Allowing Prayer sessions during school time

[nfitz]

I doubt you can list any significant changes that have occurred in Islam over time.

Given how differently Islam is practiced throughout the world, how can their NOT have been significant changes over time! I lived in Indonesia for a while ... no shortage of drinking and drugs there. Plenty of intermingling.

The same rules exist for Christians and Jews. Few obey them ...

Of course part of the problem with Islam, and all these religions, is this faith in existence of a higher power ... which has to be one of the most absurd ideas mankind has ever come up with.

I really don't see the point of maintaining any of these Abrahamic religions ... they've long outlived any usefulness they had ... and merely divide society, instead of uniting it.

 

[GenerationW]

I think the majority of Ontarians would want to abolish the separate school system. It's just a matter of finding the political will to do so.

Whoever introduces that first in their platform has got my vote!

Of course part of the problem with Islam, and all these religions, is this faith in existence of a higher power ... which has to be one of the most absurd ideas mankind has ever come up with.

I really don't see the point of maintaining any of these Abrahamic religions ... they've long outlived any usefulness they had ... and merely divide society, instead of uniting it.

Always good to hear from Joe Stalin.

 

[nfitz]

Whoever introduces that first in their platform has got my vote!

That was in the Green Party platform for the last election.

Always good to hear from Joe Stalin.

Comparing to Hitler is considered bad form ... but comparing to Stalin is okay !?!?!?

 

[js97]

This thread is exactly why there should be a clear and defined separation of church/state/public education.

1. There should be no public funding for religious schools (catholic or any other school system).

2.Islam is a rigid religion(sometimes). Their claim is that the doctrine has not changed in 2000 years, unfortunately the same convictions that have kept it popular also greatly conflicts with modern values of most Canadians. But the fact that come concessions have been made from their rigid doctorine, (Islamic banking) shows that there is opportunity for progression, is a good sign.

Allowing 'prayer' time (of any denomination) on public property, during school time, the TDSB is essentially exercising the public facilitation of a religious teaching. One that no matter how it's interpreted, still results in women being relegated to being second tier citizens (minor symbolic gestures do count), is intolerant to homosexuality, and is very explicit about limiting freedom of speech (opinions that contest islamic teachings), should not be allowed on public property.

I know many 'moderate' Muslims that believe the religion is out of date and needs to change with the times. Unfortunately, these are the same ones that do no speak out publicly in their community.

Making concessions and exceptions are inevitable, but that should be a two way street. A 'show' of good faith would be to have the prayers, outside of school time, and a more inclusive and gender-neutral agenda.

Unfortunately those 'concessions' are likely not to be made (i'm hoping it will though). So that is why I don't believe tax dollars should be supporting these sessions. Have it in private place, in private time.

p.s. Insisting having 'prayer time' during school hours, taking children away from their educational experiences is by no means in the best interest of these students.

 

[toraerach]

OK.....let's straighten some stuff out here...

First off...........their is a constitutional obligation to pay for catholic schools; and only those, based on the compromises that led to Confederation (the BNA Act 1867)

As noted....those laws were made not so much to protect religion as language.

At the time; all English Schools were protestant.

Most French schools were Catholic.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Public funding for Catholic schools in what is now Ontario was spearheaded by the Anglophone Bishop of Kingston in the early 19th Century. After the Act of Union, the Catholic legislators of Canada East used their clout in Parliament to expand guaranteed funding to Catholic schools in Canada West. During the run up to Confederation, it was the Irish Catholic Archbishop of Toronto (John Joseph Lynch) and Thomas D'Arcy McGee who championed Catholic schools in Ontario, eventually enshrining the status quo into the Constitution. Essentially, whatever denominational rights to educational funding existed before Confederation would continue afterwards. It was a court case launched in 1925 in the almost entirely Anglophone Simcoe County that won Catholics the right to funding for grades 9 and 10 (though higher grades were not awarded funding because there was no precedent for them pre-Confederation). While many Catholic schools in Ontario were for the French community, it is probable that post-1850 (and the influx of famine refugees), most Catholic boards were set up and run by/for English-speaking Irish Catholics.

Since Protestant schools were also funded at the time of Confederation, general Protestant school boards are also protected. There is only one, in Penetanguishene.

Now for those who wish to know, Quebec, Newfoundland and others, specifically got Constitutional amendments (approval req'd federal approval and the province in question only); to abolish this system and merge all boards as non-religious English and French.

To the best of my knowledge, Ontario is the last large province to have this division.

