to the critics, is a violation of the separation of church and state as outlined in the United States Constitution. These critics (ACLU, NEA, CTA, etc.) claim that paying schools which are run by parochial organizations is an obvious violation of the statute. They say that they are afraid that the children will be "indoctrinated" in religious matters. Any person who reads knows that the children are indoctrinated in the schools every day. And, it is extremely apparent, not normally to the good. We will leave that one to a future article.

First of all, the United States Government is not giving the money to the schools. It is giving the money to the parents. It is not trying to undermine the public school system, it is attempting to improve it through competition (which might be a good idea for many other governmental organizations on all levels, but that is another story).

To make a long story short by means of comparisons, let us look at another Federal and (at least here in California) State program. It is called Medicare/Medical. This program, using public money, pays for the treatment of the ill and injured in hospitals. Especially those such as the poor and elderly who cannot afford to avail themselves of such services out of their own pockets. Now remembering the necessity for the separation of church and State, let us figure out where we are going to send a woman who is in the throes of labor to receive medical assistance in delivering that child in a healthy and safe environment. We must remember that there is supposed to be this absolute separation between church and State. The period of which I speak is that period in which the Medicare and Medical programs were first instituted and the situation as to health care at the time. And I shall stick to the County of Los Angeles since I am most familiar with that area.

Okay, so we have her in the ambulance. We are going to take her down the road a very short space to St. Mary's Hos.. No, can't send her there, too Catholic. So we will perhaps send her to California Luthera.... No, that won't work either. Did I hear something about the separation of church and state?? So maybe we should send her to Hollywood Presby.... Blast!!! Skunked again. Queen of Angels? Little Company of Mary Hospital down by LAX in Torrance? The Hospital of the Good Samaritan downtown? Seventh Day Adventist in Glendale? I know! We are down to few choices and the contractions are increasing in intensity, but we cannot be found mixing church and State even with the inherent risk to the health and perhaps life of the mother and child if we do not get her to competent health care quickly. That would be a crime. We are left with two choices, I guess. County/USC Medical Center, or the French Hospital because we most assuredly would not want to send her to Cedars Sinai out in Hollywood or Temple Hospital (where God knows, they might have rules about requiring a bris for all live male births) in the Silverlake district. Well folks, bad news again. The French hospital was started by Nuns, and the University of Southern California was originally instituted and funded by the Presbyterians.

And where were the screamers who were demanding the "Constitutionally mandated separation of church and State" when Medicare/Cal when it was being passed? So silent? They were anything but silent. They were demanding the program. They just "forgot" that it is religious institutions which have built almost all of the hospitals and other medical facilities which exist in this Country. Perhaps they recognize that when it comes to health care and life/death situations religion and the Constitution do not matter because one of the lines in the Founding documents is "LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." What sort of "life" is it going to be for a person who is poorly educated, even illiterate? Besides, it might be one of these whiners who require such services so, because they would benefit, it becomes all right to "shave" the Constitution a "tad" (if you go for their original contention of ABSOLUTE separation) to serve THEIR momentary purposes, desires, and needs?

So may we assume that this only counts with these critics in "certain" situations which they can "pick and choose?" And this is not less of a question when we speak of morals. It has been well said that, "morality is not negotiable", and "Just cuz it's legal don't make it right." As an example, although it is illegal in this country, there are places where women are denied jobs, promotions, etc. because they are in the "child-bearing years". It never was right. The shame is that a law (The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended) needed to be passed in order to make that which is "immoral" also "illegal". That goes double for denying a person a job because they are over 40 years of age. That also required a law, the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act".

Okay, as you can see, this is a very parochial (there's that word again) example. However, as previously stated, perhaps the reader will forgive the author for using something which might be seen as only locally applicable in the interest of seeing how the rules are "manipulated" on a daily basis by those who see them as merely tools of their own political ends and desires and use them not as absolutes and guidelines? This statement is made by the writer because I believe that thinking persons will look at their own surroundings to judge their own situations in light of this sort of cogitation.

Now, taking the "plunge" and freely admitting that this last is very parochial because I believe that there are questions which those who live in the United States should be pondering. Last question. "What is more important to a healthy child than a top-flight education?" Even if we did give funding directly to these parochial/private schools? What would be wrong with at least assisting with the payment of teachers for the "hard" sciences? (Chemistry, Biology, (Paleontology so that the students can better understand the good Sisters who are teaching them) Mathematics, Medical courses like anatomy, and physiology) but I digress. Bottom line; this issue, and hundreds like it, is/are too important a consideration to be mucked up by a bunch of idiological garbage. Some matters need to rise above "convenience" or "issues". Our education system is in dire straits. It needs not just help and "fixing" it needs a major overhaul and perhaps a whole new perspective. It needs responsible persons running it. Not idealogues with agendas with which they wish to indoctrinate innocent children. And please, no more "experiments". We have already wasted billions on those. Too long have the inmates been running the asylum, unaccountable because they hold off "civilians" (read: non-educators) by claiming that only they have the education and expertise to deal with the children. I seem to remember that in our history a lot of children learned how to read and write a whole lot better than they do today, like Mr. Lincoln, without a whole bunch of fol-de-rol and "programs". It is time for "real" people to take hold and do the necessary, stripping out the real core education and tossing the non-germain to the trash heap where it should have been relegated long ago, irrespective of how onerous the task might be.

Perhaps some future time we should talk about the serving of "Creed-compliant meals to the Muslim prisoners down in Guantanamo or the Chaplains in the Armed Services, the Congress. And the fact that every President I have known in the past four decades called upon the Rev. Billy Graham for spiritual advice and counsel. Talk about a violation!!!!!!! But these people know that they cannot get away with demanding it YET. This is called "creeping incrementalism".

vurdraak@pacbell.net

Opinion Piece # 10

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE ll

Click to Read

Home / List of Topics