quote:

---

Dear Ms. Communicate,
I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons - and have on many occasions spoken out against the church among my friends and family and even boycotted my niece's christening because I felt that I could not support my family's desire to offer up their daughter to such a sexist and oppressive institution.
Now, my son is about to enter high school. My children have always gone to public school, but the public high school in our area is a 25 minute drive away and has a bad reputation. The Catholic high school is right around the corner and has better programs. Apparently, by the time the students reach high school, there is no longer Catholic religion classes required. However, I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church.

Will I still have a right to speak out against the Catholic Church if I choose to send my child to a school run by the Catholic School Board?

Thanks,

Feminist Mother

---

Find Ms. Communicate's answer here.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: jrose ]

She was unwilling to support having her niece offered up to the institution, because of sexism, etc, so she boycotted the baptism. But yet here she is willing/wanting to give her son up to a sexist institution and have further patriarchial bias entrenched into him, beyond what is already present in the public school system. Why the inconsistent philosophy?

Sure enough he would take a 25 min bus trip, as opposed to a 5 min walk, but is the saved 40 mins a day, worth serving your child up to an institution that will influence the rest of your child's life, and to one that she apparently feels strongly about, that she boycotted a baptism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
That stuck out for me as well. She's hard-nosed enough to hurt her family's feelings, but not hard-nosed enough to face personal inconvenience?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
This week from Ms. Communicate: "I’d like to remind you that you only have this choice because the Church still considers you and your family members."

---

We have managed to eliminate public confessional boards, though alas there is still government funding for private confessional schools aka religion-based ghettos. That crap should be banned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Such funding is the great loophole left in our fight to eliminate confessional schools in Québec.

---

Not very like Quebec.

That said, back then, public schools were de-facto "Protestant schools" with all sorts of religion in it, so I can understand why people then thought that Catholics should be able to go to separate schools (although it's still Christian supremacist, since no one ever thought that maybe Jews and people of other religions didn't like having Protestant bullshit crammed down their throats in the public school system).

But now, public schools have been properly stripped of religion. So, there is absolutely no excuse for publicly funding Catholic schools.

Not a single public dime towards religious indoctrination!

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
The Christian Supremacy Party did its work as well then as it does now.

---

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

The Liberals, which were traditionally the party Catholics and francophones voted for in opposition to the Protestant, Orange and anti-immigrant Tories traditionally supported the extension of funding for separate schools and the NDP advocated this position as well, in the 1970s, party in order to eat into the Liberal's base but also because in the context of breaking from Ontario's Anglo-Protestant supremacist past supporting Catholic school funding seemed like the more progressive option. Of course, the notion that right wingers oppose Catholic school funding and progressives support it is a false dichotomy but it was very real in the politics of post-war Ontario.

Of course, by 1985 the reality of Ontario had changed and the old Protestant-Catsholic enmity was gone but just like the way generals often fight the last war, Ontario politicians, particularly on the liberal-left, were looking at Catholic school funding from the context of 1971 and before and failed to recognize that the rest of the word had changed and that extending funding to a Christian school was not a progressive, anti-discrimination measure, an antidote to the bigotry of the past, but was actually a reactionary move that failed to recognize the importance of separating church and state.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

Just when it looked like Prue might be trying to distinguish himself from the other candidates through a bold policy maneuver that would make the NDP more attractive to a large sector of the population whose views are not reflected currently by any party - he backtracks for fear of having been bold.

quote:

---

"The NDP policy is there, it says that we support the dual system," he said. "It is time though, I think, that we take a look at that, but we need to leave that to (the) convention. It cannot be my position or an individual's position."

As handlers tried to end the news conference, Prue insisted he wasn't trying to re-open the debate about religion and schools that caused so much trouble for Conservative Leader John Tory in last year's election and accused reporters of trying to put words in his mouth.

"I think Tory ran a very poor campaign in the last election in terms of faith-based schools . . . and he suffered the consequences and dragged us down a little with it," he said.

"I think the NDP policy is quite clear and it is there until such time as the convention reviews it."

---

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by aka Mycroft:

That's not only inaccurate but completely out of line.

---

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I don't give a shit who led it. If they're espousing Christian supremacist principles, then that's no party I'll be voting for any time soon.

