2007 Ontario Election: John Tory throws the Election!

[scarberiankhatru]

No offense but Catholics and Christians in general want EVERYONE to be exposed to their religion. They put so much effort to converting the "heathens."

In my personal experience, when a Bhuddist marries a Catholic, the Catholic or the Catholic's family will ask the other to convert. I've seen it happen it so many times. The reverse is never happens.

I also got a few calls from Christian organisations promoting their church or Bible study or whatever. It just sad they use telemarketers to promote their religion. The other religions don't do anything like this. I've even had coworkers try to convert me to Christianity, giving me a copy of Awake or Jehovah Watchtower or whatever. Shit, Christians will even go into a Muslim country in the middle of war and try to convert them, like those Koreans in Afghanistan.

Remember residential schools? Modern Catholic schools aren't nearly as bad or course, but it has much the same purpose.

Ahh! That explains why only kids with baptismal certificates can get into Catholic elementary schools! It also explains why the high schools don't teach any hardcore Catholic religion - the Catholic kids already know the basics and the non-Catholic kids don't care. If Catholic high schools exist to convert heathens, they're doing a miserable job. They're just out to convert you, doady...you.

99% of the time, a Catholic would ask their fiance to convert solely to appease the grandparents...perhaps there are Catholics would would demand it for themselves, but I've never met one. I've only met several thousand Catholics, though...not enough for a good sample.

Osama bin Laden tells the Americans he doesn't kill to embrace Islam.

 

[theman23]

I get the impression that this religous school idea has not been thought through very well. The average immigrant to Canada comes from a place where religion plays an extremely important part in daily life, and the concept of being taught religion in school is something they are used to. What are the chances any of them will send their children to secular schools if the alternative is sending them to a religous school "for free"? I imagine not very many will. And does the $500 million price tag include the inevitable increase in schools and enrollment? Does it take into account that religous school staff might expect to be paid public school salaries if they are expected to meet the same requirements? It doesn't seem like it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Due to 'rite flight', some public schools would see their enrollment decimated and would be forced to close or merge.

 

[Chuck]

Either all religious schools should be funded, or none should be funded. I honestly don't care which option is chosen, so long as all religious schools that meet the requirements of the provincial curriculum are treated equally. I will not support parties that have discrimination as a core value.

I also think that the argument that "it's been this way since 1867" is ridiculous. If we used that as an argument for other equality issues, it would mean that women would still not be voting, homosexuality would still be illegal, and non WASPS would be excluded from running for parliament. How is this any different?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

It might boost equality but it will trigger irreparably damaging segregation.

 

[gibsonm]

Relax About the Funding

I find the commentary in this thread on Tory's proposal to fund religious schools alarmist in the extreme. Faith-based schools make up less than five percent of the student population in Ontario. Parents who feel strongly enough about their respective religions to have their children educated in a separate faith-based school will do so whether or not they are publicly funded, except perhaps parents who genuinely cannot afford to do so.

The Catholic school system isn't going anywhere soon, partly for historic reasons going back to the founding legislation of Ontario, and partly because the Catholic population is so high here. If Catholics are going to retain their separate system, then the right to have public funding should be extended to all faith-based schools for the sake of fairness and consistency. The United Nations has slammed Ontario for its inconsistency, and this wrong should be righted.

As a Catholic teacher in the secondary system, I can tell you that Catholicism is taught in the Catholic system, and students of all religious backgrounds are warmly accepted and respected. Information is provided about all the major religions (and a lot of smaller religions) in grade 11 World Religions. I teach this course. Students are always encouraged to think for themselves and to question. Ideas have their own power of influence.

Having said all that, it is absolutely true that students are taught Christianity in Catholic schools throughout elementary and secondary. Students attending elementary are required to have a baptismal certificate from any Christian denomination, and yes, the teaching could be called "programming." I have no illusions that parents choose to have their children educated with their own values or lack thereof as they see fit. Think of all the hang ups parents pass on to their children regardless of the parents' orientation to religion. Many Catholics believe their values are important and that their children should be raised with them, just as many Jews, Muslims and atheists feel their children should be raised with values similar to their own.

It would be foolish to say that Catholic schools don't teach much religion. They do, and as a Catholic, I believe that they should. Otherwise, what would be the point of having them? I know many people from other faiths feel just as strongly about their own schools. So you see, if you try do dismantle the Catholic system, you will have guys like me to contend with. Scary, huh? And there are millions of them in the province. If Catholic schools aren't going anywhere, shouldn't members of other faith-based schools be afforded the same public funding?

