Catholic school funding 4

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist

Perhaps the Catholic Church is due for the Nobel Peace Prize and a few human rights awards?

Or perhaps you could recall that the topic of this thread is not to determine whether the Church is the worst or the second-worst abuser of human beings in the history of the world.

Rather, the purpose is to determine whether it is possible to institute a wholly non-confessional public school system in Ontario, hopefully without offending against the individual freedom of every Ontarian to believe in and practise their faith.

Fidel

remind wrote:

Oh, say it isn't so Fide,l that you would dare bring up this note, in long ago history,  as if the Catholic Church did not have 100's of years of the blood of 100's of thousands, at least, of innocent women/people on it's hands.  Say nothing of the Crusades, nor indeed of the 1000 years of heretic killing prior to formalizing it the Inquisition and witch hunts. Notwithstanding, is today's continued desire om the part of the Catholic Church to control and oppress women, and indeed all others.

 British monarchs killed millions over several centuries. They menaced with war at least two other European countries at any one time and caused endless misery. Their reign was brutal and bloody. British monarchs were deliberately cruel at the best of times and mass murderers when trying extra hard. Right brutal and bloody bastards they were. And when the Church didn't agree to Henry marrying more than one woman, he had them murdered anyway and ordered destruction of the monasteries. For too long people suffered extreme human rights abuses and amazing cruelty under brutal British imperial rule. Crusades my arse. It was about real estate grabs for royalty. When the knights lost to the Arabs, blue bloods soon turned their backs on the hirelings.

Fidel

And you can quit with dredging up history of the Church to the exclusion of their royal masters, if it's not too much trouble, please and thank you. Everyone was obligated to get along with insane and inbred bluebloods and their genetic baggage ruling the roost for centuries, and the Church was no exception. According to you people there were no megalomaniacs giving the orders and commanding empires in those days, just evil monks and priests who made life somewhat bearable for the desperately poor until Henry and centuries of enclosure. Bloody Liberals and their exclusive private property laws are the root of all evil today.

Unionist

Fidel, there are no High Anglican public schools in Ontario today. That problem is solved. The issue now is to get rid of the Catholic public schools. Focus, please.

Fidel

Trade Unionist wrote:
The issue now is to get rid of the Catholic public schools.

Why? Fiscal prudence? Efficiency? To come full circle, a complete mirror image of the imperial master nation, USSA? You're a stooge for big box privatization jackals and neoliberalisation of the commons? Neoliberalism is falling down around our ears, TU. You must try harder. Focus with everything youve got and lay it on the line for us. Go!

 

George Victor

Supercilious means assumption of contemptuous indifference or superiority.

What I said was look at what is happening on the ground. Take a sort of empirical peek around and see if there is evidence of a movement building AMONG SEPARATE SCHOOL SUPPORTERS  for amalgamation. It was a different tack. It does not make me contemptuous of mainstream thought, just practical.

You might decide that, logically, and for good historial reasons (Henry VIII aside) that it should happen. But if the separate school ratepayer is happy with what is happening to the kids, I don't believe logic will move her.

When asking for a "code of conduct" I am trying to "make it better" here. Whole ranks of new babblers emboldened by a code that protects them.

And perhaps you mssed my point in an earlier post, that Quebec solved two  things with elimination of Catholic schooling. In Quebec, the class-biased classical schooling provided  the opportunity for separate and superior education. The upper middle class must now depend on public education at all levels. Money does not buy the best.

But I perhaps stick my neck out on that one. I'm all ears ( my reason for being here is to learn. I'm not afraid to ask questions that expose vast holes in my knowledge).

 

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

 But if the separate school ratepayer is happy with what is happening to the kids, I don't believe logic will move her.

Well, whether people whose religion is funded by public tax dollars are "happy" about that or not is not the prime consideration, is it?

 

Fidel

Taxpayers? Is rabble infiltrated by CTF whackos and Harper drones?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Trade Unionist wrote:
The issue now is to get rid of the Catholic public schools.

Why? Fiscal prudence?

No.

Quote:
Efficiency?

No.

Quote:
To come full circle, a complete mirror image of the imperial master nation, USSA?

No.

Quote:
You're a stooge for big box privatization jackals and neoliberalisation of the commons?

Yeah, that's it, you got me.

Actually, in case you've had a hard time reading my posts, Catholic public education should be abolished even if that were to cost more, be less efficient, and downgrade the overall quality of education.

It should be abolished because: 1) our public schools should not be segregated on the basis of religion; and 2) society's common resources should not be used to line the pockets of priests and rabbis and imams by enabling them to cultivate disciples at public expense.

It's simple, really. It's a matter of principle, so basic that you don't even have to be a socialist - just a humble democratic-minded person - to support it.

