Catholic school funding 4

And if we think the UN and international organizations are unsympathetic to the vicious empire now, wait a few years until a semi-Islamified Europe exists. I think we'd best forget about old white men and their ambitions to achieve separation of church and capitalism. Let today's powerful white men get out of the road, if they want to grow old. The future is not their's to decide. 

I'm disgusted that some in the NDP believe that Catholics have special rights and actually say Tory's plan was "dividing Ontarians" and "segregation." As much as I disagreed with John Tory's proposal (and for those in the Jewish community for instance who supported it) it was no more disreputable than the status quo advocated by McGuinty and Hampton.  

News flash: Catholics are no longer an oppressed group in Ontario. They may have been in the 19th century, but not today. If it's about oppression - then Muslims deserve funding before anyone else given how Islamophobic Ontario society is (I'm not advocating this and believe fighting intolerance means bringing children together and not segregation just that the "oppressed group" argument doesn't hold water). However Catholics were here in large numbers in the 19th century and represent a large voting bloc, but Muslims are not. Why is it fair that a more established, non-oppressed group deserves school funding most?

All this blablabla just to let the bishops keep siphoning public taxes to perpetuate their kind? Lot of emotion there, not much sense. It's a good example of why public religious education must be abolished and forgotten.

double post

Wilf Day wrote:

Max Bialystock wrote:

Catholics are no longer an oppressed group in Ontario. They may have been in the 19th century . . .

News flash: they were oppressed until 1984 by an educational system that told them "when you turn 16 and finish Grade 10 you can either go get a job like your dad did at your age, or try to persuade your parents to pay tuition fees for you if they can, or leave all your friends, switch schools, and go to a school where everyone sees your parents were too poor to keep you in your own school."

I'll have to call bullshit on this, Wilf. In the seventies there was no stigma attached to Catholics kids who made the transition into the public system after grade 10. It was commonplace, and considered natural and sensible. Some didn't wait, and made the switch after grade 8.

Lard Tunderin' Jeezus wrote:

In the seventies there was no stigma attached to Catholics kids who made the transition into the public system after grade 10.

In Toronto? I can't comment. I can only say there was in Peterborough in the fall of 1958, and I don't know of anything that would have changed that situation between then and 1984.

unionist wrote:

Well Wilf, what do you think of my proposal to let everyone now in the system graduate - but no new entrants?

As I said when you first raised this, where would the younger kids go, physically? No room for them in the public elementary school, while the Catholic elementary school would be part-empty. Obviously they would still be in the same building, which would be two schools in one, with a Catholic Board principal running the older (shrinking) section, and a Public Board principal in charge of the younger kids. Teachers would have to transfer gradually from the Catholic Board to the Public Board, likely while remaining in the same building. The custodian and secretary would need split personalities. Nothing much would change except a double-barrelled sign outside: "St. Mary's (Grades 4 to 8) / Laura Secord (Grades JK to 3)," with the grade demarcation shifting up each year. Each bargaining unit would get the best of either collective agreement. This would continue for 10 years. Before the ten years was up, someone would surely say "this is nuts."

 

And we know the model country has none of those

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

And we know that in the case  of model systems, countries or Utopias, it's the getting from here to there that's difficult, eh Fidel?

But it's the relative ease with which private school students go on to university that is most unsettling to this citoyen Canadien .  Should we not promote the idea of the end of private secular  schools with at least as much vigour as the emancipation of the "priest-ridden"  ones, in the name of equality of opportunity? Much easier to make that case. Less suspicion about motives. More meaningful outcome if successful.

Seems to me that the two objectives were bound together in the case of Quebec,  and we only make things more difficult by separating them, elsewhere.

George Victor wrote:

  Should we not promote the idea of the end of private secular  schools with at least as much vigour as the emancipation of the "priest-ridden"  ones, in the name of equality of opportunity? Much easier to make that case. Less suspicion about motives. More meaningful outcome if successful.

Are you being serious in suggesting the abolition of private schools?

From SSC:

Are you being serious in suggesting the abolition of private schools?

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

In my studies of social justice, it has always seemed to me, SSC, that serious talk about equality of opportunity in a meriticracy had to mean a really level playing field to begin with.  If one is serious. And I am being serious.

You see, I don't believe we are going to get anywhere on any of the subject areas being seriously discussed here - economic, social, environmental, until we are able to bring about a Cuban-style "model". (And Cuba's exploits in the medical field are clearly something to be emulated. Just think of what they could accomplish for humanity in a world free of political and economic suppression).

One reason I keep mentioning the folk in the hills above you, there in Virginia, is that they, too, would be amazed at mention of true equality of opportunity - and  a majority of them are descended from people who came to America a couple of centuries back in search of that very thing. They would react in disbelief at the mention of the concept, as you have.

"Humanity" is supposed to accomplish social and economic miracles but without any real belief in miracles.  Just some kind of misbegotten hope.

George Victor wrote:

In my studies of social justice, it has always seemed to me, SSC, that serious talk about equality of opportunity in a meriticracy had to mean a really level playing field to begin with.  If one is serious. And I am being serious.  