---

I don't understand the criticism of this woman for being inconsistent in her opposition to Roman Catholicism. Is consistency such a virtue that it should outweigh other factors? If you strongly object to an infant family member being baptized into the church on the say-so of her parents (considered by some to be a form of child abuse) does that mean you should not so much as contemplate sending your own child to a Catholic school - even though you believe he will not receive religious instruction?

A more reasonable answer would point out that there is no way to avoid "supporting" the Catholic Church if she sends her son to the Catholic school; not only will her school taxes be directed to the separate school system, but the very presence of her son as a student - and therefore a statistic - will help to validate and perpetuate the existence of the separate school system, and conversely weaken the public system, even if only by a relatively tiny amount.

And of course, she does not forfeit the right to speak out against the Church (which was the actual question she asked).

She was not asking for advice on whether she should send her son to a Catholic school. There are obviously some arguments for and against it, and she has the right to decide that for herself. If she decides to go with the catholic school, it will not be because of any religious sympathy for the Church, so it doesn't make her a hypocrite for speaking out against the chirch and opposing the enforced religious recruitment of family members through the sacrament of baptism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
At the crucial convention debate on the topic he argued, as always, from socialist principle, not from any sort of realpolitik, that no socialist could defend what the grade 10 cut-off was doing to working-class Catholic kids.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What was it doing to working-class Catholic kids? Forcing them to switch to a public high school for Grade 11?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
But equal rights for Ontario Catholics was not on the radar, it seemed.

---

Equal to whom? Non-Catholics? Interesting bifurcation of the society.

"Equal rights" for Catholics would mean no religious public schools for them - just like everyone else. Are you using some Ontario dialect definition of "equal"??

Québec and NL have wiped out religious public schools, with virtually zero backlash.

Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Oh, of course, it will require a constitutional amendment, which takes two seconds. We know, we've done it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Any other social crises I can help Ontario with?

---

Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? I guess not.

But we have no surplus buildings. In Port Hope today three schools have students entering Grade 1: one Catholic and two Public. Where will this new plain vanilla public school be? In a wing of St. Mary's, which will gradually fade out the "St." and eventually be renamed Mary Vanilla?

More to the point: what sane person would propose, or vote for, such unnecessary disruption? What voter wouldn't say "Why can't we all get along?" as in fact we do.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Starting from last years grade 9s, the catholic school is funded for those grade 9s until grade 12 and all the ones after them already in the system. Starting next year there is no funding for any students entering the catholic system. That way no one can say we are abandoning students already in the system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? ... But we have no surplus buildings.

---

I'm trying to determine whether you really don't understand that change is several decades overdue.

Each new cohort doesn't have to be in different buildings. They just need to abolish the religious stuff. One year at a time. Within 5-6 years, the nightmare is over.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Same building? Different syllabus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Different school board. Different principal. In fact, different neighbourhood, if the three new public schools each have their own attendence boundaries.

---

Look, if it's all that complicated, then just abolish it overnight. Any parent that feels their child needs the Pope overseeing biology and math class can work the extra overtime shifts and force their kid into some private school - the way all the other non-equal religions do.

What is the problem here? Is there actually 1% of voters who would vote for someone who promised to maintain this medieval system?

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
It bothers no one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
My taxes are subsidizing your kids' religious education.

---

If Catholic schools get subsidies from non-Catholics, the only reason would be if Catholics have lower incomes and pay less taxes.

In which case your taxes are subsidizing Catholic hospitals too. Does that bother you?

Of course Dan Heap was right, as at the time the so-called public system was actually strongly Protestant - but that has to be abolished as well.

Secular education and an elimination of any religion's influence on public or publicly-funded education is a very real issue. It should have been settled in the 19th or early-20th century, true, but there are obvious historical reasons (including reactionary anti-"Papist" bigotry, mostly against French and Irish) among the non-less God-bothered Protestants and Orangemen). The elimination of the influence of any Church, Temple, Synagogue or Mosque on public education - and on funding for sectarian schools - is a fundamental of democracy and equality.

And I definitely am of the opinion that Catholic - and any other religion-based hospitals receiving public funding - must become secular.

That does not mean there can't be accomodations to people of a given religious faith - a chapel, a chaplain, kosher or halal food, etc. It means that there will be no religious busybodies trying to control women's private parts, for one thing.

The hospitals, mostly Catholic, were nationalised here during the Quiet Revolution. So were the universities and the former Collèges classiques.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Why don't you worry about real social issues that affect most people. Not your little religious wars.