It's coming to a school near you. Better to try to shed your Catholic school upbringing and welcome the future with arms open rather than with heels dug in.

remind remind's picture

Fidel wrote:
And you can quit with dredging up history of the Church to the exclusion of their royal masters, if it's not too much trouble, please and thank you. Everyone was obligated to get along with insane and inbred bluebloods and their genetic baggage ruling the roost for centuries, and the Church was no exception. 
 
BS and feathers, there is too much indicating history otherwise, perhaps you should read some?

Pope Leo X  was for instance a de' Medici as were other de' Medici. Royal second sons and other redunadant royals went into the Catholic Church for a reason.

Quote:
The Medici family was a powerful and influential Florentine family from the 13th to 17th century. The
family produced three popes (Leo X, Clement VII, and Leo XI), numerous rulers of Florence (notably Lorenzo the
Magnificent, patron of some of the most famous works of Renaissance art), and later members of the French
and English royalty. Like other Signorie
families they dominated their city's government. They were able to bring
Florence under their family's power, allowing for an environment where art and
humanism could flourish. They led the birth of the Italian
Renaissance along with the other great signore families of Italy like the Visconti and Sforza families of Milan, the Este of Ferrara, the Gonzaga of Mantua, and others.

The Medici
Bank was one of the most prosperous and most respected in Europe. There are
some estimates that the Medici family was, for a period of time, the wealthiest
family in Europe. From this base, the family acquired political power initially in Florence, and
later in wider Italy and Europe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medici

This should also help dispell the delusion should you choose to read it.

"Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy:
Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200"

Quote:
Pope Saint Leo III (died June
12, 816) was Pope from 795 to 816. Protected by Charlemagne from his enemies in Rome, he
subsequently strengthened Charlemagne's position by crowning him as Holy Roman
Emperor.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_III

Pope Innocent III born Lotario de' Conti di Segni was born in Gavignano...His father was Count Trasimund of
Segni and was a member of a famous house
that produced nine popes, including Pope Gregory IXPope Alexander IV (1227–1241),
(1254–1261) and Pope Innocent XIII (1721–1724). His uncle
was Pope Clement
III
(1187–1191), and his mother, Claricia, belonged to the noble Roman family
of Scotti.

Pope Innocent IV, born Sinibaldo Fieschi, belonged to a feudal family of Liguria, the Fieschi, Counts of Lavagna.

Pope Martin V  belonged to one of the oldest and most distinguished families of Rome. His brother Giordano became Prince of Salerno and Duke of Venosa, while his
sister Paola was shortly
lady of Piombino in 1441-1445.

Pope Benedict XIII, belonged to the de Luna family, who were part of the Aragonese nobility. Born to Ferdinando III Orsini, duke of Gravina, and Giovanna Frangipani della Tolfa,
from Toritto. He was a member of the
Orsini of Rome, the third and last member of that family to become
Pope.

The Orsini family was one of the most celebrated princely families in
medieval Italy and renaissance Rome, and which, in former times, had large possessions in
Hungary. Members of the Orsini include
popes Celestine
III (1191-1198), Nicholas III (1277-1280), and Benedict XIII (1724-1730),
numerous condottieri and other
relevant political and religious figures.

Pope Clement VII  He was the son of Amadeus
III, Count of Geneva

Pope Boniface VIII  was the younger son of a minor noble family, the Caetani Family

Pope Clement VI  the son of the wealthy lord of Rosiers-d'Égletons.

Pope Pius VII,
born Count Barnaba Niccolò Maria Luigi Chiaramonti,

 Pope Saint Gregory VII belonged to the noble Aldobrandeschi family.

See where I am going with this Fidel, royalty and  the Catholic Church were completely interconected historically, I could go on and on listing the Popes connected to royalty. They sustained one another. Take the dust out of your eyes and see truth.

 

 

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Fidel

Therefore every priest and monk who ever worked on behalf of the Church must have been cozy with European royalty? Perhaps some but certainly not all. Vows of poverty were taken seriously by very many. I've never once said anything about admiring or worshipping Catholic Popes. There is a right wing of the Church for a long time.

The Medici family were simply part of the thousand year-old Venetian-Dutch-Anglo banking system of usurous money lending. Italy is where banking began. The Medici's were viewed as somewhat enlightened stewards who financed artistic endevours and expanding trade. But they also loaned money to European royalty who made sport of warring with other inbred blue bloods and murderous cutthroats,  who at some point in history or another demanded everyone refer  to them as nobles and royalty. Charade they were. But it was the Genoa bankers who gained a notorious reputation for being greedy and vicious speculators.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

It's simple, really. It's a matter of principle, so basic that you don't even have to be a socialist - just a humble democratic-minded person - to support it.