Oh, we certainly don't have a pure meritocracy. I'm not where I am because I'm the smartest guy out there and people who are struggling are hardly all stupid.

But you can try to achieve meritocracy by trying to build some people up or by trying to tear others down adn I think attacking private schools fall into the latter.

And there are so many areas where people enjoy privelege. I'm not privileged jsut because my parents had enough to send me to private school. I'm priveleged because, for example, I'm physically healthy and fit which gives me certain advantages which gives me certain advantages over people with physical challenges. The solution is to knock down barriers for such people and create a more wlecome world for them. it's not to amputate my legs so that we're all at the same level.

It's not jsut private schools that give some an advantage over others. it's aprental education levels, it's the time they can spend helping you, it's financial security, it's personal safety. Unless you're advocating handing children over to the state, you will never have this level palying field. I don't know what attacking private schools which deliver great educations, albeit not for everyone, achieves.

Caissa wrote:

Other than the fact that it was part of a political deal brokered in the 1860s to achieve Confederation, what justification is there for  publicl funding religious school systems in the 21st century?

 

This is the crux of the matter.

unionist wrote:

Another option could be the Québec one, where religious public schools were abolished overnight as a category, but optional religious courses continued for 10 years until being ended (to zero public outcry) this year. 

Sounds democratic to me, just abolish things with a stroke of the pen. Like abolishing poverty could be achieved in the same way. I don't care much for these kinds of abolishers who are so careful to abolish some things and not others. Henry the eighth was an abolisher of monasteries and abbeys, and razed some impressive buildings to the ground. And with the destruction of abbeys and firing of monks off the job went England's only social services, and valuable real estate seized and redistributed to people who really didnt need enriching. And there was no tax relief. Quite the opposite. It doesnt hurt to question the king's motives.  How GATS threatens post-secondary

Are you from Virginia, by the way George, or ahve some connection to Appalachia? Just curious since you seem pretty familair with and interested in teh area...

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

I'm vitally interested in the future of the U.S. as a democratic state, because, as you demonstrate and as Bageant tells us, the priveleged of 'Merica have no foggy idea of the folks feelings up in Appalachia and other redneck areas.

They will prevail and bring the Palins to power and you will wonder what in hell happened.

I will leave off inviting you to read Deer Hunting. That's now a broken reed.

remind wrote:

Oh for pete's sake! Likening getting rid of tax payer funding of religious schools, to actions of Henry VIII is more than a bit out there.

Not as far out there as suggesting that taxes will be reduced in Ontario, or that separate school funding stands in the way of solving child poverty. Those people are so far out there that they can only meet themselves on the way back. And GATS is key to the modern day movement for enclosure.

That's okay, I was thinking the same thing about them.

unionist wrote:

These people receive public funds to talk this way.

That's outrageous. Who are those kooks? I've never read that one, but I think now that I must. Perhaps the movie will do. With movies I'm in, out, and Opus Dei agents may never find out about it. Anyway, we should know that the Church isnt the only group that isnt completely down with quantum theories suggesting parallel universes exist. Some mainstream scientists don't enjoy it either and consider it heresy to even talk about it. Galileo Galilei was a devout Catholic, and they arrested him for heresy.  

[u][url=http://www.catholicregister.org/content/view/2304/855/]Catholics schools threatened by hostile secularism, bishop says[/url][/u]

Quote:

[Bishop Paul-André] Durocher observed that the new aggressiveness of secularism has become
a direct challenge to the existence of publicly funded Catholic schools
in Ontario in particular. He warned that a new movement is afoot to
build up public approval for getting rid of the Catholic school system.

We're comin' to get you, Paul-André!!

Quote:

“I think we have to take this very seriously,” he said of the movement
to eliminate Catholic schools. “It represents the thought of a lot of
people out there.”

You betcha!!

Quote:

Canada's culture is shaped deeply by its Catholic population and is a
significant reason why this country is so popular among immigrants
today.

Ok, slow down, I'm losin' ya...

Quote:

While their critics argue that Catholic schools are intolerant of
others, Durocher noted that they actually bring together dozens of
different cultural backgrounds into one faith community.

Sorta like the Roman Empire! Good stuff!

Quote:

Critics claim that millions of dollars would be saved by combining
Ontario's Catholic and public systems. However, this fails to recognize
that [b]80 per cent of the cost of education is absorbed by teachers'
salaries[/b], which will remain the same whether there are one or two
systems.

O Lord, rid us of these trade unions who imperil our balance sheet! Give strength to these thy management negotiators and right-wing governments to hold the line on thy divine expenditures!

Quote:

Catholic schools are indeed the focus of evangelization by the church of its younger generation, he said.

Another good reason to get the priests out of there.

 

Quote:

“I think we have to take this very seriously,” he said of the movement to eliminate Catholic schools. “It represents the thought of a lot of people out there.” 

I think the NDP have to take this very seriously... 

As the legs are chopped from our manufacturing and finance systems, as unemployment mounts, with increasing demands on charity (see the ONtario Liberals gathering to try to deal with the mounting crisis) there certainly can be no better time to advance the case for cost-saving on education by twinning the  Catholic and public systems.