---

But now, we're all a lot more enlightened than we were 30 or 40 years ago, we've eliminated all religion (including Protestant) from our public schools, and it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Like segregation and ghettoization and dating and marrying "one's own". That's a real social issue. It should be publicly discouraged, not funded.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.

---

What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system? Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

As in not wanting public money to fund any religious dogma?

Also sounds like the only fair system in a society where there are people of many faiths, and of none.

AFAIK there are only 2 things that need to be done to the current system. Remove the requirement for a letter from a priest to get a teaching job and move religious classes out of the regular school day, and I'm not even sure if the latter problem exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
...Would you like me to tell Montreal Jews that they shouldn't send their kids to anglophone schols, and shouldn't be so concentrated in TMR and other neighbourhoods, but should integrate themselves into the majority culture? Do you propose anglophone schools should be de-funded, to discourage segregation and ghettoization?

---

As really, what you did with that sentence was juxtaposition religion and language and created a conceptual framework that the 2 are equal within the functioning of the state.

The 2 cannot be compared, as such your questions have no basis in the reality of the situation, nor can they be factored into any deliberations.

There is NO state religion, as such there should be no funding of any religious schools. There ARE state language requirements, thus funding must exist for them. You see how that works?

In order for your framework to be valid, we would have to get rid of state language requirements.

quote:

---

If a Catholic family doesn't want to send their kids to a Catholic school, they don't have to.

---

You see how that works public vs private?

Private is one's own religious choice, public is secular with NO funding for private religious choices, as it is a secular state.

quote:

---

What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system?

---

quote:

---

Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry.

---

What you are hearing the sound of is empowerment of the general public, in realizing, and saying; public money must not go to an organization that operates a school from a position of private religious beliefs.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Anybody know if there are any other issues?

---

We could add, things like:

1. No adequate sex education

2. Heterosexual family teaching only

3. Systemically entrenched sexism

But does it really matter what issues there are? The reality is there are too many issues to try and eradicate, in order for public funding to apply. As religion, their religion, is entrenched into their school systems. Period.

etd to remove creationism by popular consensus, though I know Catholics who believe whole heartedly in it.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
The issue doesn't have to be shutting down the school system. We can simply remove the control of the church from that system.

---

quote:

---

2. Creationism as opposed to evolution

---

This is incorrect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:

This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I went to Catholic highschool about 1 decade ago and they teach a pro-evolution creation story - Adam and Eve, symbolism and all that.

---

quote:

---

Symbolism of what? And what is all that?

Having asked that, I will point out that we can see from your, and others, examples, they mixed religion and evolution, notwithstanding is the most important and sole fact they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion.

---

That is to say that the story symbolizes the creation of the universe, much in the same way creation myths from other cultures do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
That is to say that the story symbolizes the creation of the universe, much in the same way creation myths from other cultures do.

---

quote:

---

This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
As to the question she raises: "I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church" -- if you have the illusion you are "sending" your son to any particular high school, have another chat with him. Perhaps he will set you straight. In that case, you might ask him to explain why he has chosen this school, just so you will have a clue why you have "sent" him there.

---

Excellent point, bears repeating.

Anyways, the separate boards are all crazy anyways from what I hear, so personally I'm just as happy not having to deal with some of those people. Went through enough of that nonsense before I switched myself out of Catholic high school in grade 10.

I would beg to differ that just the religion classes need removal, to be acceptable for public funding.[/QUOTE

Get real. These are not private schools with a public top up. Removing funding means closing the schools.

You didn't answer my question about how you know what goes on in Separate Schools, and one assertion you made has been thoroughly refuted, so I would suggest your credibility on this subject is low.

Even given that, all the other things you referred to can be dealt with by political action at the school board level, and even then I suspect the difference in those areas between the Separate Schools and the Public Schools is not all that large. Especially when you get out of Toronto, and even there I suspect most of the difference is from inertia from when there was a City of Toronto School Board.

Removing the PUBLIC funding means simply that those who wish to indoctrinate their children with religion should do so on their own dime. Not tax payers money. Public schools, especially in poor and working class areas, need the funding that gets syphoned off to the Catholic schools that teach kids that homosexuality is a sin, men are inherently better than women, and abstinence is the best policy (we all have seen how that BS works).

You want to send your kids to Catholic school, you pay for it out of your pocket. Period.

