Evening star., 1961-08-11
Church-Stote Debate

dCIVe Oe1auSy on bk1e alQ-LO-
parochial-school issue re-
quire comment. He is re-
ported to have used the
words "in terms Of shibbo-
leths and slogans such as the
separation Of church and
state" The principle Of
separation Of church and
state is no shibboleth or slo-
gan but a vital principle Of
our Constitution which was
written to prevent the kind
Of dissension and bitterness
that has resulted from the
current drive Of the Catholic
Church to obtain public
funds for her schools. This
principle has worked well for
the United States. Said Lord
Bryce in his American
Commonwealth" in speaking
Of the separation Of church
and state in America, "Of all
the differences between the
Old World and the New, this
is perhaps the most salient.
Half the wars of Europe,
half the internal troubles
that have vexed the Euro
pean states have arisen
from theological differences
or from rival claims Of
church and state. :"
Let Congressman Delaney
consider the dissensions and
troubles that aid to parochial
schools has produced In ma
tionS like Holland, France
and Belgium. Let Congress-
man Delaney consider the
case Of Mexico where, after
years Of corrupt and tyran-
nical governments with an
established church, the state
now refuses to let the church
conduct parochial schools.
The experience Of the
United States in maintain
ing a free nation would seem
to indicate that the control
Of education should be in the
hands Of the people. Since
our government, both local
and Federal, is the mecha-
nisrn by which our people
control their affairs outside
the personal and private
realm, why shouldn't that
same mechanism be used to
control the education of their
children? Why should any
American want to take the
control of secular education
out of the hands of the
people?
The state provides both
educational facilities and
police protection for its citi-
zens. Let those parents who
wish to send their children
to private schools do so, but
let them pay for it Just as
those who desire extra and
private police protection pay
for it.
Lester L. KimbIe.
Representative Delaney
feels that Federal aid to
public schools, exclusively.
will be "the first long step in
the direction of rigid uni
formity, which is the thing
we are striving to avoid"
Does he feel that our public
schools, the schools supported
by our taxes and attended
by the majority Of our child
rem, now turn out carbon
copies? No first-rate educa-
tional system ignores the
varied needs Of its pupils, and
If this is what the Repre-
sentative feels our publicly
supported schools are now
doing 1t is only an argument
for immediate financial aid,
Federal or local, to correct
a tragic misuse of our Amer
lean youth.
Representative Delaney will
not g.. vote to legislate dis
elimination" Discrimination
against whom? If my child
ren attend a private school
it is because I feel they will
be better educated there and
because I can afford this.
Is it democratic for my
neighbors and friends, who
may not be as financially
fortunate as I, to help pay my
children's bills? I would Ger
tainly like to say ''yes," but
I cannot honestly do so. Their
money should educate their
children in the public schools
they attend. My children may
attend parochial schools, this
is their right as American
citizens, but I cannot expect
my neighbors of other de-
nominations to help instruct
them in my beliefs. This is
the duty Of parent and
church-not state.
Z. J. G.