But I see no argument coming from a separate school ratepayer. One peeped in briefly, but was silenced with a  telling bit of quippery before we could learn anything. Par for the inviting atmosphere for open discourse here, the quest for knowledge.

What's it like "on the ground" out there, beyond the sophistry? To repeat an earlier post:

As for the parent of your public school child...they are desperately hoping that with private schools skimming off the upper middle class kids, and with other demands on their taxes for health and welfare, there might be something left over to support a decent education for their kids.

Strange how the great carrot, equality of opportunity becomes such a threatening idea in a "meritocracy", where failure often means a terrible future indeed.

That, folks, is the real world of parent and student, not an ideal construct. That is what is on the mind of the parent and teacher. And it leaves out all sorts of even more terrible possibilities facing the kids today, resulting from our squandering Earth's resources.

Just so we don't become too far removed from the classroom in our thinking of "what is best".

 

 

unionist wrote:

You are now repeating your story about your nurturing ecumenical Catholic school embracing Aboriginal children where the public school allegedly shunned them. Is this the same Church which accompanied the conquistadors, determined to commit cultural genocide on all those lucky enough to survive the physical genocide? The residential schools also "welcomed" these children. What you need to understand is that society has belatedly come to the realization that this was the embrace of death. 

Seems to me the Jesuits sometimes arrived on war ships along with a few soldiers and financed by European royalty. Jeez, now I understand why we're so offended by the mere mention of good king Henry VIII. I think we can blame good king Alfred I for wanting to re-create Roman empire for England's sake. I suppose Henry didnt have enough Catholics slaughtered to suit some. One doesnt have to necessarily be a Catholic in order to have abused natives and school children in Canada then or now. It also seems to me that First Nations people(and Chinese as long as they paid a head tax) were the charges of Queeny in London delegating to her loyal subjects in Canada (our two old line parties sharing power in Ottawa) It also seems to me that Canada was one of only three or four countries out of 150 or so which refused to sign a UN declaration of  Indigenous peoples' rights in recent years. I guess our stooges in Ottawa and the other two or three other Anglo-Saxon country holdouts were influenced by Rome when deciding to forego that one? And First Nations people continue to live in conditions of thirdworld poverty across Canada no matter which of the two old line parties rules the roost in Ottawa, whether Whigs or Tories and vice versa.

unionist wrote:

There's a genocide I must have missed. Time for Queen Elizabeth II to apologize to Rome?

The "Windsors" are illegit as far as I'm concerned. Saxe-Coburg-Gothas was a made up name. The jackals are only there through a weak marriage with James III's daughter. William and Mary should have stayed home in Holland where they belonged

Quote:

No, but one has to be rather perversely one-eyed to praise the Catholic Church for being "multicultural" and "inclusive" in "welcoming" all kinds of students into its schools. The same would be true for Anglicans and others.

The Church wanted to spread the word, that was their mandate. And for centuries after the fall of Rome, priests and monks were keepers of the written word in the then western world. They didnt ask for such power, it was the result of the failure of warmongering imperialists. High finance and usury caused empires to consume themselves then as it does today. We could be headed for a modern equivalent of the dark ages even today.

Quote:

All of settler Canadian society is culpable. But to suggest that Catholic schools have been nicer than the others, based on your alleged experience, is bizarre. I think it shows the nefarious influence of religion on a youthful mind which otherwise harbours progressive sentiments and strivings.

I sense a reluctance on your part to place very much blame with ruling imperialists then or today for the genocides and impoverishment of First Nations. If ever I become as slavishly devoted to old line imperialism and now this 19th century Westminster contraption  made new again every four years, I think I will  consider cashing in my chips. While separate schools are on the wane in Quebec and Ontario, native poverty and thirdworld conditions are still the rule after all this time.

Quote:

When I quote some bishop vaunting Catholic education as being more "inclusive" than secular public education, I do expect everyone here to laugh along at the joke. Sorry if you didn't get it.

Not everyone who works in the all public system admires it as much as you. Now there's a thought.

unionist:

George, your posts might be punchier if you just expressed your viewpoint and omitted the de rigueur sweeping attacks on the "babble atmosphere" which you consider to be so "unwelcoming".

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

Brave to the point of gladiatorial is he/she with the nerve to go from watcher to contributer around here. What thick hides we must have, u. Just read a few posts in this thread, the sarcasm dripping from each riposte reaching for the "opponent's" vitals.

It may be entertaining, but can it all be made more inviting. Particularly pathetic is the pack attack on some poor bastard who unsuspectingly pushes forward a dumb position. Not the slime of a troll. Just ordinary dumb, as in unread.  Could we establish a code of conduct aimed at giving newbies some quarter, breathing space, a chance at, er... redemption?

I've just made my apologies, in another thread, for my tendency to e sarcastic, and am going about looking for converts like the newly confessed sinner.

Consider this post as an attempt at levity (including the language of the church) before selecting another verbal lance. Please.