Catholic school funding - continued

107 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lord Palmerston

unionist wrote:

Is that too much too ask?

 Apparently so for many in the ONDP.

TVParkdale

unionist wrote:

. Let them know that people of different faiths can be healed in the same hospital wards and sit in the same classrooms. Is that too much too ask?

cLaP ClaP aPpLaUse, ApPlaUse....

[can we get an applause smiley?] 

Unionist

I'm tired of this, Wilf. Separation of church and state is not some backward U.S. phenomenon. Most of the world (except the odd theocracy) has figured this out. So has most of Canada. You can try to hold the wheel of history back in Ontario by pretending that society is still characterized by Orange anti-papistry, but at some point, people will have a look at the calendar and realize what century they're living in.

People need solidarity, not segregation. Let them believe and practise what they like. But let them know that society does not favour one religion over the others and over atheism. Let them know that people of different faiths can be healed in the same hospital wards and sit in the same classrooms. Is that too much to ask?

Unionist

A little bit of history for Wilf:

Quote:

African Americans turned to the courts to help protect their
constitutional rights. But the courts challenged earlier civil rights
legislation and handed down a series of decisions that permitted states
to segregate people of color.

In the pivotal case of Plessy v. Ferguson
in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that racially separate
facilities, if equal, did not violate the Constitution. Segregation,
the Court said, was not discrimination.

Segregation of human beings, on any basis, is evil. It is the foundation of hatred, pogroms, and war.

Fidel

unionist wrote:
Segregation of human beings, on any basis, is evil. It is the foundation of hatred, pogroms, and war

Except for when the CIA and Saudis fund rightwing religious whackos in Pakistan and Afghanistan to wage war on secular socialist thought in 1980s - ? Central Asia. That kind of hypocrisy we don't agree to here at KAOS headquarters

Fidel

unionist wrote:

Well thanks for that. I suppose Henry VIII was a real good guy for murdering so many Catholics,

ein volk ein reich ein fuhrer!! It's the same diff for the anti-French anti-Catholic bigots formerly known as APEC

Lord Palmerston

Of course Fidel would change his tune if the ONDP actually came out in support of ending separate school funding.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

This is the html version of the file http://www.culturescope.ca/file_download.php/Seljak+secularism+2008.ppt?URL_ID=15720&filename=12049062431Seljak_secularism_2008.ppt&filetype=application%2Fvnd.ms-powerpoint&filesize=153088&name=Seljak+secularism+2008.ppt&location=user-S/.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Secu

 

General conclusions 

  • The belief that Canada enjoys
    an American-style “separation of church and state” is widespread.  
  • However, constitutionally
    and legally this is not true. 
  • One consequence of this pervasive
    belief is the refusal to deal with religious diversity in public policy
    decisions. 
  • An emerging “closed” secularism
    has the potential to promote intolerance and discrimination, especially
    against members of religious minority groups. 

General conclusions 

  • The assumption that Canada
    is a secular society with a separation of church and state may act to
    frustrate the goals of the Multiculturalism and Human Rights Program.

This assumption may
serve to
 

  • hide the persistence of Christian
    privilege in Canadian public culture as well as institutional practices
    and structures; 
  • alienate large sectors of
    the Canadian population by refusing to acknowledge or respect the public
    elements of their religious traditions; 
  • ignore claims made in the
    name of religion, for example, claims by Aboriginal peoples to access
    to certain lands in order to fulfill the requirements of Aboriginal
    spirituality;

This assumption may
serve to
 

  • discourage the contribution
    to Canadian society made by faith-based institutions and organizations,
    such as schools, hospitals, social service agencies, as well as cultural,
    sports and charitable organizations; 
  • foster resistance to reasonable
    accommodation of religious difference, a human right that guarantees
    that a practice or policy that serves the majority does not discriminate
    against members of religious minority groups;

There is no
“wall of separation” between church and state

in Canada
 

  • Certain elements of the American
    doctrine of separation of Church and States – not to mention France’s
    model of la laïcité – would violate sections of the Canadian
    Constitution Act
    (1982) and the Canadian Charter of Rights and
    Freedoms
    (1982) – as well as other human rights legislation.  
    • Examples, government funding
      of faith based schools.
    • Provisions for religious freedom
      in Charter protect right to wear religious clothing in schools,
      etc.

