Funding for religious schools

[PIK]

Sure looks like a cheaper way to go then what we got from dalton, so anybody that changed thier mind over that ,how do you feel now.lol

[ToadBrother]

Sure looks like a cheaper way to go then what we got from dalton, so anybody that changed thier mind over that ,how do you feel now.lol

Do you think the state in a country where religious freedoms are guaranteed should be funding any religious institution?

[M.Dancer]

Do you think the state in a country where religious freedoms are guaranteed should be funding any religious institution?

Yes....See BNA act.

[scribblet]

I don't agree with funding any religious schools, but as long as Catholic schools are funded it's discrimination to deny funding to other religions. We should end funding to Catholic schools once and for all.

[dre]

Maybe the government should fund astrology and numerology classes too. Maybe some alchemy!

[wyly]

I don't agree with funding any religious schools, but as long as Catholic schools are funded it's discrimination to deny funding to other religions. We should end funding to Catholic schools once and for all.

I agree but it's political suicide for ANY party to even bring it up...

[charter.rights]

I don't agree with funding any religious schools, but as long as Catholic schools are funded it's discrimination to deny funding to other religions. We should end funding to Catholic schools once and for all.

You would have to go a long way to stop funding the Catholic Church.

A right that is recognized or granted in the BNA has the same affect as being a Charter right. We would need follow the amending process under the Constitution to even think of making a change like that. And it would likely fail since 45% of Canadians identify as being Catholic. It doesn't leave much of a majority for any other representative group...

[Shwa]

I don't agree with funding any religious schools, but as long as Catholic schools are funded it's discrimination to deny funding to other religions. We should end funding to Catholic schools once and for all.

No it isn't. This is like saying we will have to offer government services in all 183 official languages.

[scribblet]

No it isn't. This is like saying we will have to offer government services in all 183 official languages.

Yes it is, even the U.N. agreed it's discrimination to provide funding to only one religion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1999/11/05/schools991105.html

[Molly]

I agree but it's political suicide for ANY party to even bring it up...

Maybe not so much. It's certainly political suicide to support taxpayer funding for religious schools.

Every time Catholic schools are used as the sample of why other religions should have the privelege of access to the public purse, it reminds folks that Catholic schools are religious schools and not just a public alternative.... Their days are numbered.

[Shwa]

Yes it is, even the U.N. agreed it's discrimination to provide funding to only one religion.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1999/11/05/schools991105.html

UN?? Pffft. When the "UN" comes to Canada and pays their share of the tax burden, then they can come around here giving us their unsolicited righteous opinion about our constitution. Otherwise, they can shut up and go back to spending all the millions we give them.

[CANADIEN]

UN??

They happen to be right on this one.

[Melanie_]

No it isn't. This is like saying we will have to offer government services in all 183 official languages.

There are only 2 official languages in Canada, and the government offers services in both. But there is no official religion, so no one religion should be given preferential treatment. We should either fund all religious schools equally, or not fund any religious schools, which would certainly be my preference.

Edited October 2, 2010 by Melanie_

[Shwa]

There are only 2 official languages in Canada, and the government offers services in both. But there is no official religion, so no one religion should be given preferential treatment. We should either fund all religious schools equally, or not fund any religious schools, which would certainly be my preference.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But not having "official" religions is a nice idea, however why do you think there is a Catholic separate school board in Ontario?

[Melanie_]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you. But not having "official" religions is a nice idea, however why do you think there is a Catholic separate school board in Ontario?

From a quick look at Wikipedia, it sounds like there is a seperate school board because of minority religion rights, but these rights only seem to apply to Christian religions - Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc are not eligible for these rights. This in itself seems unconstitutional to me. The UN seems to agree:

On November 5, 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Committee condemned Canada and Ontario for having violated the equality provisions (Article 26) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee restated its concerns on November 2, 2005, when it published its Concluding Observations regarding Canada's fifth periodic report under the Covenant. The Committee observed that Canada had failed to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

On a side note, I found it interesting that a there was a "national crisis" when Manitoba decided not to have a seperate school system, and that a pope tried to influence this decision.