And when we achieve advanced democracy in this country, I would gladly accept the dictates of a true majority consensus on this and other more important issues. Right now Bates McGuilty has 22 percent of registered voter support giving him absolute power by a 19th century electoral system, except when it comes to dealing with issues of national concern. Are you so concerned about democracy as to realize that anything this government legislates is rule by diktat of the few over the many? Just imagine the choices that could be listed on a referendum:

Separate School funding? yes or no

Billion dollar tax cuts for those who don't need them? yes or no

Electoral reform revisited? yes or no

As we can imagine, this democracy thing can be a dicey affair for would-be phony majority dictators. Just how much democracy should be extended to working class slobs is the real dilemma. The corporatocracy is relying on them to fill the trough.  They dont give a damn about democracy or a lousy few million bucks for separate school funding. Better to let sleeping dogs lie is their way. In fact, they want as little to do with voters as possible considering what happened to cock of the north Petersen in 1990 and this vote distorting electoral system.

Quote:
It should be abolished because: 1) our public schools should not be segregated on the basis of religion; and 2) society's common resources should not be used to line the pockets of priests and rabbis and imams by enabling them to cultivate disciples at public expense

But youre on the wagon of fiscal responsibility again. Stop funding arts and culture, too? Where does this crazed villager nonsense end? We could save a lot more money if the feds went after unpaid and deferred corporate income taxes and white collar crime. 

 Think big money, and where is it bleeding from and to like a river. What about duplication of provincial and territorial bureaucracies 13 times over? Canada has more government per capita than the U.S. Does every country with a relatively small population need to do this?

Do we really need to spend $50 million bucks a year on the "red chamber", that expensive shady pines for retired hacks of the two old line parties who show up for work a few afternoons every year and collect gold-plated pensions after that? I resent those thieves a lot more than separate schools for the kiddies receiving pretty good educations as a general rule.

Quote:
It's coming to a school near you. Better to try to shed your Catholic school upbringing and welcome the future with arms open rather than with heels dug in.

I happen to like who I am imperfections and all. My upbringing is a part of me I can not shed nor would I want to. You can go get stuffed for that comment.

George Victor

u:

Well, whether people whose religion is funded by public tax dollars are "happy" about that or not is not the prime consideration, is it?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to imagine the strange assemblage of political events that would have to be cobbled together to make that mom  "unhappy" , u. Or her thoughts on the matter becoming irrelevant - in the face of a history of religious sickness raised again to importance for contemporary decision-makers - resurrected as if it somehow meant something more than diddly squat in the face of today's questions confronting a "ratepayer" mom.

Aren't you again cherry-picking in hit and run fashion to steer discussion/debate around an uncomfortable  "reality"?

Unionist

George, why don't you take a stab at writing more simply so that people like me can understand your meaning?

I'd like to respond, but I'm not sure what you said.

janfromthebruce

 I have been away for a couple of days. But one thing I would like to know, if how many posters have actually had children in schools recently. Or stepped in side a school recently. 

Why I ask this, it appears that some folks are talking about their elementary school experiences from  - my goodness - how long ago. It makes me very concerned that folks are bringing in their old prejudges and experiences which are not a part of school today. This is 2008 folks, not 1946, not 1950s, the 60s and so on. Do you even have children???

The focus should be about "kids in desks". And as for the notion that "80%" of the costs are related to teachers salaries well that is bogus. 

Another thing, and this is a reminder to brother Cassidy, the province, like the rest of Canada has been experiencing a zero population growth for over 10 years, even with immigration. In Ontario we have lost over 90,000 students since 2000 in both public and separate school systems. The overall trend is down even in large urban centres. Only Durham and perhaps Peel is experiencing growth, but futuristically the trend line is an overall decrease. 

I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide "everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in Ontario.

 

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

George Victor

Thanks for returning this thread to the real world of parents and kids, jan.

But do you really think that this:

(quote)

I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide "everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in Ontario. "

is going to fly anywhere????????

Are there not any polls indicating the rate at which Catholic moms would go for integrated schooling?

I'm trying to simplify the point to aid understanding out there in babbledom so that I can respond to this gem: "Well, whether people whose religion is funded by public tax dollars are "happy" about that or not is not the prime consideration, is it? "

I had offended by saying that " if the separate school ratepayer is happy with what is happening to the kids, I don't believe logic will move her."

So, again, thanks for reasserting that parents,the educational opportunities facing their children,  and their financial situation "matter". 

 

And your observations on the apparent legitimacy of a return to the lurid historical events that moved the Orange Order in the past are much appreciated jan.

 

But can we really speculate on amalgamation in this fashion without evidence of how ALL feel about it? I submit that, given the intensely complex variety of cultural boundaries across Ontario, it won't happen? Bruce County is a page from the past itself, in its cultural simplicity.

 

Unionist

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide "everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in Ontario.