Where does this belief
come from?
 

  • Classical secularization theory

 

  • Cultural assumption that to
    be modern is to be secular 
  • Attempt to overcome Christian
    privilege in Canada 
  • Attempt to solve challenges
    of religious freedom and diversity by creating a “neutral” public
    sphere

Secularization theory
was wrong
 

  • No evidence of secularization
    as “structural trend” of modernization 
  • Most of the world has remained
    religious despite modernization (USA and most of the world) 
  • Certain countries became
    more
    religious with modernization (Poland, Ireland, etc.)

Secularization theory
was wrong
 

  • Social scientific theory is
    more a prescription than a description of modern society. 
    It is an attempt to define and promote human “progress.” 
  • It is an attempt to guarantee
    religious freedom (the state should not interfere with people’s
    private
    beliefs). 
  • It is an attempt to protect
    religious pluralism (the state should not favour one religion over others).

 

  •  

Secularization and
Separation: Implications for Multiculturalism
 

  • By assuming that Canadian
    public life is already secular and that all religious expression should
    remain in the private sphere, people tend to ignore the fact that our
    putatively-secular public sphere is in many ways residually and normatively
    Christian.   
  • This means that its secularity
    has been shaped – ironically – by Christianity and in a way to accommodate
    most easily the needs of Christian communities.  
  • Moreover, as Roger O’Toole
    has argued, the Christian origins of our public institutions continue
    to inform their culture and structures.

Secularization and
Separation: Implications for Multiculturalism
 

  • The abstract and ahistorical
    notion of separation of Church and State can act to frustrate the goals
    of encouraging civic participation and recognizing the cultural diversity
    of all Canadians by

  • a) ignoring the lingering
    privileges accorded to the mainline Christian communities; and

  • b) countering the claims of
    all minority religious groups for public recognition of their needs. 

Secularization and
Separation: Implications for Multiculturalism
 

  • Two examples where assumptions
    about the religious neutrality of the state and society made the debates
    less clear, more acrimonious and more likely to inspire intolerance
    and discrimination.

    • Funding faith based schools
      debate during 2007 Ontario provincial election
    • Reasonable accommodation debate
      in Quebec 

 

  • Refusing to confront the persistence
    of religion in Canadian society by clinging to an abstract and ahistorical
    concept of the separation of Church and State will certainly lead to
    misunderstandings and injustices.   
  • It is precisely those misunderstandings
    and injustices that are likely to lead to polarization, ghettoization
    and the radicalization of certain religious communities.   
  • The issue of religion must
    be addressed in public policy discussions of social inclusion, immigrant
    integration, multiculturalism, democratic participation and justice.

Fidel

unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

unionist wrote:

Well thanks for that. I suppose Henry VIII was a real good guy for murdering so many Catholics,

Ummmmmm, Henry VIII is dead, I believe. Whereas your hero is still alive.

And so is Hitler dead. Apparently that hasn't snuffed out the "one people one vicious empire one leader" and now "one school system fits all for the sake of ruthless efficiency and "fiscal prudence" mentality.

 [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Niemoeller.jpg[/IMG]

Henry claimed to have been a Catholic at one time, too. It doesn't mean he's my hero today. Nor do I associate those Jewish rabbis or any other ethnics around the world in solidarity with Palestinians suffering by religious extremists and rightwing whackos. Catholics do have historical figureheads other than specific Popes to hold in high regard as is the case with all world religions. Atheists also have some noteworthy figures in history to look up to. I wouldnt suggest that every atheist who ever lived were role models for humanity though. Anyway, I've had my fill of this and several threads like it.

Fidel

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Of course Fidel would change his tune if the ONDP actually came out in support of ending separate school funding.