Canadian Seperate Schools

[charter.rights]

From a quick look at Wikipedia, it sounds like there is a seperate school board because of minority religion rights, but these rights only seem to apply to Christian religions - Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc are not eligible for these rights. This in itself seems unconstitutional to me. The UN seems to agree:

On a side note, I found it interesting that a there was a "national crisis" when Manitoba decided not to have a seperate school system, and that a pope tried to influence this decision.

Canadian Seperate Schools

Catholics are not a minority. In fact they outrank any other religion.

[Melanie_]

In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards.

Mark Twain Edited October 3, 2010 by Melanie_

[CANADIEN]

From a quick look at Wikipedia, it sounds like there is a seperate school board because of minority religion rights, but these rights only seem to apply to Christian religions - Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc are not eligible for these rights. This in itself seems unconstitutional to me. The UN seems to agree:

On a side note, I found it interesting that a there was a "national crisis" when Manitoba decided not to have a seperate school system, and that a pope tried to influence this decision.

Canadian Seperate Schools

Actually, the Ontario separate school system IS in the Constitution, and the UN stated it was discriminatory, not unconstitutional.

[Shwa]

Actually, the Ontario separate school system IS in the Constitution, and the UN stated it was discriminatory, not unconstitutional.

So my point is, that since separate school boards have been constitutionally provided for, pronouncements of discrimination toward them by the UN are essentially meaningless. Therefore arguing that separate school boards should be abolished because the 'UN says so' is a somewhat empty argument.

[scribblet]

Normally I don't care about anything the bigoted U.N. says, but in this case they are correct, but we are not acting on it.

If memory serves this came about in the 1800s because of religious differences so a compact was formed which made confederation possible. Today there are far more religions who want equal treatment, but as John Tory found out, as a secular society we don't want to fund religious schools at all. So, the only sensible solution is to abolish all separate school funding, how much would it save the province I wonder.

I believe the Green party has proposed abolishing the separate school system, maybe a good reason to vote for them. -

Edited October 3, 2010 by scribblet

[CANADIEN]

So my point is, that since separate school boards have been constitutionally provided for, pronouncements of discrimination toward them by the UN are essentially meaningless. Therefore arguing that separate school boards should be abolished because the 'UN says so' is a somewhat empty argument.

Actually, it is not empty, since it demonstrates that the current situation while constitutional, is clearly discriminatory against non-Catholics.

[charter.rights]

DP

Edited October 3, 2010 by charter.rights

[charter.rights]

If memory serves this came about in the 1800s because of....

Nope. It came about as a result of the Treaty of Paris 1763 where in return for surrender by France, the British guaranteed that the Catholics could continue to keep their religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281763%29

[scribblet]

Funding for catholic schools didn't come until 1841 under the new School Act for the United Province of Canada including a clause that allowed Catholics and others to establish denominational schools.

Davis made a big mistake extending the funding before he left office, maybe if he hadn't done that it would be easier to dismantle it now. Either way, it'll be a long time coming, unless somebody challenges it in court. I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet ?

http://www.tcdsb.org/about%20us/history.html

[Shwa]

Actually, it is not empty, since it demonstrates that the current situation while constitutional, is clearly discriminatory against non-Catholics.

You mean discriminatory against non-Catholics AND non-Protestants?

The emptiness of the argument surrounds the fact that an opinion by the UN carries no weight when it comes to constitutional legalities in this country. Since there is a guarantee for Catholic and Protestant religious education in the Constitution, all the other religions have exactly the same privlidges and rights of one another.

So it because a real peach pit of an argument.

It would specious to grant other groups participation in what they themselves term a discriminatory privledge. So the only thing they could reasonable advocate for is an abolishment of those consitutional guarantees. Nevermind the implications of taking constitutional guarantees away from a group of people, but a good chunk of them vote which, as has already been pointed out, would be political suicide.

So sure, the UN says this or that, take the high road. But it changes nothing here.