OCR Text |
Show SUnAdv.c...(Q)pOnDOgil Should we fund private schools? 4A Wednesday, May 5, 198E ANDF0RTHIS, WE'RE DENIED OUR SCHOOL PRACTICES RACIAL D1SCRI1UI01I TAX EXEMPT BECAUSE IT'S STATUS., RARTOFOUR Although President Reagans supporters want to dispel the idea that he is a president for the rich and privileged, he persists in doing things to perpetuate the notion. The latest example is his recent announcement that he supports tax credits for parents of children in private or parochial schools. Reagans plan would grant a tax credit (not a deduction) equal to half the private school tuition, up to $100 in 1983. The allowable credit would be raised to $300 in 1984 and $500 FAITH AND REU610US BELIEFS, thereafter. Parents making up to $50,000 yearly would be eligible for the credit, although those making more than $75,000 would not qualify. program would cost an estimated $100 million the first and $1.5 billion by 1987. It is puzzling that the president year would even broach the subject in light of a federal deficit of more than $100 billion. The philosophy behind tuition tax credits is that parents of children in private schools are subject to double taxation when they are required to pay taxes to support private schools. As Utah Education Association President Betty Condie has pointed out, the same logic could be used to argue that private swimming pool owners should be exempt from taxes that support public swimming pools. Despite its deficiencies, the public school system has helped us lead the world in technology and our standard of living. concept Compulsory public education is a arising from the inability of the private sector to provide equal education opportunities for everyone during the early days of our nation. Private schools, on the other hand, have traditionally catered to a select few on such bases as religious affiliation, political belief or income. Some are guilty of racial discrimination and other practices inconsistent with American ideals. While Reagans proposal would exclude such schools, it would be difficult to require schools to meet other standards of quality and equity in the absence of strict governmental regulation. If todays public schools are diminishing in quality, it is due to a lack of funding as much as anything else. Quality teachers are entering more lucrative professions and school districts are initiating double sessions because they lack physical facilities. In a day when federal outlays for education are being cut in half, now is not the time to ask taxpayers to subsidize private education. The time-honor- MEAN, BEAR, ACROSS WELL HAVE ID BURN.., ed Gun Control Act- needs shot I ER...I GUESS IT'S JUST 192 Cfl Service a jack andersonespear Egyptian ties may be weakening - WASHINGTON The Reagan administration is worried about Egyptian President Mubarak. State Department and White House officials are afraid hell move Egypt away from the United States and Israel and snuggle up to the other Arab states and the - in arm What the United States doesnt need is an escalating domestic arms race. Thats what it is going to get, though, if the gun lobby has its way. The gun lobbyists are pushing a bill to make it easier for criminals and crackpots, husbands anyone to get a handgun who want to get rid of their wives or wives who want to get rid of their husbands, neighbors, with a grudge against their and harder to get convictions of those neighbors, and so on who violate a much weakened Gun Control Act. Thats what will happen if a majority of the Senate the Judiciary Committee has its way. On a vote of 13-committee approved the bill which, among other things, would lift prohibitions on interstate guns sales, eliminate licensing and records-keepin- g requirements for many small dealers and allow citizens to import firearms from abroad. The bill, sponsored by Sen. James McClure (R., Idaho) and Rep. Harold L. Volkmer (D., Mo.), is called the Firearms Owner Protection Act. What the United States really needs is an act to protect citizens against the handguns that are used in around 10,000 homicides every year and in numerous accidental deaths. How many presidents and policemen and citizens have to be gunned down before the Congress gets that message? Nm Soviet Union. . Because of this, the administration is putting heavy pressure on Congress to increase military and economic aid to Egypt. In other words, the White House is hoping to buy Egypts allegiance with greenbacks. Last week, the State Department sent two under secretaries up to Capitol Hill to lobby members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The two envoys from Foggy Bottom were Lawrence Eagleburger and James Buckley. The Pentagon has also been having its errand boys knocking on doors of influential members of Congress. And even the Egyptian ambassador, Ashraf Ghorbal, got into the act. He called Congressman Bob Shamansky, personally to try to talk him out of his opposition to the io, Egyptian aid increase. Un- fortunately for the ambassador, he had to cut the call short to take a call from Cairo. still opposes the aid Shamansky package. long-distan- What all the uproar is about is a aid package of more than $2 billion. This may not seem like such a big deal in terms of past expenditures for foreign military-econom- aid. ic