No. I also have the ability to reason that SSM is a basic human right no matter what a string of rightwing-friendly Popes have said. I find old line party supporters far more slavish in their dyed in the wool following for two old line parties that have flip-flopped on the rightwing political ideology so many times since 1980 that it's dizzying just following their flawed ideologically-driven policies. Sometimes its about using our heads as something more than hatracks. My Catholic father and uncles didn't volunteer to go overseas in 1939 to defend this kind of anti-religious vitriol.

Unionist

Sealed

Unionist

Kiss

Unionist

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Of course Fidel would change his tune if the ONDP actually came out in support of ending separate school funding.

Are you suggesting Fidel blindly follows NDP party line (as he understands it)?

I am shocked.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

My Catholic father and uncles didn't volunteer to go overseas in 1939 to defend this kind of anti-religious vitriol.

Ah, they volunteered to defend... ummm...

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Gloria in excelsis Deo.

J.S. Woodsworth voted "NO" to war in 1939. Too bad your family wasn't paying attention.

Bookish Agrarian

And Tommy Douglas was in favour - so what the hell does that have to do with anything.

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
And Tommy Douglas was in favour - so what the hell does that have to do with anything.

Nothing at all. I just gagged a bit at the notion that Fidel's family fought the Nazis so that you could have Catholic public schools in Ontario. You're free to concur with him if you like, while I go get some more Dramamine.

Unionist

Meanwhile, peterjcassidy sounds like Mario Dumont, who is campaigning on the thesis that the AntiChrists are trying to ban Christmas from the public schools.

Guess what ... Mario Dumont is disintegrating. Along with his neo-fascist ideology.

TVParkdale

Fidel wrote:

Lord Palmerston wrote:
Of course Fidel would change his tune if the ONDP actually came out in support of ending separate school funding.

No. I also have the ability to reason that SSM is a basic human right no matter what a string of rightwing-friendly Popes have said. I find old line party supporters far more slavish in their dyed in the wool following for two old line parties that have flip-flopped on the rightwing political ideology so many times since 1980 that it's dizzying just following their flawed ideologically-driven policies. Sometimes its about using our heads as something more than hatracks. My Catholic father and uncles didn't volunteer to go overseas in 1939 to defend this kind of anti-religious vitriol.

"Anti-religious vitriol"? Because we believe in separation of church and state in education?

Jeebus Tapdancing Christos.

Read my lips here guy. I come from a mixed Metis family. I have a personal, vested interest in preserving several cultures. Read that again. Cultures.

That doesn't mean I have some kind of right to shove my religious [or not] views down a kid's throat while s/he is in school at the expense of the taxpayer. 

Family members went to war, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Atheist, Agnostic and 'Nish in several generations to preserve the country that should be appreciating those cultures

Not to preserve an antiquated, inherently biased,  sexist, segregationist system of education so we could all rip each other's throats out in religious zealotry.

All I can say is, it's a good thing we were more interested in sex than religion or the country would be short by a few thousand...

Fidel

unionist wrote:

J.S. Woodsworth voted "NO" to war in 1939. Too bad your family wasn't paying attention.

I think the people of Algeria, and Sicily, and Ortona, and Anzio, Monte Cassino, and Amsterdam and Brussels were grateful for my father's tank battalion, le Regiment de Trois Rivieres, the Loyal Eddies, and Highlanders, and Gurkhas who went with Montgomery's Eighth Army to do some dirty-dirty thankless fucking jobs over there.

 

TVParkdale

unionist wrote:

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
And Tommy Douglas was in favour - so what the hell does that have to do with anything.

Nothing at all. I just gagged a bit at the notion that Fidel's family fought the Nazis so that you could have Catholic public schools in Ontario. You're free to concur with him if you like, while I go get some more Dramamine.

While you're in the medicine chest--can ya find my ritalin?  I'm having an attentional problem following the logic of why anyone went to war to preserve religious educational facilities here...

Ah, the same religious orders who promoted, got paid for, and profited by residential schools.