You're suggesting publicly-funded religious instruction - for Catholics and other faiths? Or did I misunderstand?

This would be different from John Tory's proposal... how?

riffraffrenegade

I am new to babble so please go easy on me. I don't have the keenest mind. I am not a great writer nor am I a public speaker. This takes me so far outside my comfort zone but I feel I must fight this fight for my children and grandchildren.

I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic elementary & high schools in Montreal in the 60s & 70s. There were two sets of first generation Canadian English Protestant parents in our neighbourhood who, once we started school, would not let their children play with us. Five year olds knew that our parents' behaviour was wrong, my parents' behaviour just as much as theirs because they dug their heels in rather than letting the kids sort it out themselves. We had to run to school and run the gauntlet of Protestants kids who would taunt us and throw stones/snowballs or whatever.

I experienced the segregation of children based on both religion and language. I experienced riots in our French/English Catholic high schools which led to separate busing of French and English language students and finally to separate schools.

We moved to Ontario in 1978 and I attended Glengarry District High School in a small town, Alexandria, ON. Everybody was there together; all faith groups and none, French-speaking and English-speaking. What an incredible experience. Now, since funding was made available for shiny new French Catholic and new French secular schools and funding was extended to shiny new English Catholic high schools, that amazing secular high school and the public schools that feed into it are crumbling, half empty and barely viable. One is slated for closure.

My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children. I understand why French speaking Canadians needed their own schools and why they have a right to those schools. I respectfully disagree that Catholics have that right carved in stone, nor do I believe that they should continue to receive that privilege. Catholics are no longer oppressed and in many ways have become the oppressor.

I know all the words to "The Wearing of the Green" and "Hail Glorious St. Patrick" as my elementary school principal, Mr. O'Flaherty, organized an annual full day St. Patrick's Day pageant complete with Mass. (I didn't wonder, until recently, just how this went over with the many students in my school who were French, Italian, Portuguese, and Filipino-Canadians.) I know my Irish history well. One of the crucifixes in my home is a St. Brigid's cross. I know that my Scottish ancestors, "Papist thieves" all, were "cleared" from the highlands of Scotland.

I do not see One School System as an attack on my faith. If you were to attack my faith, even though my children go to a secular school and even though like 85-95% of North American Catholics I am non-practicing, you would get my back up. This is not an attack on faith. It is a call to end outdated privilege, end the divisiveness within our communities and a need for quality public schools in our cities and our small towns.


And it is for these reasons, Jan's reasons and more, that I say Ontario NEEDS One School System.

 

George Victor

quote:

"My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children."

-----------------------

In fact, I find it hard to think of any reason that justifies it.

Now, how do we get there?

And your input here is indeed most welcome. Experience is important. Speaking for the future of one's children and grandchildren is important.  A leavening influence when rhetoric becomes high blown. Smile

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

quote:

"My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children."

-----------------------

In fact, I find it hard to think of any reason that justifies it.

Now, how do we get there?

 

How did Ontario get from one single secular public high school to two in the 1980s?

How did Ontario institute Grade 13, then abolish it?

This is not a big mystery, George. Riffraffrenegade, the poster you praised, shared this experience:

Quote:
Now, since funding was made available for shiny new French Catholic and
new French secular schools and funding was extended to shiny new
English Catholic high schools, that amazing secular high school and the
public schools that feed into it are crumbling, half empty and barely
viable. One is slated for closure.

They had a single high school, then created several - one of which is failing.

Suggestion: Go back to the single school they had before.

I know it sounds radical, risky, even astonishing. But that's what I think I hear riffraffrenegade saying.

I suggested a 10-year project, whereby no new students would be enrolled in public religious programs, but those now there would be permitted to graduate.

If that's too slow to solve the problem, then do it the way they did in Québec and Newfoundland.

What exactly is the problem?

janfromthebruce

"I think that providing religious instruction, where there is sufficient
community interest, either within and or outside the school day (for
any group) would provide the Catholic community, as well as other faith
communities the "equal" and "equitable" opportunity to provide
interested children and their parents accomodation and thus provide
"everyone choice"  within a publicly funded unified education system in
Ontario. "

is going to fly anywhere????????

Are there not any polls indicating the rate at which Catholic moms would go for integrated schooling?

I'm trying to simplify the point to aid understanding out there in babbledom.

And your observations on the return to the lurid historical events that moved the Orange Order in the past are much appreciated."

If one was to look at the Vector survey (OSSTF, 2005) Catholic school parents, like their public school parents, when asked in order of preference of value in choosing one school over another for the children when asked this question: "Please tell me which one is most important to you if you were choosing a school for your child," responded thusly:

The quality of teaching staff: 50%

The range of courses and programs: 13%

The school is close to home instead of having to travel: 12%

The school has religious instruction for the children: 14%

One has to take note of the very small percentage of Catholic School parents (14%) that indicated that the availability of religious instruction was the most important factor that they considered when selecting a school for their children. The focus should be on the quality of public education. 