But the Reagan ad- ministration has cut domestic programs sharply, and many members of Congress cant see why Uncle Sam should be so openhanded to a foreign country. Thats why the White House has felt it necessary to unleash the old Soviet bogeyman. The administration apparently figures it can scare Congress into voting for the Egyptian aid package. There are two things that bother Congress about the proposed in crease in aid to Egypt. One is that it would be in outright grants, the administrations in aid to Israel increase proposed would be only for loans. The other objection is that Egypt wastes the military and economic aid its already getting. For example, some critics complain that Egypt uses aid money from the United States to support state subsidies on such products as gasoline. Over the long run, critics of aid to Egypt are afraid weU turn the country into another Iran by flooding it with money it doesnt need and doesnt know how to spend. whereas 3, castle country obS6PV6P Churches have rights, too By SCOTT LLOYD Staff Writer You would think Steve Heide had burned down the Castle Dale Stake Center, judging from the consequences of his editorial of two weeks ago. In fact, some readers may have been more merciful had he done that instead of writing his commentary. Heide is the irrepressible new editor of our sister newspaper, the Emery County Progress, and he seems to thrive on con- troversy. In his April 21 house editorial, he upset many members of his predominantly Mormon readership by questioning the propriety of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-da- y Saints taking a stand on the Equal Rights Amendment. Charging that the church ignored the constitutional stand on church and state, Heide wrote: No church should try to press its views on its members political beliefs. Lovers of free agency will balk at any such attempt.... Response was substantial if predictable. Although some letters to the editor were responsibly and articulately written, many exhibited the frenzied emotionalism which the church itself tries to avoid whenever it chooses to respond to critics. One reader wrote a scathing letter to publisher Robert L. Finney, apparently hoping to jeopardize Heides job. In a follow-ueditorial, Heide sought to clear the air: A number of our readers felt I had insulted all Mormons. That was never my intention. The gist of the comment was a call for church leaders, no Sun-Progre- ss p matter what denomination, to separate themselves from politics. Clearly understanding Heides viewpoint and sympathizing with his efforts to promote thought and discussion, I must still take strong exception to his editorial. There is no justification for denying church leaders the First Amendment freedoms we all enjoy. Separation of church and state does not mean what Heide and a host of others think it means. The expression is not found in the Constitution, yet it has become a buzz term which unfortunately has caused more misinterpretation than derstanding of that document. The Constitution provides un- that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If you study the Constitution in its historical context, you realize that the intent of the founding fathers was to avoid evils of European systems wherein citizens were forced to pay allegiance and taxes to established state churches. The drafters of the First Amendment wanted to ensure that a diversity of religions would flourish in the new world, free to promulgate their doctrines on matters both theological and practical. Frequent references to deity in the nations early documents contradict the premise that the nations founders felt churches should keep their mouths shut on matters of government. And it is that very notion which has made many religions irrelevant to the needs of todays society. Those who believe in God look to their churches to provide a code of moral behavior and guidance in living. It is surely within the province of a church to speak out on any event religious or secular which bears on its doctrines. A religion failing to do so is derelict in its duty. If you cant accept the pronouncement of your religion, you are free to shop around for one which is more to your liking or to reject religion altogether. Heide would contend that some churches are influential enough to control the minds of their members. I think that is being a bit dramatic, but even so, labor unions and other interest groups also possess powerful influence. Does Heide think the United Mine Workers should keep quiet on nonlabor related issues? Heide correctly points out that some Mormons have accepted their churchs stand on the ERA without bothering to evaluate it on its merits. But many disciples of Gloria Steinem, Betty Freidan and Bella Abzug have displayed the same dogmatism. is not exclusive with members of churches. In an age of vacillation I applaud the Mormons for taking clear stands on ERA and the MX missile system and the Catholics for taking a stand on abortion and human rights. Although I find some of their methods reprehensible, I even applaud the Moral Majority churches for taking a stand on pornography. And I hope we stop forcing our churches into tacit acceptance of everything we choose to do in the name of freedom, progress or pleasure. Narrow-mindedne- ss |