Yup. I'm sure my relations who went to them were all for fighting to keep religious schools going.

/epic face palm. 

Fidel

TVParkdale wrote:

"Anti-religious vitriol"? Because we believe in separation of church and state in education?

Jeebus Tapdancing Christos.

Read my lips here guy. I come from a mixed Metis family. I have a personal, vested interest in preserving several cultures. Read that again. Cultures.

Imperialists murdered the Metis leader and tried to extinguish native culture and spirituality all over North America among people they referred to as "savages" Some of that vitriol seeps through today with asshole deluxes like Dick Pound. So what's your point?

TVParkdale

Fidel wrote:
TVParkdale wrote:

"Anti-religious vitriol"? Because we believe in separation of church and state in education?

Jeebus Tapdancing Christos.

Read my lips here guy. I come from a mixed Metis family. I have a personal, vested interest in preserving several cultures. Read that again. Cultures.

Imperialists murdered the Metis leader and tried to extinguish native culture and spirituality all over North America among people they referred to as "savages" Some of that vitriol seeps through today with asshole deluxes like Dick Pound. So what's your point? Or do you have one?

MY point is, if you want to use Louis Riel--let's go there.

Louis Riel was Catholic. His mother was a 'Nish. Many of his supporters were Protestant Metis.

They were after LAND rights. Not secularizing the educational system because it already WAS secularized.

And you can see how well THAT turned out. 

So, I have NO IDEA why you'd even bring Riel into the discussion.

The point is, why would anyone NOT want to seperate church from state in the educational system?

We don't need any more generations of mindless religious drones that can't think critically. Nor do we need any more generations abused in the name of religious practices.

If someone wants to believe something, fine. But I am not willing to fund religion in schools because why should I be a party to increasing the amount of polarization and segregation?

School should be a place where people are taught to THINK. Religious protletizing is the opposite of thinking--it's mindless obedience to a "higher power".

Fidel

TVParkdale wrote:
School should be a place where people are taught to THINK. Religious protletizing is the opposite of thinking--it's mindless obedience to a "higher power".

 I think some atheists would resent the suggestion that they must be religious in order to be mindless drones to higher authorities. More than a few non-believers have had none to very little religious indoctrination before committing crimes ranging from election rigging and drug-dealing to mass murder. I think this logic is deeply flawed

TVParkdale

Fidel wrote:

TVParkdale wrote:
School should be a place where people are taught to THINK. Religious protletizing is the opposite of thinking--it's mindless obedience to a "higher power".

I think some atheists would resent the suggestion that they must be religious in order to be mindless drones to higher authorities. More than a few non-believers have had none to very little religious indoctrination before committing crimes ranging from election rigging and drug-dealing to mass murder. I think this logic is deeply flawed

Don't mix up ethics/morality or even humanism with religion or it's practises.

Please, find me the "logic" in having particular religious practices taught in school at the expense of non-believers and those people whom such religions deem "heretics" , "savages"  and convince their practitioners are "going to hell" because I truly fail to see any logic in that, whatsoever. 

 

 

Fidel

TVParkdale wrote:
[

Don't mix up ethics/morality or even humanism with religion or it's practises.

 I think the Nazis thought something similar. Iehovahs, Jews, Catholics, socialists, trade unionists, gays - they weren't really considered the same in the eyes of the Nazis and were methodically singled out and made to wear different colour patches on prison uniforms. "Ein volk ein reich ein fuhrer" for the sake of racial and national purity. In this case we have people pointing to "democracy" and even "fiscal prudence" as justifications for whipping up state fervor against a specific group of people. And I think it stinks. I'm fed up with our in-house bigot's obsession with Catholics, and his previous hypocrital tyrades on other related subject matter carried over from the old forum.   

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

TVParkdale: I have noticed in this thread that you seem to be using the word "secular" to mean "religious", whereas in fact it means the opposite.

A word to the wise.

Unionist

I have never called you a dirty name, Fidel. You say you were brought up Catholic. Who taught you to compare people to Nazis and call them bigots?