Finally, I want to say that I attended both a Catholic high school and a public high school, and I found the Catholic school more accepting of people of other religious backgrounds. I remember bringing a cleric of a Hindu sect into a World Religions class to do a presentation when I was a student at the public high school. He was treated by the administration as an embarassment. The principal was worried about him handing out information to students about Hinduism and corrupting them. He even shouted, "Get him off the property" in front of his face. It was quite disgusting.

I believe very strongly in religious freedom as one of the cornerstones of our constitution. I felt that when France brought in the law banning students from wearing all religious symbolism at school, this was an infringement on a human right. I also think it was a backdoor measure used to get at the high Muslim immigrant population, who are the religious group currently most identified by their dress. Xenophobia is not uncommon in France.

Also, only two provinces have gotten rid of their Catholic school systems: Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. In fact, British Columbia and Alberta publicly fund faith-based schools. There has not been a collapse in either education or the economy.

As long as Ontario teachers follow the curriculum, I don't know why we can't have the same funding solution here. I respect John Tory for taking a principled stance on an issue that clearly won't make for a windfall of votes at the ballot box.

 

[Hydrogen]

The Catholic school system isn't going anywhere soon, partly for historic reasons going back to the founding legislation of Ontario, and partly because the Catholic population is so high here. If Catholics are going to retain their separate system, then the right to have public funding should be extended to all faith-based schools for the sake of fairness and consistency. The United Nations has slammed Ontario for its inconsistency, and this wrong should be righted.

The legislation can - and ought to - be changed. It has been changed in Quebec, where there was - and is - an overwhelming nominal Catholic population (regardless of practice).

Why should religions be in the business of schooling? Religions have their rights enshrined in the constitution, they have their institutions, houses of worship, and so on. In recognition of that fact, public schools are the necessary place in which the young are brought together in recognition of the common ground necessary for a successful pluralist civil society.

Plato was the first to point out that education is politics, and what we do with our educational system is a reflection of our politics and attitudes towards society as a whole.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I find the commentary in this thread on Tory's proposal to fund religious schools alarmist in the extreme.

But it's the internet, alarmist commentary is de rigueur.

 

[Hydrogen]

I find the commentary in this thread on Tory's proposal to fund religious schools alarmist in the extreme.

Maybe you could explain how the commentary is alarmist in the extreme?

It would be foolish to say that Catholic schools don't teach much religion. They do, and as a Catholic, I believe that they should. Otherwise, what would be the point of having them?

That's what church is for. We don't live in an exclusively Catholic society, and there is a necessity for bringing all all members of a pluralistic society together at a formative period in life in order to provide common education and socialisation for that society. Religious education is too often wielded as a means to indoctrinating the young to stand against common attitudes or practices of society at large, and not leading them to an understanding of those things. Strong language? Yes, but spend some time talking to some people promoting faith-based education and it quickly becomes clear that part of its rationale is to reject many aspects of an open and diverse society. That should be something of a concern.

 

[gibsonm]

The legislation can - and ought to - be changed. It has been changed in Quebec, where there was - and is - an overwhelming nominal Catholic population (regardless of practice).

Why should religions be in the business of schooling? Religions have their rights enshrined in the constitution, they have their institutions, houses of worship, and so on. In recognition of that fact, public schools are the necessary place in which the young are brought together in recognition of the common ground necessary for a successful pluralist civil society.

Plato was the first to point out that education is politics, and what we do with our educational system is a reflection of our politics and attitudes towards society as a whole.

I couldn't agree more. Education is absolutely political, and it is very important to many religious people to educate their children with religious influences. Don't get me wrong, there absolutely must be common curriculum and standards; however, if you think that devoutly religious people think it is advisable to separate religious teachings entirely from education, I think that is a bit like saying religious individuals should live part of their lives as religious people, like on Sundays or at home out of public view, and rest of their lives as people for whom religion has no influence. I get that this is a perspective derived from secularism and ideas like the separation of church and state. I understand that a democracy cannot and should not be a theocracy. However, if a politician simply checks his or her values and beliefs at the legislature door, what does that say about the authenticity of values/beliefs? The same applies to students attending school.

I say all this realizing that one either thinks religious education of some form is acceptable, perhaps even valuable, at least for those who choose it, or that it should not be part of education full stop. But education comes in many forms from many sources. Religious people tend to raise their children with religion and might want it provided in some form at school.

If the position is simply that public funds should not be used for faith-based schools, my response is that those who can afford it will buy it, which simply means that only the poor lack access to a religious education of their choosing.

A "successful pluralist civil society" protects rights, including freedom of religion.

 

[Hydrogen]

But education comes in many forms from many sources. Religious people tend to raise their children with religion and might want it provided in some form at school.

