Time to pull provincial funding for Catholic schools?

[Boges]

Moreover, while we're at it, all churches and properties and income of said churches should be taxed. Look at the Catholic church, for instance, they are sitting on untold wealth while millions among their flock of sheep go hungry every day. While I would never ban belief in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus or the little munchkins that live in the forest, if any group would rise up and form some kind of a congregation around their fantasy, I would not be giving them any tax breaks. So why should it be different for churches who support a fairy god?

So tax charitable organizations just because they believe in God? How tolerant of you.

Church's get their income from donations. If I put $20 in a collection plate you're implying that 13% of that should go to the government?

Those dudes running around with mustaches last month don't get any of their take taxed but those people that volunteer their time with Salvation Army kettle's have to be taxed because their moronic belief in God?

Again I'm glad I don't live in your world.

[olp1fan]

I'd love to see McDalton do this. He'd lose the next election so badly.

BTW it's not like money that would otherwise be sent to public school is being sent to Catholic Schools. Taxpayers get to choose which system they support with their taxes.

So if no one supported the Catholic system it wouldn't be able to sustain itself.

globeandmail commenters hate dalton but are for this to happen

if dalton did this he'd come out looking better liked while hudak

might just kill himself

win win?

[Boges]

globeandmail commenters hate dalton but are for this to happen

if dalton did this he'd come out looking better liked while hudak

might just kill himself

win win?

This is perhaps the dumbest post I've read in awhile.

Because people that comment on a Newspaper's comment section seem to support banning public funding for Catholic school, that means there is broad support for it?

[jacee]

Public funding of Catholic school systems was implemented to ensure adherence to provincial curriculum among other things.

With 30% of students attending Catholic schools by parental choice, it's hard to even make an argument for defunding, and virtually impossible to do.

Considerable effort has gone into coordinating and sharing services like bussing, ordering supplies in quantity, etc in the past decade or so.

I suggest making inquiries where you think you see wasteful duplication, but I suspect the "half full buses" are going different places.

Such arguments usually accompany discomfort with funding religious education, though public funding is specifically not to be applied to the religious component.

I see the appropriate and equitable solution to be funding of all (currently private) religious schools for delivery of public curriculum and adherence to public standards, while private funding must support the religious component.

Not a popular solution as yet ... but I believe the time will come.

My thinking has evolved over time and I now have no objection to religious indoctrination education in public schools, by parental consent only and without public funding. I also think all students should learn about world religions (without indoctrination) as well as ancient and native spirituality, agnosticism and atheism, etc., to gain exposure and respect for diversity.

Edited December 14, 2011 by jacee

[Evening Star]

BTW it's not like money that would otherwise be sent to public school is being sent to Catholic Schools.

Uh, yeah, it is. If it weren't for this stupid system, every taxpayer would be supporting the public schools. Again, why do only Catholics get to make this choice? A voucher system or a damn-fool John Tory system where everyone can send their tax dollars to support the religious school of their stupid choice (which is pretty similar to a voucher system in the end) would at least be more fair. The most sensible system still seems to be to have a single publicly funded secular school system with private funding for any other schools. Seems pretty standard in many other jurisdictions.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

With 30% of students attending Catholic schools by parental choice, it's hard to even make an argument for defunding, and virtually impossible to do.

It's not hard at all. I made an argument with very little difficulty.

[jacee]

It's not hard at all. I made an argument with very little difficulty.

Taking into account the constitutional guarantee?

I guess it's the doing that is the problem.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Taking into account the constitutional guarantee?

I guess it's the doing that is the problem.

A constitutional guarantee that is basically a human rights violation with government sponsored religion.

The guarantee was put in place because of religious intolerance between protestants and catholics of the time.

Catholics are being trained to be intolerant of all other people. Segregated.

Quebec is a Catholic province. It doesn't even have religion in its public system.

Edited December 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Topaz]

Topaz, don't you think it's a little unfair that only Catholics get to choose to have their tax dollars directed towards schools that cater to their own religious beliefs? Why shouldn't they have to contribute to the same public system that adherents of every other faith and non-believers have to?