I am presently doing a critque of the OSSTF study done in 2005, as there were many flaws of the study. One thing it didn't focus on was the phenomona of declining student enrolment, nor the fact that 4 school systems in overlapping geographical areas serve and compete for the same student population and thus missed that when comparing it to amalgamation of like school boards serving different geographic areas. It also did not consider the cost savings for reinvestment when whole buildings are removed. Remember, our school infrastructure had been greatly neglected over the past 20 years and the overall lack of capital investment in repair and mainetance in these public buildings (which many are old) requires a great infusion of "cash." We also need to build schools for future consideration of oil being $500.00 a barrel and thus building eco-friendly buildings that will last alot longer than when we use to build schools (thinking about the environment - global warming - and ecological footprint). Right across this province we have school busses taking kids by schools that they should be able to attend to further distanced schools,  due to "funding 4 separate systems." Some of these kids could become walkers again, some would have a lot shorter bus trips, and the environment would become the overall winner, along with kids all going to school together, in a system were one puts "kids first" and "quality of programmings" first. 

I also would suggest that if survey participants were asked today about  "the importance of the "local community school," it would receive a much more higher rating, as "school closures have greatly increased since 2005. A moretorium on school closures was lifted in the last 3 years, and thus there has been rapid succession of closures and with lots more to come in the next couple of years. 

I just want to insert here that although most school boards want to build eco-friendly schools the upfront costs are just prohibitive and we don't get enough money from the province for this to happen so if we are going replace these old buildings we end up replacing with ones that - in the long run - are not at the level of environmental friendliness or sustainability. Once again, the costs of propping up 4 separate systems is bad for the environment.

I think that if "kids were at the centre" of this "debate" they would be providing the "adults" with very different priorities, and environmental sustainability would be very high up on their list and all the ramifications that would proceed from the goal, along with the elimination of user fees and fundraising for "extras" that are not frills but are the underpinning of a well-rounded quality education system that provides well-funded quality programs.  

 

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Unionist

Jan,

If you missed my question upthread, I'll repeat it - I'd very much appreciate a reply:

Quote:

You're suggesting publicly-funded religious instruction - for Catholics and other faiths? Or did I misunderstand?

This would be different from John Tory's proposal... how?

 

janfromthebruce

 unionist, you asked me a question re "religious program instruction". I think that this could be a pragmatic approach as it provides all faith groups (where there is enough community interest" to provide space use within our community school buildings "equal opportunity." I didn't suggest that we would pay for it out of public funds, but as public buildings all groups in communities have a right to use our buildings. No one would be given a priority but all would be welcomed, and thus inclusive. 

Likewise, if just say the humanist society wanted to offer an afterschool program, and there was enough community interest, they could do so. 

In school, boards would provide a world religion course - as part of the curriculum. Again, the curriculum could include a segment related to groups who do not espouse any religious beliefs. 

 

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

janfromthebruce

 Unionist, to be clear, the province and board would NOT be providing the curriculum but would be allowing the use of space for "public use" of "public buildings." Everybody should be able to use school buildings outside of the school day. 

I have to go but I will read the posts later tonight. Thanks for everybody being considerate and respectful. 

 

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Unionist

Thanks, jan. I think I misunderstood when you talked about religious instruction "within and or outside the school day".

As I've mentioned before, after a 10-year transition, Québec stopped permitting optional religious courses and instituted a mandatory "ethics and world religions" course (which was already available as an option). This course is mandatory in all schools, including private ones.

George Victor

And may I be as insistent as yourself, u, in requesting a reply to a question:

Was not Quebec a special case in that it had majority Catholic public and a special case against the church ? The protestant had nothing to protest.(I saw it in action in Sept.-Iles and in conversation with young guys with young families, 1959-61).

And did not the upper middle class attend schools where the Jesuits taught classics (James English's bio on Trudeau) , so that the secular transition was also a blow to class privilege? Two birds with one agnostic rock, so to speak?

Keep it polite if you answer, please. Love the calm, acid-free back and forth so far. Keep demanding clarity.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

I have demanded clarity all along, George. Most of us are all about it, so your volunteer moderation isn't really necessary, thanks. Please feel free to make a passive aggressive comment about my lack of civility, though. I couldn't really care less.

A much more sincere thanks to riffraffrenegade for his first contribution here. In one post, you contributed more than many have with dozens. 

Unionist

George Victor wrote:

Was not Quebec a special case in that it had majority Catholic public and a special case against the church ?