There was a clear consensus in Quebec; and in Newfoundland a referendum to make the change.

There are still separate schools (both Protestant and Catholic) in Alberta and Saskatchewan, though they've never been quite as popular as in Ontario. I believe only about 40% of Alberta is covered by a separate school board - less in Saskatchewan.

Anyways.............

On the merits of this particular issue.............

A) I would prefer to abolish the Catholic system

B) I have no time for 'accommodating' religion at the expense of social rule.

I would agree on abolishing the Catholic system. It served its purpose at one point when it was the only alternative to forcing Catholic students into a Protestant system, but they're no longer necessary or desirable.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "social rule." This hasn't caused anarchy at the school. It hasn't even solicited a single complaint from the student body or parents. It's a solution that's worked to solve a problem and it has the support of the community, the board, and the teachers. Who is this harming? And, if it's not harming anyone, why not allow this three-year old practice to continue and let the people in this community decide for themselves what is best for them?

I could care less what people think, do on their own time, prefer, wear, blah blah.

But....we should not have to overhaul the way social institutions operate for any group, minority or not.

This program has been going on for three years with full community support. The "overhaul" here would be forcing it to end to satisfy outsiders who think Islam represents, in and of itself, some kind of threat to our values. History will hopefully judge these outsiders the same way it's judged those who once thought Catholic processions through downtown Toronto represented some sort of Papist threat to our freedoms.

 

[Ak2809]

This program has been going on for three years with full community support. The "overhaul" here would be forcing it to end to satisfy outsiders who think Islam represents, in and of itself, some kind of threat to our values.

This does not make it any more right. Secularism in our public institutions IS one of our values, and any religious interference regardless of which religion it is threatens that.

History will hopefully judge these outsiders the same way it's judged those who once thought Catholic processions through downtown Toronto represented some sort of Papist threat to our freedoms.

I'm not sure how this relates to this issue.

 

[toraerach]

This does not make it any more right. Secularism in our public institutions IS one of our values, and any religious interference regardless of which religion it is threatens that.

I suppose I just think inclusion is a more important value.

 

[GenerationW]

That was in the Green Party platform for the last election.

Until and unless the Greens have a hope in heck of winning, it has to be a mainline party.

comparing to Stalin is okay !?!?!?

It's okay with me, and isn't that what really matters?

 

[js97]

I suppose I just think inclusion is a more important value.

Even if it results in including values that are intolerant of the current social norm? Sharia Law included?

 

[Tewder]

I don't understand how the separation of church and state/school is non-inclusive? All are invited to leave their religious stuff at the door and be educated, inclusively... and this notion that a religion cannot or will not change is disturbing to me. Sorry.

 

[adeel]

I don't have any issue with a group being able to get a room in a public facility to carry out whatever they want as long as (a) the room was available, (b) the laws of the country are followed, and (c) the rules of school board are followed. The reality is that many things people believe in are based on tradition and things there is no solid evidence of. If people want to believe Americans didn't walk on the moon, fine. If people want to believe some guy magically made water turn to fermented grape juice, fine. If people want to believe an invisible and immeasurable being of which there is only one in the universe spoke to a guy, fine. As long as public money isn't paying for people to be taught religion and conspiracy theories in public schools I am good with that. Wear whatever you want, go nude if you like, believe whatever you want.

I find the need to split male and female washrooms outdated. How screwed up are we that we can't trust the other half of the population to share the same room when going to the washroom, but the other half the population it is completely OK even though you don't know them? I have to accept that I'm not going to convince most people that the idea of splitting washrooms by sex is an illogical way of thinking.

If someone goes into the cafeteria and isn't disruptive and gets kicked out because (a) they are a girl, (b) they are menstruating, or (c) not born into a specific population that is where I would have an issue because clearly the public school is meant to be public and should have the laws of the country applied to it and not the rules of a religion. However if that group wants to spell out who their target audience is without it being enforced I have no issue with it. If people want to have a Chinese Students Association then great, but if non-Chinese can't join then I have a problem with it. I only accept that religions can create rules which are discriminatory when those rules are applied inside a church, synagogue, mosque, etc because it is property owned by that group and like any private property the owning group can decide who comes on the property and who does not and the rules that are being applied on their private property are not new rules created in spite of current laws, they are rules that have existed before the current laws of non discrimination existed.