Bookish Agrarian

This thread as taught me that no good can come from this discussion.  When I see people I know personally attacked and refered to in the way some here have it is clear people let their passion over-ride thier common sense and judgement.

Those who profess a religious belief are not mindless, they are not evil, they are not good, they are not bad.  They are pople.  The same goes for those who profess a belief in disbelief, or those who get their spiritual reward by walking in the woods on a glorious spring day and think there must be something bigger than us.  Yet if you openly express a belief system you are open to intolerant language by some who can't get past their own issues, no doubt in their own backgrounds.  I feel pity for you as I feel pity for the religious idealogue who believes adherance equals goodness.  The life of people like that are really very, very small.  Thankfully most of the rest of us, religious and non-religious are much more open and tolerant, and frankly don't give a crap.

Maybe this is a generational thing, or something to do with those who have a significant ignorance of educational history in Ontario.  It was not all that long ago that to be progressive WAS to support public funding for Catholic schools. 

I have no love for a school system based on religion, nor do I have a love for a school system afraid to discuss moral values for fear of offending someone.  (And no I don't mean who sleeps with whom).

I will say this.  If this issue does come to the floor of convention and I see any of the intolerance being shown in this thread I will be immediatley to my feet calling the question, or refering it back or whatever looks most likely to stop this kind of behaviour.  Then the lot of you can go to a pub somewhere and piss all over others in private and we can get on with more pressing issues in education, health care, the environment and oh so many, many others.  If people like Jan and Wilf can dominate the floor maybe it will be a real and respectful debate, but I see that as becoming increasingly unlikely.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

What a crybaby!

Bookish Agrarian

M. Spector

rabble-rouser

Member: 9273

Joined: Feb 19 2005

User is online

November 15, 2008 - 9:29pm (new)

#79 (permalink)

What a crybaby!

 

Thanks for proving you can be an ass.  That is enlightening if nothing else.  Yes it is incredible to expect people to debate issues in a tolerant, respectful way.

 

I've been called a lot of things in my life, but crybaby has never been one of them.  I am willing to bet though this is not the first time you have been called an ass.

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

This thread as taught me that no good can come from this discussion.

HAHAHAHA.

Above you said:

Quote:
In fact it is why I have given up even discussing this issue, since you
glossed over your intolerance and others in the previous thread and
why, with this one exception I will no longer participate.

Are you incapable of keeping a promise for one day?

Anyway, your garrulous post, in defiance of your promise to stop participating, is another example of the toxic climate created amongst progressive people when religion rears its ugly head.

People should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. When introduced into public discourse, they cause division, strife, and too often in our history, violence.

God bless the ONDP. I wish it luck in avoiding this simple democratic question for yet another decade.

Fidel

unionist wrote:
I have never called you a dirty name, Fidel. You say you were brought up Catholic. Who taught you to compare people to Nazis and call them bigots?

I did not call you a Nazi. There is a difference. And my invoking a Nazi Party theme was meant as a call to strive for higher goals than turning people against one another. My father did his nine Fridays and was educated in a strict Catholic school setting in Montreal and then Northern Ontario. After the war, he disliked Jehovahs pestering him at the front door. My uncle apparently suggested slamming the door in their faces and even some harsh words to make them stop. Dad said, No, they were treated pretty badly during the war, and that he went to defend for their rights, too, as much as he disliked them for not voting and all that stuff. Dad wasn't as informed as you people are today with understanding the way things should be for the sake of an ideal democracy. But my father, with less than a highschool education learned from hard knocks that the world is a long way from perfection. People arent flexible and efficient machines to be tweaked by social engineers. Sometimes people want cutting some slack eh.

Bookish Agrarian

People should also keep their non-religious beleifs to themselves don't you think?  That to has been responsible for oppression, violence and lots of other nasty stuff, or do you know that little of history.

 

And unionist I am not discussing.  I am stating. Before I was discussing, trying to provide information, raise issues and so on. That I have quit doing.  Unfortunetly for you it seems you are unable to tell the difference.