It's still 85% Catholic, and the Catholics and Protestants and Jews and everyone else agreed that religious instruction has no place in public schools. I'm not sure what you mean by a "special case" against the church. This change took place in 1998, some 35 years after the Quiet Revolution. The Church's overt influence in politics and society was long since defunct. This was a matter of modernizing the school system.

Anyway, Newfoundland did the same thing in 1998, and Catholics are a minority. You can try to find a "unique" explanation for each case. But what's wrong with just looking to the principle? Religion has no more place in public schools than in public hospitals.

Quote:
And did not the upper middle class attend schools where the Jesuits taught classics (James English's bio on Trudeau) , so that the secular transition was also a blow to class privilege? Two birds with one agnostic rock, so to speak?

Not sure what you mean. The upper middle classes still attend private schools, including Brébeuf College. So I guess the answer to your question is "no".

Quote:
Keep it polite if you answer, please. Love the calm, acid-free back and forth so far. Keep demanding clarity.

I have yet to see one of your posts which doesn't contain such a veiled attack. What precise purpose does it serve to carry on this campaign? I have exhorted you to just state your views and stop insulting and attacking individuals here, as well as babble in general. I'll reiterate that now.

Fidel

riffraffrenegade wrote:
My childhood taught me that one should bloody well have a good reason for segregating children. I understand why French speaking Canadians needed their own schools and why they have a right to those schools. I respectfully disagree that Catholics have that right carved in stone, nor do I believe that they should continue to receive that privilege. Catholics are no longer oppressed and in many ways have become the oppressor

But there were no shortages of reasons for segregating whole nations of people onto reserves across Canada for a long time. The "crown" and their wealthy land speculating friends had no intentions of ever giving it back. First Nations people are still looking for land claims settlements in Ontario where they own somewhere around one percent or less of the total land. We should laugh a derisive laugh at false "concern for children" expressed by our two stale old line parties who have an historical hand in Canadian apartheid and the poverty experienced by First Nations through today. As unionist once said in an unrelated thread for discussion, This "children" bullshit has to stop. Please, let's at least be serious about whose concerns are addressed with making a business of school funding.  

remind remind's picture

Sealed

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

riffraffrenegade

 

I fail to see how Canada's deplorable treatment of First Nations people justifies Ontario continuing its discriminatory practices wrt Catholic school funding and hiring.

OK, let's get serious about whose concerns are addressed with making a business of school funding.

Last month, I attended the Ontario Association of Parents in Catholic Education's Regional Forum "The Future of Catholic Education" at Regiopolis-Notre Dame, Canada's Oldest English Catholic High School. The turn-out was poor for a regional forum addressing the Catholic school system's very survival. I would estimate about 30 parents max after I separated out presenters, clergy, trustees, and teachers. And many of the parents there had children in the band which performed at the forum. The band almost outnumbered the audience.
The keynote speaker, a Sister Clare Fitzgerald from Boston College, made it clear that Catholic parents don't seem to see the value in Catholic faith-based education and suggested that Catholic parents do not want to appear uncanadian by lobbying to maintain their "right" to Catholic education. She confirmed that the vast majority of parents choose Catholic schools for, what parents perceive to be, superior academics and discipline.
They had a panel "Working Together to Strengthen Catholic Education" where reps from OCSTrusteeA and OECTeacherA talked about having "nailed Michael Prue to the wall" for even suggesting this should become an ONDP leadership issue. I guess they wanted to leave Prue's actual crucifixion to the ONDP membership.

 

 

Fidel

And as tens of thousands of living wage jobs and billions of dollars in wages hemorrhage from Ontario's economy under Whig and Tory helmsmanship - or rather a lack of it - old ethnic and religious tensions become fertile ground for fiscal Frankensteins to make their case for less is more and ruthless efficiency, once again. Little red schoolhouse conservatives and their friends in the Liberal Party tend to slither out of the woodwork when tax cutters beat the war drums.

Unionist

Thanks, RRR, for bringing some sanity to this discussion. And don't worry about the tangents. You seem to be learning quickly how to sidestep them.

 

Fidel

Yes we've got monsters to lynch and taxes to cut for the sake of democracy and some other ideas more noble than our own ulterior motives. So let's get on with it!! We need a tree and some rope!!

Unionist

On second thought, maybe we should postpone educational reform until we have licked climate change and achieved peace on earth.

Merry Christmas!

riffraffrenegade

Yes, Fidel, those ethnic and religious tensions are old, worn out and irrelevant to most Ontario Catholics under the age of 45.

