I see Justin’s point (as presented in Alan Dershowitz’s episode), but I think he is exaggerating a bit. After arriving in Canada I attended a local Catholic school during one semester. Justin is wrong when he says you need to present a proof of your baptism. I wasn’t baptized and I had no problem being accepted by the school.
The problem (which is actually not a problem) here in Toronto is multiculturalism. The Catholic schools are mostly attended by Italian and Portuguese children who cannot afford private schools. Religion is an important part of their heritage and I wouldn’t wish to take this away from them. Where do we stop? The Sikhs in RCMP are allowed to wear turbans. Is Justin going to speak against the public funding of the fabric used to make the turbans? I am a little concerned people might start associating atheism with racism. But I might be wrong. Ahh, a difficult topic…
Firstly, your individual experience does not represent the legal truth of the matter. Catholic schools have an absolute right to deny entry into primary schools (and I was quite careful to say primary) to non catholics without proof of baptism. The fellow who started the Equality Education in Ontario group was told his son could not attend his local catholic primary school because he was protestant and instead had to bus his child an hour away to the closest non catholic school. So that is a fact. Some schools may make exceptions, but the legal fact is that they don’t have to. And they frequently don’t. They also frequently refuse to hire or to promote a non catholic teacher. In fact, a non catholic can NEVER be promoted above a catholic (to say the principle of the school), so this is blatant descrimination. So I do not believe I am wrong and I do not believe I am exaggerating at all to call this unfair, unsecular and just plain wrong (so says the UN, twice, and 70% of Ontarians in multiple polls).
As to your second point, I think there’s a very clear difference between a person being allowed to practice their religion, and the taxpayers having to fund the indoctrination of a child in the religion of their parent. Do not fall for the rhetoric employed by those who would like taxpayers to fund the $6000 tuition for religious private schools, who call us anti-semetic or islamaphobic. That is a common ploy - anyone who doesn’t give you what you think you’re entitled to is called a racist or a hate-mongerer. It will not work. Religious people are not entitled to taxpayer money for religious schools - they are entitled to their own private religious schools. That is a world of difference.
Catholic schools have an absolute right to deny entry into primary schools (and I was quite careful to say primary) to non catholics without proof of baptism.
Yes, you’re right. And I apologize for not paying sufficient attention to your comment on PoI. I am in a complete support of changing this law. But that’s as far as I would take this matter. I don’t agree when you say that
justin - 10 October 2007 06:08 PM
Religious people are not entitled to taxpayer money for religious schools - they are entitled to their own private religious schools.
I would find it satisfactory to have the primary Catholic schools subscribe to the same rules as the secondary Catholic schools — where a considerable portion of the students are Muslims, protestants, atheist, etc. Religious people are entitled to taxpayer money for religious schools as much as drivers are entitled to taxpayer money (some of them contributed by non-drivers) for paved roads.
Hmm, the more I think about it the less sure I feel about what I said in my previous post. If I accept that Catholics are entitled to publicly funded schools, than the same rights would have to apply to Jews, Muslims, and others. What a mess! Instead of multiculturalism we’ll have different parts of the city inhabited by groups of people with different beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, etc. And this would be the end of everything. So how about making the religious schools private? Won’t the religious object to paying for public schools where they don’t ever mention god?
I hope you know what you’re doing, Justin. I really do. Best of luck!
Yes, private is the way to go, and every religious school system is private, except for the catholic system. That’s the whole problem. If it wasn’t for the catholics having government money, there wouldn’t be an issue.
Well, Ontario is secular, it isn’t catholic, jewish, muslim, anglican, atheist or anything else. That is a point that needs to be hammered at over and over again. The One School System Network, as mentioned on POI, has strong jewish, muslim, christian and hindu allies. See http://www.onessn.org. Secular doesn’t equal atheist.
Well, Ontario is secular, it isn’t catholic, jewish, muslim, anglican, atheist or anything else. That is a point that needs to be hammered at over and over again. The One School System Network, as mentioned on POI, has strong jewish, muslim, christian and hindu allies. See http://www.onessn.org. Secular doesn’t equal atheist.
Justin
Thanks to Justin for the link (which was in the podcast) . I am interested in other links on the topic. I wasn’t able to find a discussion in a major US newspaper like NY Times or Washington Post, in spite of the Trottier stating that the “world is watching” .
I found the Trottier monologue in the Point of Inquiry podcast to be intrusive. D.J. introduces it as “short” but it is 6:30 minutes or so. He goes back to 19th century Canadian history to explain how public funding of Catholic & Protestant schools got its start. This is a flaw in the Canadian constitution—not as bad as the initial flaw in the U.S. constitution institutionalizing slavery, but nevertheless vexing.