NO, what I feel unfair is when people, especially seniors have to pay school taxes when they don't have ANY kids or grkids attending school. I think its unfair for us to pay $5 to a MP's $1 towards their pension when they are making a lot more than most Canadians.

[Boges]

Uh, yeah, it is. If it weren't for this stupid system, every taxpayer would be supporting the public schools. Again, why do only Catholics get to make this choice? A voucher system or a damn-fool John Tory system where everyone can send their tax dollars to support the religious school of their stupid choice (which is pretty similar to a voucher system in the end) would at least be more fair. The most sensible system still seems to be to have a single publicly funded secular school system with private funding for any other schools. Seems pretty standard in many other jurisdictions.

Sure, which is why McDalton is a hypocrite for demonizing John Tory in 2007.

I'm just saying, if you don't want to support the separate system you don't have to.

[Boges]

NO, what I feel unfair is when people, especially seniors have to pay school taxes when they don't have ANY kids or grkids attending school.

I'm not a Pinko Commie or anything but even I see the benefit of having us all fund a "proper" education system for everyone regardless of cost.

It benefits us all in the long run.

Edited December 15, 2011 by Boges

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm not a Pinko Commie or anything but even I see the benefit of having us all fund a "proper" education system for everyone regardless of cost.

It benefits us all in the long run.

Yep.

Education benefits many aspects of society.

- Innovation

- Job Creation

- Healthier Society

- Efficiency

If we were extending Topaz's thinking, if seniors didn't have to pay for the education system, I shouldn't have to pay for their health care after 60. The look on their faces when they realize that THEY are the larger drain on taxes than education would be priceless.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Sure, which is why McDalton is a hypocrite for demonizing John Tory in 2007.

I'm just saying, if you don't want to support the separate system you don't have to.

Faith based segregation is a bad idea. Increasing that segregation is a bad idea.

The Catholic Board should be called Segregated System as it is a more fitting name.

Allowing faith in public schools based on the community that the school is located I have no problem with. Equal opportunity based on demand to have Islam, Muslim, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism even Atheism. If it is optional and gives all religions the same opportunity based on community composition/interest, and no one is forced to take it, no problem.

Edited December 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Boges]

Faith based segregation is a bad idea. Increasing that segregation is a bad idea.

The Catholic Board should be called Segregated System as it is a more fitting name.

It's usually called the Separate system. Segregation makes it sound racist which it's not.

[sharkman]

Faith based segregation is a bad idea. Increasing that segregation is a bad idea.

The Catholic Board should be called Segregated System as it is a more fitting name.

Allowing faith in public schools based on the community that the school is located I have no problem with. Equal opportunity based on demand to have Islam, Muslim, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism even Atheism. If it is optional and gives all religions the same opportunity based on community composition/interest, and no one is forced to take it, no problem.

This is a false rationalization. There is no segregation going on here. This is people of a similar background wanting their kids to have the same heritage/culture that they have. Now, had the government instituted that all athiest children must attend separate schools or use separate washrooms and water fountains, then you'd have segregation.

There is already faith allowed in public schools. Religious clubs and allowances made for religious norms is about as far as it goes, however. That is why Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc all have started private schools, so there children can have an education that is founded in their faiths. And since they are tax payers, having funding for this is not wrong or unfair.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

It's usually called the Separate system. Segregation makes it sound racist which it's not.

seg·re·ga·tion/ˌsegriˈgāSHən/Noun:

1.The action or state of setting someone or something apart from other people or things or being set apart.

Segregation of people based on religion only leads to intolerance and ignorance.

Segregation is what it is. Separate is the word used to try and make it sound better.

Edited December 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[MiddleClassCentrist]

This is a false rationalization. There is no segregation going on here. This is people of a similar background wanting their kids to have the same heritage/culture that they have. Now, had the government instituted that all athiest children must attend separate schools or use separate washrooms and water fountains, then you'd have segregation.

There is already faith allowed in public schools. Religious clubs and allowances made for religious norms is about as far as it goes, however. That is why Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc all have started private schools, so there children can have an education that is founded in their faiths. And since they are tax payers, having funding for this is not wrong or unfair.

Segregating people of different faiths only leads to intolerance and ignorance.