In 1973, a Queen's U. at Kingston History professor, Donald Akenson, wrote Education & Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland. Akenson is quoted in the Queen's Alumni Review May 19, 2008 Volume 82, Number 2: "I didn't see how segregating kids [by religion] from age three or four to at least age 18 could produce anything but enmity".
Akenson's work provided a catalyst for a small group of youth and parents in Belfast who in 1974 got together to start planning for the first integrated school in NI. They opened their first school, Lagan College, in Belfast in 1981 and opened three more in 1984. (Just about that time, Bill Davis decided to extend Ontario Catholic School funding to grade 13.) Today, that small parent group has evolved into the Northern Ireland Council on Integrated Education. Michael Wardlow, NICIE's director, tells me that Akenson's work remains a seminal text in the study of integration ethos. NICIE now has over 60 integrated nursery, elementary and secondary schools throughout NI. Parents have been willing to mortgage their homes in order to make this happen. This past fall, NICIE had to turn away 700 students.
As I said to Mr. Wardlow, the world has much to learn from those first brave parents and children who risked more than I can imagine to make this happen. They faced stiff opposition from church authorities in 1974 and they still do. But the will of the people is winning out. And yes integration is all about the children.

This past spring, Akenson received an honorary doctorate from Queen's University (Belfast) for his body of work on the Irish diaspora.

 

George Victor

 

u the sanctimonious:

 

I have yet to see one of your posts which doesn't contain such a veiled attack. What precise purpose does it serve to carry on this campaign? I have exhorted you to just state your views and stop insulting and attacking individuals here, as well as babble in general. I'll reiterate that now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Babble is a dangerous place to enter, u.

Here's riffraffrenegade putting his toe in the water after watching exchanges for a few days:

I am new to babble so please go easy on me. I don't have the keenest mind. I am not a great writer nor am I a public speaker. This takes me so far outside my comfort zone but I feel I must fight this fight for my children and grandchildren.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would never be the cause for this caution of course, u. But then again, quick perusal of your snotty offerings, might give it the lie.

i.e.

George, I love you dearly, but don't be supercilious. Attack people's style one individual at a time. Don't attack babble. It's our home. Make it better.

 

Seems to me we could all make it more welcoming, u. Even you.Surprised

So cut the sanctimony and the puritanical pontification.

Unionist

Wonderful and inspiring post, RRR. Stick around please and tell us more. I'm afraid I've been boring people here with tales of how well integration went in Québec and Newfoundland. A broader perspective is most welcome.

George Victor

riffraffrenegade's opener:

I am new to babble so please go easy on me. I don't have the keenest mind. I am not a great writer nor am I a public speaker. This takes me so far outside my comfort zone but I feel I must fight this fight for my children and grandchildren.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are doing wonderfully.

Please explain the Michael Prue bit for me. The trustees and teachers are angry at Prue for wanting to do just what, exactly?

Fidel

riffraffrenegade wrote:
Yes, Fidel, those ethnic and religious tensions are old, worn out and irrelevant to most Ontario Catholics under the age of 45.

In 1973, a Queen's U. at Kingston History professor, Donald Akenson, wrote Education & Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland. Akenson is quoted in the Queen's Alumni Review May 19, 2008 Volume 82, Number 2: "I didn't see how segregating kids [by religion] from age three or four to at least age 18 could produce anything but enmity".

Those feelings of enmity in Ireland were fomented by British colonialism  over long periods of time with Catholics taking the brunt of it. Whigs and Tories were responsible for miserable conditions in more than one English speaking country. Starving Catholics could obtain bowls of soup if they renounced their religion.  Whig and Tory strategy for Ireland was to let free market forces decide their fate in the aftermath of black '47. Two years later the corn laws finally came into effect, and after an estimated six million perished as pork and corn left 13 Irish sea ports for "the market." Anyway, I thought we werent going to rehash old conflicts. This is supposed to be about nobler ideas for democracy and avoiding to segregate children along lines of religious differences and ethnic bigotry? I've no personal enmity for WASPS or the friends of WASPS, only a large case of disrespect for Whigs and Tories and their base of support nestled in Southern and Eastern Ontario where bowls of soup are plentiful.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Those feelings of enmity in Ireland were fomented by British colonialism  over long periods of time with Catholics taking the brunt of it.

 

Actually, it was the |Irish people who took the brunt of it. Britain didn't stop to ask one's faith before colonizing, exploiting, starving, and expelling. The Catholics in England weren't subject to any such privations. Nice to see you situating the Irish problem in religious terms, though. Thank God the Irish themselves have gotten past that.

Unionist

Fidel, do you favour fully-funded Muslim public schools for Ontario? Or just Catholic ones?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Actually, it was the |Irish people who took the brunt of it. Britain didn't stop to ask one's faith before colonizing, exploiting, starving, and expelling. The Catholics in England weren't subject to any such privations. Nice to see you situating the Irish problem in religious terms, though. Thank God the Irish themselves have gotten past that.