Bookish Agrarian

Fidel, it would have been nice to have met your father.  He sounds like the kind of stand up guy we could use more of today.

Lord Palmerston

Let's go back to your acquaintance who says she'd refuse to vote NDP if they called for an end to separate school funding.  So does she support funding for other religious schools too or just for her religion? 

Unionist

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

And unionist I am not discussing.  I am stating.

Thanks for sharing.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
  It was not all that long ago that to be progressive WAS to support public funding for Catholic schools.

Ah, the good old days.

Wilf Day

unionist wrote:

Let them know that people of different faiths can be healed in the same hospital wards and sit in the same classrooms.

No one is stopping them. If you don't like Catholic schools, don't send your kids to one.

Bookish Agrarian

LP  I don't know -I didn't ask that question.  The next time I see her I will ask.  That might be as early as tomorrow at the spiritual and religious centre known as the Arena.  If I do I will report back.

 

 


 I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down'. Bob Newhart

Lord Palmerston

Quote:
No one is stopping them. If you don't like Catholic schools, don't send your kids to one.

Then let's fund Jewish day schools too.   I'll be free to not "like" them and not send my kids to them.

Unionist

Wilf Day wrote:
unionist wrote:

Let them know that people of different faiths can be healed in the same hospital wards and sit in the same classrooms.

No one is stopping them. If you don't like Catholic schools, don't send your kids to one.

And if you do like them, how about paying your way, like the Jews and Muslims?

I like Catholic schools. That's why I'd like to see them maintained and well-funded, with just the God stuff eliminated, as we did in Québec. And Newfoundland.

It didn't hurt a bit, honest.

Fidel

I can think of several costly relics from the past standing in the way of democracy in Canada.

janfromthebruce

Wilf Day wrote:

As long as all four school systems are treated the same, and have equal funding, doesn't that satisfy the comparison with gender equality?

 

 They are not treated the same and do not get equal funding.That is patially the point I have been making.

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

TVParkdale

M. Spector wrote:

TVParkdale: I have noticed in this thread that you seem to be using the word "secular" to mean "religious", whereas in fact it means the opposite.

A word to the wise.

I'm not sure where I did that bad but I wouldn't be surprised if I confoozled my words--undermedicated todayLaughingTongue out

TVParkdale

unionist wrote:


People should keep their religious beliefs to themselves. When introduced into public discourse, they cause division, strife, and too often in our history, violence.

 

Thank you for putting that so well, unionist.

That is precisely why I do not want to fund religious schools or churches through tax dollars and tax exemptions.

For anyone. Period.

What people do on their own time, with their own religion or their own money is up to them. If they're not hurting anyone, let 'em rock on. Elsewhere.

As for whoever it was ^^^^ [up there somewhere!] equating religion with "Gay rights" it's the most absurd argument I've ever heard. It is the religious right who are desperately trying to halt LGBTQ rights and even abortion rights.

So why would I want to pay my tax dollars for kids to learn to support that?

________________________________

Now, on a lighter note, if some egalitarian soul out there wants to fund ALL religious schools equally, I'm sure the Pastafarians would be happy to supply you with your very own Flying Spaghetti Monster banner to wave at rallies on their behalfLaughing

 

 

Fidel

unionist wrote:
And if you do like them, how about paying your way, like the Jews and Muslims?

We have Bill Davis to thank for extending separate school funding to grade eleven. I suppose you'll never vote for the Diefenbakers or their clones ever again?   Wink

Corporate welfare handouts to the tune of billions and billions forever and a day. Those excesses never seem to be brought up in small town talk by our corporate-sponsored newsies. That abomination of democracy in Ottawa, the "Red Chamber",  costs taxpayers $50 million a year, a drop in the bucket by comparison and 15 times more than the piddling savings for schoolboard amalgamation in Ontario as noted above. I think it would be a great day when all we have to worry about are a few separate schools under a microscope of the last of the efficiency experts.