How about their house of worship?

Religions are about difference; my point is that there is a necessity for all members of society to be brought together as a means to reflect and engender the polity at large. There can be no respect, or even tolerance, without a common and equal ground for all members of society to be involved in. When people speak of religion, they tend to speak of content exclusive of non-practitioners. They do not view that religious content as content, but as a natural fact of that person. Yet no one is born religious.

Since you mentioned it, the ideals of secular education in this country generally view education as a normative concept whereby a person is introduced to worthwhile practices and activities by way of morally legitimate procedures. Today, these practices and values tend towards recognizing plurality regardless of its source. Secular education does not exclude religion; it just does not recognize its exclusiveness in life - which is exactly what many religious schools aim to promote.

 

[gibsonm]

How about their house of worship?

Religions are about difference; my point is that there is a necessity for all members of society to be brought together as a means to reflect and engender the polity at large. There can be no respect, or even tolerance, without a common and equal ground for all members of society to be involved in. When people speak of religion, they tend to speak of content exclusive of non-practitioners. They do not view that religious content as content, but as a natural fact of that person. Yet no one is born religious.

Since you mentioned it, the ideals of secular education in this country generally view education as a normative concept whereby a person is introduced to worthwhile practices and activities by way of morally legitimate procedures. Today, these practices and values tend towards recognizing plurality regardless of its source. Secular education does not exclude religion; it just does not recognize its exclusiveness in life - which is exactly what many religious schools aim to promote.

I think there is a public perception of "exclusiveness" in religious education, and I guess that any members of organizations can be accused of exclusivity, whether or not it is warranted. Faith-based schools are attempts at placing a greater emphasis on religious life for people who share a range of beliefs. I say range because, while there are usually at least some common perspectives, there may be a great divergence of beliefs. Students don't get booted out of Catholic school if they suddenly proclaim they are atheists. Students of religious schools exchange ideas with society at large, but they may bring certain shared perspectives to their participation in social institutions.

While I appreciate the clarity and civility of your comments, I do think there are certain assumptions behind "morally legitimate procedures" that everyone brings to the discussion, whether or not the participant brings a religious persective. I guess the difference for me is that in a Catholic school I feel I can be more expressive about my religious perspective, and I appreciate that right to be involved in such a system. Please remember that I have attended public school as well.

No one is born with any systems of belief about anything. They are developed experientially. I think that, no matter which school someone attends, there absolutely has to be a minimum common curriculum that exposes all students to a wide variety of knowledge. This exists in Ontario. Indeed, publicly funding faith-based schools is a way of ensuring they adhere to the curriculum. I also think that such schools should have an open-door policy to students wishing to enroll, and dialogue should always be encouraged between religious and non-religious citizens. There are already countless opportunities for this.

I guess in the end, some see religion and education as mutually exclusive. I personally would find separating education from religion a denial. Education is about formation, and for me, religion is part of that formation.

 

[The Mississauga Muse]

I can't think of anyone I really wanted to become mayor last time out. Hazel's already got a job.

Hi there, Lone Primate,

I'm curious. What do you know about Hazel McCallion?

And a related question. What do you know about Her Mississauga? (specifically how it's structured and run).

 

[Hydrogen]

While I appreciate the clarity and civility of your comments, I do think there are certain assumptions behind "morally legitimate procedures" that everyone brings to the discussion, whether or not the participant brings a religious persective. I guess the difference for me is that in a Catholic school I feel I can be more expressive about my religious perspective, and I appreciate that right to be involved in such a system. Please remember that I have attended public school as well.

Of course there are operative assumptions, its whether those assumptions are legitimate or not in terms of how they can be analysed with respect to the society at large. Let's not forget that religious schools, and religions in general, operate on many assumptions as well. Living in, and perpetuating, a society that values openess, free expression, diversity and other values that are used to express what it holds as important, may not find an easy fit in the framework of exclusiveness and moral righteousness that all too often are the hallmarks of many religious beliefs.

 

[gibsonm]

Living in, and perpetuating, a society that values openess, free expression, diversity and other values that are used to express what it holds as important, may not find an easy fit in the framework of exclusiveness and moral righteousness that all too often are the hallmarks of many religious beliefs.

I would say that "openess, free expression, diversity and other values" are very much alive in the Catholic system. I also think you have to be careful in ascribing a "framework of exclusiveness and moral righteousness" to people with religious beliefs. People generally think that their own opinions are correct, religious or anti-religious. In terms of "exclusiveness," no one is excluded from adopting the beliefs and practices upon which membership in the school body is based.