Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
I need some clarification. Did the Supreme Court conservative majority just decide that any government official, including themselves, cannot take a bribe in hand before awarding a contract or a ruling but that it's perfectly fine to take one after the contract or ruling has occurred? ("Part of anti-corruption law struck down," June 27.) Does this mean a Supreme Court justice can decide in favor of someone who comes before him and, once accomplished, it's OK to be rewarded with luxury gifts? Does this mean the Supreme Court, or my mayor, or my state representative, or my senator, can reward their friends as long as it's a kickback, which is somehow different from a bribe? This appears to be the case, according to the Supreme Court's minority vote against this ruling. But I just can't believe that I'm reading it right.
I need further clarification. If this is truly the case, how did this story end up on page 6 and not on page 1?
Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake
RELIGION IN SCHOOLS
Substitution is no solution
A writer on June 23 weighs in on Louisiana's decision to post the Ten Commandments in public schools while missing the point and asserting dangerous subtext. He suggests the Old Testament commandments are obsolete. According to his "fundamentalist" preacher father, the new law is simply "to love." Substituting the language of one religious tradition for another, however, is no American solution. Besides, we can all list how a fundamentalist Christian might qualify who gets "love" and in what ways. The real issue is the state establishing any religion. No preacher, especially a fundamentalist one, should be writing on school walls. Leave schools to civic and inclusive values like equity, justice and community.
The writer then adds — whether intentionally or without awareness — something that smears the Jewish religion without directly naming it. Characterizing the religion as being "from the Bronze Age" and "rooted" in animal sacrifice, the subtext is clear: Judaism is barbaric. This is unfair and untrue. Is animal sacrifice more barbaric and obsolete than the human sacrifice he mentions, central to the Christian faith? Here's how barbaric the New Testament story can sound: A virgin woman is chosen and then impregnated by an invisible mystery man. Her son ends up betrayed, tortured and sacrificed in a gruesome civic execution that he, too, didn't choose. His body is then ritually, and literally in some Christian sects, eaten and his blood drunk. Ultimately, these good people are rewarded and people not following the new "law" are condemned to terrible and eternal torture. Sounds barbaric, doesn't it? Any subtext is intended.
Thomas Carlson, Minneapolis
SUPPORT FOR FAMILIES
Illogical to return to Minnesota
My parents have recently come to visit me, my husband and my bouncing baby boy here in our new home Down Under, in Perth, Australia. I grew up in Minnesota and have good things to say about the state (though I must admit it's nice not having to wake up early and shovel the driveway here in Western Australia!). My family back home tells me only good things about Minnesota, hoping, I am sure, to lure me back to the North Woods. And, honestly, moving back to Minnesota wouldn't be a tough sell for me. I have fond memories of pontoon rides, neighborhood block parties and winter sports. I would be happy to raise my son there. I know the public schools are decent, the housing market isn't as crazy as other parts of the country, and there are employment opportunities for me and my spouse.
But why would I live in the states, even the great state of Minnesota, when I could live somewhere with access to free health care for myself and my family? Six months ago I had a C-section and five-day hospital stay completely free of charge. My son's medical needs (including dental!) are free. And, the kicker: My husband and I were able to access 20 weeks of paid leave through the government. Every couple here making less than $350,000 per year can access this paid leave. The government wants you to bond with and care for your new child.
I'm writing because I have heard and read about the falling birthrates across the world. And, as I sit here "nap trapped" on the couch under my sleeping baby, I shudder to think that I would have missed the happiness of becoming a parent had I stayed in the U.S. I doubt I would have been able to afford to be a stay-at-home mom, and I don't wish to send my baby to a day care center before he can walk or talk or eat solid food. I write to the Star Tribune because I have heard that Gov. Tim Walz recently made public school lunches free for children in my home state. And that's a step in the right direction. But I think that more can be done. More support for families and children can be offered. The tax rate here in Australia is on par with the tax rate in America. And yet, I have been blessed with access to far more personal benefits here in my new country.
Do I miss America? Of course. Do I miss my parents and siblings and aunts and uncles, and the smell of pine trees, and hearing the cries of loons and rat-a-tat of woodpeckers, and clear sunny days at the State Fair, and hearing that gosh darn Minnesota accent? You betcha. But until I'm done having and raising children, I don't think moving back to Minnesota is a good choice for my children, or my bank account.
Alexandra Perkins, Perth, Australia
EDUCATION
Charters complete the picture
My dad served as a K-6 elementary school principal for 30 years. Our family was an education family. Dad taught us that "education is the silver bullet." He taught us this in the 1960s, much sooner than it became more widely known.
When it was time for me to raise my own daughter, which I did from when she was three days old, her health was No. 1 and her education was No. 2.
She attended Marcy Open School, a Minneapolis magnet open school, from K-6. Students there spoke 27 languages plus English. The curriculum focused on art, critical thinking and an interdisciplinary, multicultural education.
After she finished sixth grade there, we joined several families and became a founding family of Great River School in St. Paul, a Montessori secondary charter — then, one of six in the U.S. and Canada.
She attended Great River from grades 7-12 and had an extraordinary experience. As she looks back and chats with Dad, my daughter had the very best education I could have imagined for her.
I served on the Great River board and saw how charters are the innovation in the U.S. educational system and how curriculum can be shaped to meet student needs. [Opinion editor's note: Education has been a recent topic of these pages, including the most recent "Parents of color can make good decisions about their children's education," from June 27.] My daughter and I gave many family tours of GRS and the highlight for families was that student lockers had no locks — a statement of the GRS culture.
My daughter's education exceeded expectations. I support the Minnesota school system, especially charters — a jewel in the crown.