They are indoctrinated into believing they are better and different than others when in reality they are pretty much the same.

Segregation can be optional (never for the child, of course... the parent decides to segregate), doesn't make it any better.

[sharkman]

Intolerance? Tell me how that's going with 'integrated' gays in our school systems. It's easy to come up with theories about religious intolerance and ignorance. Better minds than ours have wrestled with this for a generation or more and the resulting blended system works just fine. You don't have to go or send your kids to a private school if you don't believe in them. But you can't dictate how the government allocates funding. Vote them out if you don't like it, I guess.

Edited December 15, 2011 by sharkman

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Intolerance? Tell me how that's going with 'integrated' gays in our school systems. It's easy to come up with theories about religious intolerance and ignorance. Better minds than ours have wrestled with this and the resulting blended system works just fine.

You mean in Catholic Schools that ban and target gays?

In Catholic schools where they compare forming "Gay-Straight "groups to "Holocaust Deniers".

Great! Another example of how we should remove separate schools for their intolerance.

Thanks!

Edited December 15, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

[sharkman]

Uh, let me know when you want to discuss the issue instead of playing games.

[cybercoma]

NO, what I feel unfair is when people, especially seniors have to pay school taxes when they don't have ANY kids or grkids attending school. I think its unfair for us to pay $5 to a MP's $1 towards their pension when they are making a lot more than most Canadians.

Do seniors rely on educated people in their day-to-day life?

This is my biggest beef with people who make the argument, "I don't use those services, I shouldn't pay for them." You have a responsibility to the society that you live in, to the society that makes you successful and allows you to live comfortably. Your taxes go to ensuring that society is as successful as possible. This means you need to pay for the education of others, even when you're no longer in school. You know why? Because you rely on educated people. Not only that, but seniors have grandchildren, don't they? If they don't, they may have nieces and nephews, right? You pay because it benefits society. When our society succeeds, it makes it easier for you to succeed. Everyone benefits.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Uh, let me know when you want to discuss the issue instead of playing games.

I reply with an example of how the Catholic system systematically targets gays, and you just brush me off?

Wow.

[sharkman]

I reply with an example of how the Catholic system systematically targets gays, and you just brush me off?

Wow.

Yes, because there have been so many suicides of gays attending public institutions that you obviously are trying to cloud the issue(playing games) or you are poorly informed. Either way I find there is no point discussing with people in those camps.

[jacee]

Intolerance? Tell me how that's going with 'integrated' gays in our school systems. It's easy to come up with theories about religious intolerance and ignorance. Better minds than ours have wrestled with this for a generation or more and the resulting blended system works just fine. You don't have to go or send your kids to a private school if you don't believe in them. But you can't dictate how the government allocates funding. Vote them out if you don't like it, I guess.

Different leaders won't change the constitutional guarantees of Catholic education. So integration as a public school choice is the only solution I think.

"Segregation" doesn't apply here as people choose which system to support and attend.

Unless one speaks of people choosing to segregate themselves by religion, which is closer to the truth, since freedom of religion is a given.

BTW, the Catholic school system doesn't mind attracting non-Catholics (and their tax dollars) who sometimes choose it because it's in their neighbourhood, or they like the "structure" or "discipline", and don't mind the Christian education because they're not doing it at home.

I guess my ideal would be that religious practices would be accommodated in all schools, and religious instruction too, as an option provided and paid for by parents. And students would otherwise all be mixed for regular curriculum in non-religious classes, sports, clubs, playgrounds, lunchrooms, etc.

There are issues ... school personnel would not enforce students' religious attendance, for example, and that could be a big issue ... but I think integrated is the way to go in the future.

It's a big thing for the public schools to take on, so maybe gradually is best.

I'm glad McGuinty is taking on the bullying and gay-straight alliance issue, on behalf of the students themselves and against the wishes of his own church and the school system his kids attend and his wife teaches in, I believe.

[Evening Star]

That is why Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc all have started private schools, so there children can have an education that is founded in their faiths. And since they are tax payers, having funding for this is not wrong or unfair.

What if only one denomination gets to have their tax dollars targeted to a separate school board geared towards their own faith community, while members of every other faith and the faithless have to support a common secular school board? Is that fair?