Evening star., 1961-03-12

The proposed bill concern
ing Federal aid to education,
which President Kennedy
supports, grants aid only to
public schools. According to
the Presidents view, 1t would
be unconstitutional to grant
aid to religious schools. AS
you know, the Constitution
states: Congress shall make
no law respecting an estab-
lishment Of religion or pro-
hibiting the free exercise
thereof" II the proposed
bill is passed. it viii impede
religious freedom because it
means that poorer people will
be economically forced to
send their children to State
schools that exclude religion
from the curriculum, thus
implying, in the child's mind,
that religion is Of no or little
Importance. AS we know, In
the USSR, religious schools
are forbidden to operate.
This is totalitarian and un-
democraticl Is there any Diff
ference between excluding re-
ligiouS schools from society
or making 1t economically
impossible for people to send
their children to existing re-
ligiouS schools? There Is no
difference! Those who sup
port church schools should
not have to pay Federal Gov
ernment taxes to support
State schools. It has also
been stated that religious
minded people are "free" to
attend public schools, thus
implying that no ones free
dom Is violated by the pro-
posed legislation. Let us re-
member that this Is Soviet
thinking. After all. people in
Russia are "free" to attend
state controlled schools but
not religiously oriented
schools.
How can we solve the prob
lem Of granting money to
public schools without direct
ly granting financial assist
ance to religious schools?
This can be done by allowing
a special tax exemption for
those who desire to send their
children to religious schools.
Another solution would be an
extension Of legislation sim
liar to the CT Bill Of Rights
to the lower level Of educa-
ton. If the Government can
grant money directly to stu
dents attending both sectar-
ian and State colleges, then
it is also constitutional to
grant money for students to
attend high school or gram
mar school. In this way, no
money Is granted directly to
religious institutions. Let the
parents decide what school
the children will attend. After
all, public schools can charge
tuition when they know that
the Federal Government is
appropriating money for the
students education.
Jeremy s. Jackson.
It is evident that the
Catholic Church is now mar
shalling its forces for an all
out effort to obtain some
share Of any forthcoming
aid-to-education bill for its
own parochial schools, in de-
fiance Of the Constitution
and Of President Kennedy.
This effort may succeed, as
1t did in the somewhat SIM
liar case Of the Barden bill
in 1949. with the end result
that either desperately need
ed Federal funds will not be
provided to any schools or
else the long established
principle Of separation Of
church and state will be sac
rificed to political expedi-
ency.
Much Of the church's pos
ition is founded on an al
legged discrimination against
parochial school children by
any Federal aid program
confined to public schools,
and on emotional variations
Of this theme. From the
viewpoint Of the children
attending parochial schools,
who do not have any voice
in the matter, 1t is true that
they will suffer by being de-
prived Of the benefits Of such
a program. Indeed, all of
us, the Nation as a whole,
suffer in some degree when
ever any of our children are
not provided with effective
education or are forced to
forgo such educational OPP
porturiity as is offered them.
In the case of the paro-
chial students, however, it
it perfectly obvious that any
deprivation Of FedQmal aid