Catholic school funding - continued

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 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

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.)

•  
  •  
    • TQDT 
      http://ca.mc560.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?.rand=1776707127&uc=1#Insert%20Hyperlink

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.

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.

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...

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 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 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. 

 

 

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.

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

rabble-rouser

Member: 9273

Joined: Feb 19 2005

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 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.

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.

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

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!

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 behalf

 

 

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

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 

It is my understanding that here in Ontario the Diosese [sp] 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!