Frankly why any progressive would willingly send their children to a religious school is beyond me. Wait until kids are old enough to determine which religion (or no religion at all) best fits their world view. Let them decide on their own.

Oh and BTW jroothamn, my son was sent to a Catholic High School. I will forever regret making that decision.

Added just in case you decide to posit the notion I have no right to say anything because I know nothing. Despicable argument really, since any half-wit knows what Catholic schools teach as part of their curriculum.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Removing funding does not mean closing the schools.

---

Yes it does. Just like removing funding from hospitals means closing hospitals.

Your stance is incorrect. If people want their kids to so badly go to a separate school, they can pay for it. Otherwise their kids can can to the same school as the unwashed masses attending public school.

If you call me a liar again, I'll have to notify the mods.

ETA: it is not the same as removing funding from public hospitals, which are open to ALL people, in all walks of society. Now who is being dishonest?

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

No schools were closed because of that. Of course schools, like hospitals do get closed due to government cutbacks and underfunding, of for legitimate reasons such as sharp declines in enrolment.

We are stuck with private schools with a religious outlook and sadly, they, like other private schools, still receive public funding.

A few contrary notes stand out:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
The positive of attending something like a family occassion far outweighs my feelings toward any one denomination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
The church doesn't control the system. The democratically elected school board trustees control the system. Well, except to the extent that the provincial government controls the system.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I took a lot of enjoyment in asking those questions in religion class, mostly 'cause I was a little punk who enjoyed watching my teacher squirm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael Hardner:
Catholics, I would say, tend to think that God's creation involved lighting the fuse on the big bang.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Get real. These are not private schools with a public top up. Removing funding means closing the schools.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
Do you honestly think that the overwhelming majority of students in the separate system will be able to pay to keep their schools open? Of course you don't.

---

Our board now lives with a competitor who plays on an even playing field. Would it eliminate wasteful duplication if we could rewrite 150 years of history and have only two systems (one English, one French?). Sure, on paper that would look more efficient, which is what Mike Harris said when he created the current mega-boards. Except he didn't really believe it, because OISE had done a study showing that boards with 15,000 students had the lowest per-student costs. It was a pretext to abolish the NDP-controlled Toronto Board. And even that didn't work out for him. Just a bad idea all round.

And that's my last word. Unless people try to drag religious wars into the NDP leadership race.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

We have every right to say nasty things about the Church. And about Orangemen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wilf Day:
This started with a fictional correspondent saying "I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons . . ." I can't criticise a fictional correspondent for bigotry, but unfortunately she has set the tone for remarks like "Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks" and "they teach/indoctrinate religion, their religion."

---

Wow, so you think the correspondent and I and others are "bigots".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Given section 93 of the BNA Act, how would one go about legislatively abolishing the Catholic system in Ontario?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I would like someone to explain to me what kind of community (indeed society) it is where you have to drive 25 minutes to get to a real public school, while the religious school is just around the corner?

.

---

rural Alberta. First Nations reserves.

Many larger towns.

The closest school to our residence is Catholic. The next closest secular school would be a 40 minute walk, when its -40 or take the school bus, which takes almost as long due to it's route.

Alternatively, the closest Islamic school is a 90 minute school bus ride

I should note that Francophone communities in Alberta traditionally had been targets of hate and terrorism by the Orange-men Lodges and the Ku Klux Klan chapter that was chartered in Alberta. These communities were largely Catholic, isolated, and targeted. To identify as Francophone in Alberta was to identify one's self as Catholic. It was a way to preserve a sense of community in Orange country.

As a consequence, there is now a separate schools act in Alberta, to protect those communities, which protects the rights of Separate school boards, and defines their responsibilities because they are publicly funded

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

For more than a century before 1964 non-Catholic immigrants from outside Canada who settled in Quebec were not allowed to attend French Catholic schools. The Quebec Education Act of 1988 provided a change to linguistic school boards, a change that has not yet complete been fully implemented. In 1997, a unanimous vote by the National Assembly of Quebec allowed for Quebec to request that the Government of Canada exempt the province from Article 93 of the Constitution Act. This request was passed by the federal parliament, resulting in Royal Assent being granted to the Constitutional Amendment, 1997, (Québec).