Jeez, and I thought Whigs and Tories in London went out of their way favour Protestants and shit disturbing loyalists. I believe the 13 people shot to death by British soldiers on Bloody Sunday were all Catholics, if I'm not mistaken. They were just going about their business when it happened. And British soldiers stood by and did nothing down the road from Bernadette Devlin's house while it was shot up and ransacked. 

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

The Orange and the Green are no longer allowed to continue their feuding in this country. Neither are the Sikhs. Nor the Tamils.

Ethnic rivalries should be left in the homelands upon entering Canada - and should never, ever be fomented in Canadian schools.

Lord Palmerston

I kind of got lost when Fidel started talking about King Henry VIII. 

Anyway I say bring it on.  The more the Catholic Church mobilizes about their "historic right" and how opposing separate school funding is "anti-Catholic" the more Ontarians will want to get rid of their archaic privileges. 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel, do you favour fully-funded Muslim public schools for Ontario? Or just Catholic ones?

Any brand of Islam except radical Talibanization as per the CIA, Brits, and Saudi Talibanization of 1980s-90s Pakistan and Afghanistan. I know you are somewhat partial to those friendlies of the US and British secret service and militaries of that period yourself, but I have to draw the line at funding low church madrassas for militant Islam.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:

I kind of got lost when Fidel started talking about King Henry VIII. 

Anyway I say bring it on.  The more the Catholic Church mobilizes about their "historic right" and how opposing separate school funding is "anti-Catholic" the more Ontarians will want to get rid of their archaic privileges. 

And for that I demand a shrubbery on your return post. Not an expensive one as tax cutters wont appreciate it much. Just a pretty one.

Unionist

Seems Fidel is partial to John Tory's "fund 'em all" slogan - except that they'll have to pass a "good Muslim" test first, of course. Even Tory hadn't thought of that. Must be why he got wiped out.

janfromthebruce

riffraffrenegade wrote:
Yes, Fidel, those ethnic and religious tensions are old, worn out and irrelevant to most Ontario Catholics under the age of 45.

In 1973, a Queen's U. at Kingston History professor, Donald Akenson, wrote Education & Enmity: The Control of Schooling in Northern Ireland. Akenson is quoted in the Queen's Alumni Review May 19, 2008 Volume 82, Number 2: "I didn't see how segregating kids [by religion] from age three or four to at least age 18 could produce anything but enmity".
Akenson's work provided a catalyst for a small group of youth and parents in Belfast who in 1974 got together to start planning for the first integrated school in NI. They opened their first school, Lagan College, in Belfast in 1981 and opened three more in 1984. (Just about that time, Bill Davis decided to extend Ontario Catholic School funding to grade 13.) Today, that small parent group has evolved into the Northern Ireland Council on Integrated Education. Michael Wardlow, NICIE's director, tells me that Akenson's work remains a seminal text in the study of integration ethos. NICIE now has over 60 integrated nursery, elementary and secondary schools throughout NI. Parents have been willing to mortgage their homes in order to make this happen. This past fall, NICIE had to turn away 700 students.
As I said to Mr. Wardlow, the world has much to learn from those first brave parents and children who risked more than I can imagine to make this happen. They faced stiff opposition from church authorities in 1974 and they still do. But the will of the people is winning out. And yes integration is all about the children.

This past spring, Akenson received an honorary doctorate from Queen's University (Belfast) for his body of work on the Irish diaspora.

RRR - thanks so much for posting. I would be very interested in reading of this individual's intergration work in Ireland. I too am interested in what is happening to Prue. 

At this point , what  Prue has advocated is to allow the membership to debate this policy idea. I think it is very democratic of him and shows leadership. It also makes me realize that some on the executive are concerned that it might well get wide support and thus the prevention of allowing this to come to the floor for debate in the last 4 conventions. That's very sad for a political party to prides itself on grassroots democracy.

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Seems Fidel is partial to John Tory's "fund 'em all" slogan - except that they'll have to pass a "good Muslim" test first, of course. Even Tory hadn't thought of that. Must be why he got wiped out.

Wiped out by a "landslide" victory for McGuinty's Liberals who won 42% of the popular vote(22% of the eligible). And the writer of the same news article printed after the election pointed out that MMP suffered "a resounding defeat" with only 37% of voter support. It's the opinion of several democratic voices on the left that we should have went with MMP and forgotten about McGuinty's "landslide" electoral victory instead. Oh well, big money campaigns arent what they used to be with phony majorities coming phonier and phonier with each bought and paid for government. And we're pretty sure that the funding of madrassas for radical religious indoctrination in 1980s-2000s Pakistan and Afghanistan was not decided by proportional voting either. Afghan warlords are pushing for PR in an upcoming election, but our American friends seem to be against it for some reason. I wonder what their stooges in Ottawa think on the matter? Not much is my guess. Trust and obey is their way

Pages

Topic locked