Fidel

unionist wrote:
[

Québec allowed purely optional Catholic or Protestant courses (couple hours a week) to continue in public schools for several years after abolishing religious public schools in 1998.

And just look at them flying high now in Quebec with piecemeal daycare and lacking affordable child care spaces overall. And no thanks to the ONDP either. Things could be completely different if only our fearless leaders could tap into on an estimated windfall savings of $3.3 million currently being wasted on separate schools in Ontario. Darned kids anyway. They are so foolish to think theyre the future in this Northern Puerto Rico. Imagine that

Unionist

This is hilarious - a Catholic conference in Ottawa blaming Québec bishops for having "lost" the free ride for Catholic schools!! These characters would be dangerous if anyone listened to them:

Quote:
Bishops’ silence blamed for loss of Quebec Catholic schools

The silence of Quebec's Catholic bishops is responsible for the loss of publicly funded Catholic schools in that province, a constitutional lawyer told Catholic school trustees Sept. 26.

"We will lose (Catholic school rights) in Ontario if we're silent," Alberta Lawyer Kevin Feehan warned the almost 400 delegates attending the conference sponsored by the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association here Sept. 26-27. ...

Catholic education rights are "part of what makes us who we are," he said, noting it's part of what makes Canada different, along with official bilingualism and multiculturalism.

Without the compromise by the Fathers of Confederation in Charlottetown in 1864, he said, "You'd all be Americans."

Catholic education has a "weighty responsibility" to deliver a distinct, different, "fundamentally pposed" education that is permeated with Catholic theology, philosophy and sociology, he said.

[url=http://74.125.95.104/search?q=cache:YYO_P7huBEQJ:www.cpco.on.ca/Newslett...

 And check out this lament:

Quote:
The vision or purpose of Catholic education must, at a minimum, be co-owned and co-nurtured by parents, trustees, administrators, teachers, students and the wider Catholic public, including, and especially, parish priests. If vision is transformed into passion and passion is transformed into commitment, the demise of Catholic education in English Canada will be contained in Newfoundland.”
        Sister Clare Fitzgerald
        Forward to the book Catholic Education: The Future is Now,
        by James Mulligan, CSC

LOL! Sister Clare has totally written off Québec! Good riddance.

TVParkdale

Union:

I'm laffin so hard I can't see the monitor.

The Newfies [bless em] must be roaring over their screech by now wi' dat one, b'y

ROFLCOPTERS 

Unionist

Quote:
Here in Newfoundland I note that you
view education as a partnership between the Church and the Province. Fortunately,
in other parts of Canada similar cooperation between Church and government
exists. I realize that this varies from Province to Province. ...

In a pluralistic society it is surely a challenge to provide all citizens with
satisfactory educational services. In dealing with this complex challenge one
must not ignore the centrality of God in the believer’s outlook on life. A
totality [sic] secular school system would not be a way of meeting this challenge. We
cannot leave God at the schoolhouse door.

 

ADDRESS OF POPE JOHN PAUL II
TO CATHOLIC EDUCATORS

St. John's Basilica - Newfoundland
Wednesday, 12 September
1984

 

janfromthebruce

It is my understanding that here in Ontario the Diosese   has directed the Ontario Catholic Trustee Assoc. to "not share buildings" with their co-neighbouring boards (no matter what). For instance, years ago there was a successful partnership of building a French speaking joint public/separate high school in London. A similar project together was conceived for the Windsor area and part way through the planning process the french speaking separate board pulled out. Thus the french speaking public board was left "hanging in the wind" and had to go it alone to build their school. Too bad as it made sense - linguistically to have a large population of french speaking students in the same building. I was told that the diosese put the "nix" on the partnership. 

In communities where there are two small schools, for instance, and half-filled, it would make sense to provide a joint school to serve all the children, but alas, the goal is to ensure that the school remaining is separate. This is not in the best interests of quality education programming that focuses on student achievement.

So I understand the context of the bashing of the Quebec Diosese, and why the Ontario Diosese is running the education show in Ontario.  

 

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

Pages

Topic locked