---

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_education_system

Temporal, I am well-aware of the history of anti-francophone and anti-Catholic persecution. The original KKK in the Southern US was also anti-Catholic, and anti-Semitic. But nowadays it is certainly possible to identify as a francophone without being Catholic, and indeed, without being of old-stock Québécois, Acadian or Métis heritage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
Does the Constitutional Amendment only require the concurrence of the Ontario and Federal Legislatures?

---

Yes.

quote:

---

If you could point me in the write direction I'd be greatly appreciative.

---

"Greatly" appreciative - as in, money?

Section 43 of the Constitutional Act, 1982:

quote:

---

43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including

(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.

---

ETA; Thanks to Lagatta, as well.

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
The point I took from Wilf was that change needs to be done foremost with consideration of the people who will face the change.

---

Interesting viewpoint. Who are the "people who will face the change" and which Ontarians will not "face the change"?

For example, some Jews and Muslims and evangelical Christians and others were no doubt hoping John Tory's funding promise would happen. The elimination of Catholic public schools will impact on their expectations, will it not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
... for me it is a question of timing, process and priority.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
Don't tell me I'm dishonest. You essentially called me a liar.

Your stance is incorrect. If people want their kids to so badly go to a separate school, they can pay for it. Otherwise their kids can can to the same school as the unwashed masses attending public school.

If you call me a liar again, I'll have to notify the mods.

ETA: it is not the same as removing funding from public hospitals, which are open to ALL people, in all walks of society. Now who is being dishonest?

---

1) Catholic schools are open to ALL students, in all walks of society. Just like Catholic hospitals are open to ALL patients.

2) Pretending that it's as simple as cutting off funding is entirely disingenuous.

Anyone who thinks that only an insignificantly small number of students will be forced to leave the separate school system when forced to pay tuition isn't being dishonest. However, they also aren't in touch with reality.

If the Catholic system is going to remain in place for tuition paying students, that means they keep their buildings. When an avalanche of students are forced to leave the system because they can't afford tuition fees, that means schools will close. Public boards might buy and re-open some of those schools, but the schools still close.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Well here in Québec the religion-based boards were eliminated (the outcome of a protracted struggle) and replaced with language-based boards.

No schools were closed because of that. Of course schools, like hospitals do get closed due to government cutbacks and underfunding, of for legitimate reasons such as sharp declines in enrolment.

---

I think that people need to understand that Catholic schools are not all identical. Each school has its own politics. When I was attending you could "opt out" of religion class after grade 9 or 10. And as I recounted, religion class could be kinda fun for the critical non-believer.

Catholic or Public, schools can be incredibly oppressive places for youth. Whether young people are being "indoctrinated" with a religion of the Catholic flavour or the public religion of capitalism and hierarchy really doesn't make a lot of difference in my mind. I went to Catholic school, an incredibly conservative Catholic school, and I think that it actually contributed in a good way to my concientization.

One notable difference about Catholic schools and "public" schools is that Catholic schools make room for spirituality. Yes, Catholic spiritualities for the most part, but I had many friends in Catholic school who were not Catholic (or even Christian) and who were aloud to talk, discuss, and celebrate their spirituality at school and in class. There is no room for this in public schools. From what I have heard, having many friends who are teachers in both systems, public schools have a chill effect regarding spirituality because they try to do the secular thing in the bureaucratic, PC way typical in this province. Think anti-racism vs. "multiculturalism".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
...There are many, many bad things about Catholic schools but there are also some things that I think have value and public schools could learn from.

---

Promoting spirituality and/or belief in a supernatural power isn't one of them, however. The seperation of church and state is essential for democracy and should not be accepted in any form.

You make it sound as if there was no pressure at all to accept spirituality and catholicism at the school you attended. My guess is that there was a lot of pressure indirectly on students to conform and be part of the greater mission of the school, despite an official policy of openess. You may not have felt it, and I suspect that you beleive in god and are a Catholic, so this would not be not surprising.

If a future government were do abolish the Catholic separate school system and introduced charter schools, most of the separate schools would turn into publicly funded Catholic charter schools. Also, other religious and non-religious charter schools could start. Charter schools could offer unique religious programs, but would not be able to discriminate against students and teachers living within a geographic area. For example, a non-Catholic student could enroll at a Catholic charter school. A non-Catholic teacher would no longer be denied employment because he or she doesn't have a priest's letter. However, both the student and teacher would need to adhere to the charter's mission statement.