This topic fits with the discussion in the U.S. on whether the U.S. was founded as a “Christian nation”, and it helps to highlight why the issue should be important in the U.S. . The Dershowitz interview that follows touches on this, because of recent comments by Senator McCain (claiming the “Christian nation"). Dershowitz calls McCain to task, but it would be great if he could publish his comments in a more widely viewed forum (like a national newspaper) and then mention the Canadian dilemma.
One non-Canadian reference to the Canadian school problem is [Here; 1997 article in School Business Affairs ]
which states:
In Ontario, Canada, the 19th-century educational imperative of indoctrinating public school students in a common Christianity became intolerable, given the province’s increasingly pluralistic population. Most vestiges of religious practice and instruction have been swept from public schools. Religious minorities’ preference for a unitary, religiously neutral public education system of publicly funded, religiously based schools has been soundly rejected by the courts.
What I don’t get is why do they want to send their child to school to practice religion. Isn’t that the purpose of the church? Education is for learning not indoctrination. That being said I support one public school system that teaches world religions.
This issue has recently come up because while there is public outcry against the Afrocentric school that is opening up in Toronto, we’re beginning to see hypocrisy among those who still support the separate school system. Dalton McGuinty has expressed his objection to an Afrocentric school because it would create division among students in Toronto, however he fully supports the continuation of funding Catholic schools. It doesn’t make any sense to me. How does having Catholic schools not create religious division? I attended Catholic schools and there weren’t many non-Catholics. The overall percentage of students that attend Catholic schools is 31% I believe, and the total percentage of Catholics in Ontario is 34.7%. I believe the number of non-Catholics that attend Catholics schools is 7%, but I haven’t got confirmation on that figure. Nonetheless, there is a religious divide and I don’t understand the purpose of it anymore, especially since this was an issue with Quebec and they’ve already abolished that system.
Dalton McGuinty has expressed his objection to an Afrocentric school because it would create division among students in Toronto, however he fully supports the continuation of funding Catholic schools. It doesn’t make any sense to me. How does having Catholic schools not create religious division?
I completely agree.
The ONLY solution is to change our ‘constitution’ (funding for Catholic schools predates our existence as a dominion/country). And if we think that the last election (in which the faith-based funding question was arguably THE primary issue) was heated/controversial, that’s nothing compared to the hubbub that will ensue if/when we attempt to go that extra, needed step and get rid of funding for Catholic schools.
I, for one, think that’s the only logical step to take though. As long as funding for Catholic schools exists, we deserve to be constantly reminded of the essential hypocrisy of the whole thing.
But I’d argue that McGuinty doesn’t necessarily ‘fully support’ the continuation of funding, I just think he knows what a HUGE can of worms it would open to try to change it.
But I’d argue that McGuinty doesn’t necessarily ‘fully support’ the continuation of funding, I just think he knows what a HUGE can of worms it would open to try to change it.
This is true, he may lack the political courage, but I think Ontarians would support such a policy. I have yet to see a poll that tells me otherwise. The last Ipsos-Reid poll I saw had 53 percent in favour of a single school system, 23 percent for the status quo, and 21 percent for all faith-based school funding. There would probably be backlash from the Catholic community, but that’s where you need a leader with the political courage to stand up to them and give what the majority of Ontarians want.
But I think the backlash would be bigger than just the Catholics, since a big part of the student population of the schools aren’t necessarily even Catholic.
But the polls you’re talking about are definitely encouraging :)
But I think the backlash would be bigger than just the Catholics, since a big part of the student population of the schools aren’t necessarily even Catholic.
But the polls you’re talking about are definitely encouraging
I’m not exactly sure what part of of the Catholic school student population are non-Catholic. I’m still looking for some hard numbers on this. However, considering that only 31% of Ontario students attend Catholic schools and Ontario has 34% Catholics, I’d imagine that there aren’t many. I’m also curious how hard it was for Quebec and Newfoundland to change the system. In Quebec, 80% of the population is Catholic.
I don’t think many of the non-Catholic students attending Catholic schools (assuming there are many) would oppose this type of policy. Maybe I’m wrong, but a well driven campaign pointing out the discrimination of the current system should convince people to be in favour of one school system.
Tory’s plan to fund all faith-based schools was simply ridiculous. If you think 1 Afrocentric school is too divisive, imagine the religious division there would be under Tory’s plan.
Tory’s plan to fund all faith-based schools was simply ridiculous. If you think 1 Afrocentric school is too divisive, imagine the religious division there would be under Tory’s plan.
Exactly!!
I’ll say this......I was extremely pleased/relieved that the opposition to the Tory plan was SO strong and unequivocal :)