People believe in things that aren't logical and it is something we all need to accept. I will go buy a lottery ticket sometimes, but logically that is money very poorly spent. I admit that sometimes I am self-conscious with my appearance in a group of people who I don't know, don't need to know, and have nothing to gain by impressing and that also makes no sense. Human beings aren't fully evolved yet and some cling to beliefs from long ago. Many of those beliefs made a lot of sense in the time they were created and brought order and law to populations, protected people from eating meat that in times prior to refrigeration would have been more dangerous than other meats, made people less selfish in their actions (although with the threat of consequence maybe not so much in reality), etc. As long as we keep teaching people to think, action and reaction, math, science, etc and keep people with different beliefs alongside each other in peace I think our population will evolve to be more sensible and that is a good thing. I think having a large group of Canadians not grow up alongside other Canadians in harmony is a greater risk to our future than accepting that a group might believe in some things that others do not. It is only when a belief is put into action against the rights of those who do not share that belief that we need to be concerned and make sure measurable rights aren't being taken away from one group to solve an immeasurable negative impact to another group.

Great post. Couldnt have put it better myself.

Given how differently Islam is practiced throughout the world, how can their NOT have been significant changes over time! I lived in Indonesia for a while ... no shortage of drinking and drugs there. Plenty of intermingling.

The same rules exist for Christians and Jews. Few obey them ...

Of course part of the problem with Islam, and all these religions, is this faith in existence of a higher power ... which has to be one of the most absurd ideas mankind has ever come up with.

I really don't see the point of maintaining any of these Abrahamic religions ... they've long outlived any usefulness they had ... and merely divide society, instead of uniting it.

Thats not really an example of the religion changing, but of muslims, rightly or wrongly doing things contrary to religious requirements. That they arent following a certain rule doesnt mean all of a sudden its something about the religion has changed.

 

[ssk]

Thats not really an example of the religion changing, but of muslims, rightly or wrongly doing things contrary to religious requirements. That they arent following a certain rule doesnt mean all of a sudden its something about the religion has changed.

Then, in accordance with your semantic distinction, I'll say: 'Muslims, and people all religions for that matter, should reexamine what rules they follow or don't follow'. e.g. both Christianity and Islam say some horrible stuff about slavery, but, I don't know any Canadians from either group who agree with what their books say on that matter.

That said, I disagree with the distinction you raised. What you said applies in theory, but we live in the real world. In a descriptive sense, religion is what people make of it. Islam has plenty of room for interpretation (if there wasn't, then there wouldn't be all these scholars debating major points and minor technicalities over the centuries) and whatever collection of beliefs emerge from different interpretations is a form of Islam.

 

[adeel]

Making concessions and exceptions are inevitable, but that should be a two way street. A 'show' of good faith would be to have the prayers, outside of school time, and a more inclusive and gender-neutral agenda.

Unfortunately those 'concessions' are likely not to be made (i'm hoping it will though). So that is why I don't believe tax dollars should be supporting these sessions. Have it in private place, in private time.

p.s. Insisting having 'prayer time' during school hours, taking children away from their educational experiences is by no means in the best interest of these students.

The five Prayers are time sensitive in Islam. The main Friday prayer can only be done within a certain time frame. In the winter time this tends to fall in the lunch/after lunch time period (its a non issue only in the summer when the days are long and the 'lunch' prayer runs into the late afternoon/early evening. Unfortunately you cant really concede by praying at a different time, as the prayer is invalid if not at the right time.

 

[adeel]

Then, in accordance with your semantic distinction, I'll say: 'Muslims, and people all religions for that matter, should reexamine what rules they follow or don't follow'. e.g. both Christianity and Islam say some horrible stuff about slavery, but, I don't know any Canadians from either group who agree with what their books say on that matter.

Im not sure to which horrible thing you are specifically referring. If I have it correctly, slavery is permitted under two conditions. It is permitted, but it is not obligatory to have slaves under certain conditions, unlike how it is obligatory to not eat pork.

So its not about what to follow and what not to follow. There are certain things that are required (praying, fasting, avoiding pork among other things). There are other things are that are ok but looked highly upon (smoking), then there are things which are absolutely forbidden (drinking, praying if menstruating etc).

 

[imperfect]

Why do we have to endure the repeated explanations of what Islam is and is not - these Islamists are always explaining their theology.............either to extol its' superiority or to explain the parts of the religion that we non Islamic people find abhorrent, distasteful or just plain outrageous.

I remember that Osama put the SLAM in Islam and that the mullahs refer to Christians and Jews (as well as Hindu's) as the descendants of apes and pigs.......................and we barely hear the Islamists renounce this filth..............understandably, since the modus is to kill those who dissent.

NO SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP including Feminists