How would the introduction of charter schools affect the public school system? Public schools may lose a few students in urban areas. In rural areas, students may join together to be taught in one public school. Public schools will need to become more innovative in offering unique programs to keep students within the public school system as have occured in Calgary and Edmonton.

I have mentioned in previous forums that John Tory made the mistake in offering funding for private religious schools. It was a mistake because public funding would have gone to private entities that could still charge tuition and just to religious schools. Non-religious private schools would have received no funding. I think he gambled in that he thought that non-"Faith Based" supporting voters would not notice while "Faith Based" supporters would and vote for his party. Those who opposed his proposal noticed and voted against him big time.

I think we should be cautious in calling for an end of public money for Catholic, Islamic, Protestant, Jewish schools, / separate school boards.

Essentially, these schools are in the realm of public education. They are guided by rights and regulations and responsibilities.

We are helping the case of those that are attempting to divide and conquer public education, the camp that wants to privatise the Public school systems, and create for profit institutions from K to 12.

There are legitimate concerns about doctrine, attitudes, and social ramifications in the faith based schools, but I don't think these challenges trump the goals of corporations and think tanks to privatise our schools.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

First , the Catholic system is discriminatory. They have the right to , and discriminate against qualified teachers, on the basis of their religion. No publicly funded body should have that right. There are many teachers who are Catholic teaching in the public system. But only Catholic teachers can teach in the Catholic system. This is a clear and strategy of the Catholic church in Ontario to try and ensure that Catholics teach the majority of Ontario's children, Catholic or not.

Second. If tax money is used to support Catholic schools, and Catholic schools hold compulsory masses during school hours, tax dollars are being used to fund religious services. Again, no other religion in Ontario has the right to do this. It's discriminatory and should be illegal.

Third, only the Catholic religion has the right to teach religious courses during the school day. IN grades 9, 10 and 12 Catholicism is taught for a one credit course in the Dufferin Peel board. And in that board, it's compulsory. No other religion can determine for the ministry what can be taught in 3 credit courses. The Catholic board has even rewritten the grade 11 World Religions text to conform to a Catholic perspective.

In short, the Catholic Church has taken the opportunity to have Catholic schools and turned it into Catholic privilege, taking for themselves opportunities denied every other religion in Canada.

Having taught for the Windsor Board of Education, The Timmins Board of Education and the Dufferin Peel Catholic School Board , I would also offer the following the observations. This would not be necessarily be generalized to all boards, but would be food for further exploration. I found that based on my experience with these Boards, the Catholic board was a poisoned environment for the teachers. After all the goal of a Catholic board is to produce Catholics. We wouldn't want to alienate and future Catholics by actually demanding any accountability by the students. The first day I marched a kid down to the office for a black and white uniform violation, the student actually said to me, " I don't know why you're doing this, you're going to be in the office longer than I am." He was right, and it remained true throughout my Catholic teaching career. Discipline was so much better in the public system, it was a joke. Public school students had more time for electives such as tech, art and music. By the time you subtract 4 religion courses from the 12 possible electives, Catholic students could take one third fewer electives than the equivalent public school student.

My solution.. one public school system for everyone. If parents feel compulsory religious education is necessary, ad and extra period to the day and use the resources of the school to enforce attendance. But the same opportunities should exist for all religions. If they miss extra-curriculars, tough luck. Making religion painless is a farce. I gave up tons to be a member of a small religion when I was in high school. Catholic education as practiced in Ontario is a scam.

During Catholic education week there was a shameless assembly promoting Catholic Education, where it was clearly stated that a Catholic Education was superior to any other type of education and that the students were so lucky they were getting one.

In my opinion, such shameless self promotion and bigotry should never be paid for with tax money. The current system discriminates against everyone but Catholics. And I have completely lost all respect for those who try and make themselves out as anything but privileged opportunists.

The Catholic system promotes ignorance on a grand scale, to the point where students used to seek me out to get answers they couldn't get elsewhere such as, " Do other Christians celebrate Christmas?". No lie, if you support the Catholic system, that's what you are supporting. Keep your faith, but live in the world.

[ 23 July 2008: Message edited by: retiredguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
...We are helping the case of those that are attempting to divide and conquer public education, the camp that wants to privatise the Public school systems, and create for profit institutions from K to 12.

---

I liked what retired guy wrote.

I'll try to get info on B.C. It's not easy, because B.C. only gives partial funding to faith -based, "independent" schools of many religious denominations, and the funding formula is different according to "categories" of schools. For example, the largest category, with more than 67,000 students, receives 50 per cent of the funding available to their local school district.

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

I'm woefully ignorant of who gets what portion of our taxes and how they are collected.

quote:

---

Originally posted by the grey:
Catholic schools are open to ALL students, in all walks of society. Just like Catholic hospitals are open to ALL patients.

---

As for Catholic schools:

quote:

---

Separate school boards in Ontario regularly discriminate against non-Catholic Ontarians (two-thirds of the population, 2001 Census) in admissions. At the elementary school level, separate school boards have absolute control over the denominational aspects of education. The religion of you or your child is considered by the Ministry of Education to be a denominational aspect of education that separate boards may control. If you are not a Catholic, you have no right to admission.

The situation with secondary schools is quite different. There, "open access" applies and public school supporters must be admitted to the separate school in their area upon request. In practice, this "open access" begins at grade 9 (Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board). Be wary of entrance interviews for new students at the secondary school level. One usually expects that an interview has two possible outcomes: acceptance or rejection. In this case, rejection is not an option, but the interview serves to suggest that it is and discourages some from even applying. Source

---

quote:

---

Did you know…

• The cost of running parallel school systems (public and separate) serving overlapping jurisdictions amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

• School boards across the province are now cutting staff and programs to deal with funding shortfalls while well over a million dollars per day goes up in smoke due to unnecessary duplication.

• Separate school boards have an absolute right to discriminate against non-Catholic children in admissions (until grade 9) and against non-Catholic teachers in employment (at all grade levels).

• All Ontarians bear the same tax burden, but only those of the Roman Catholic faith are guaranteed a publicly-funded school choice.

• School support designations on municipal property assessments have no effect on total school board funding, which is ultimately determined by enrolment and other documented needs.

• Canada has now been censured twice by the UN Human Rights Committee (in 1999 and again in 2005) for violating the equality rights of its own citizens by virtue of the religious discrimination in the Ontario school system.

• Of the 800,000 students bussed in Ontario every day; tens of thousands are bussed past their nearest publicly funded school to attend another publicly-funded school. Those children would have shorter commutes or would walk under one school system, bringing fiscal, environmental, health, and lifestyle benefits.

• The religious segregation of Ontario children results in de facto racial and ethnic segregation that further undermines the development of tolerance and respect between Ontarians of different backgrounds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robespierre:

.

But, to TemporalHominid: You must supply something more than a sweeping statement. Whom exactly are we helping to divide and conquer the school system by advocating a unified, publicly controlled school system? We need a few names here, and a few details about how that insidious goal could be furthered by supporting the exact opposite. Sorry, but I'm confused.

---

Yea,h I'll name some names and provide some links

the end of not-for-profit public services- Maude Barlow

The Alberta Case - chronic underfunding of public education by the Klein government, the Reform Party of Canada calling for more "choice" for those that can afford it

quote:

---

Education, just like the telephone service, electric power and many other essential services, could and should be privatized. But for the time being the ideology of public education is still strong, and that means that government-owned school systems will continue to exist. In those circumstances, the best policy is to introduce as many competitive elements as possible.

---

quote:

---

OUT OF CONTROL: The great socialist experiment in public education has resulted in rampant school violence, runaway costs, poor performance and furious parents. The alternative is privatization

---

I should note, Alberta was 1st jurisdiction to privatise liquor retailing.

quote:

---

Liquor consumption has increased (with its potential risks of increasing social ills), wholesale costs have risen, and retail prices have increased. Although retail prices have increased, the tax revenues to government have fallen significantly.

---

Alberta has pursued electricity and natural gas deregulation; the Klein government promised Albertans lowered electricity prices and more stable supplies once electricity was subjected to the competitive pressures of the marketplace.

The price of electricity rose over 500% between June and October 2000, and even more since then.
Albertans are paying a lot more, and experiencing moreblackouts under deregulation.

As a result of deregulation in Alberta, Ontario, Montana and California, the consumer is the loser- as they pay higher and higher bills for gas and electricity, but less service and a less reliable supplies

[ 24 July 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
I do think it would be stupid however to take a run at it at the wrong time and not only lose and set the issue back, but also weaken the ability to stand for other issues. I like the idea of taking the idea out of the political mix and having an independent commission look at it.

---