Q & A: FAITH BASED EDUCATION, PART 1
Do you support John Tory's faith based education proposal:Yes. Even though it is a flawed system, I do not think he is sincere and he has promoted it improperly.
But isn't that segregationalist?
Of course not. The architects of Dalton McGuinty's 07 campaign have obviously told him to use that word so that images of KKK members in the rural American Democratic South of the mid 20th Century will come to mind. In fact, comparing working class Muslims, Jews, Sikhs etc, who just want their children to have a faith based education to the white segregationists of the South is racist and very small minded. This is pure strategy and is beginning to backfire.
But won't it separate and further divide Ontarians?
No. These schools already exist. It just means the province is respecting the decision of a parent to send their child to one. No one would be forced to go to them, just as they are not forced now. What we need to ask is why so many desire to leave the public system.
Who gets to decide what schools get funding?
The schools would have to meet a curriculum that is set by the province, just as the Separate School Board does.
But what about schools run by Wiccans and Scientologists? That sounds scary. Aren't you asking for a Charter Challenge here?
That has not happened anywhere else. The schools would have to meet provincial criteria. If our courts are so ill-guided that they would give funding to a Wiccan school or Scientology school, then we have much bigger concerns than the faith based system.
But didn't the Liberals used to be for faith based schools?
Not officially, but on an ideological level in the past, both Dalton McGuinty and the current education minister said they would be open to talking about it. Many ideological liberals, leftists or progressives used to be for it also.
Why the switch?
This is where culture and ideology come into play. Canada has made a huge cultural shift in the past decade. When ideological liberals percieved Canada and Ontario to be conservative and Christian/Catholic, they desired a faith based funding system as a way of eroding that culture for the purpose of diversity and multiculturalism. Now that they see Ontario is stridently secular with neo-feminist social values, they see religious based schools as a threat.
Next, Part 2.
posted by Nicol DuMoulin @ 8:59 AM
15 Comments:
Great maybe you can tell us all how much it's going to cost convincing the Catholics that they have to teach sex ed, sexual diversity and tolerance, and birth control - as well as let gay couples into the prom.
I'll surely enjoy watching them eat some reality pie on that one - unfortunately it'll cost the taxpayer millions in legal fees in the interim.
If our courts are so ill-guided that they would give funding to a Wiccan school or Scientology school, then we have much bigger concerns than the faith based system.
Ummm and what exactly is it that makes Scientology and Wicca any less legitimate and deserving of funding than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.? I frankly can't see any difference between a group of millions which follows a belief system with no factual basis whatsoever and a group of hundreds or dozens or a lone individual for that matter who follows a belief system with no factual basis.
Your post sounds flakey to me.
It makes no sense.
a) most Catholic schools are very left-wing
b)if you don't like Catholic values, do not send your kids there.
c)we have already had court cases
As far as your reality pie...uh, last time I checked reality was exactly what was - not - taught in the public school system.
I am glad you were anonymous on that comment. I would not want my name associated with such illiterate garbage either.
KC,
Then I guess you have nothing to worry about. Last time I checked, leftists had no factual basis for the vast majority of their beliefs.
I have plenty to worry about as I believe that the social consequences of extending funding to all religious schools will be far worse than going through the debate to eliminate funding for Catholic schools.
No doubt that lots of "leftist" beliefs have no factual basis, as do some "rightist" beliefs; while many on each side are based on fact. The problem with religions is that they are flawed in their basic premise--ie the truthfulness of their various texts.
But I digress. You never answered my question--"what exactly is it that makes Scientology and Wicca any less legitimate and deserving of funding than Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.?" because you support the extension of funding to mainstream religions but believe it would be "ill-guided" to extend the same to less popular religions. I dont see your logic.
Here are some facts. MPAC has 6 school divisions: English Public, French Public, English Separate, French Separate, Protestant, and No Support. While that last one is used by businesses whose support is divied up by some ration to the other 5, only one municipality in Ontario has a Protestant board.
Or better yet, what about fundamentalist Islamic schools. So long as they teach the basic provincial curriculum, then that should be no problem right, Nicol? Free to raise the next generation of radical fundamentalists who believe Jews are the source of all of the world's problems.
I fail to understand how a bunch of people who so abhor multiculturalism because it reinforces divisions among us instead of instilling us with a common set of values and principles... could ever support state financing of religious division.
Scientology, Wicca, Christianity etc are belief systems people develop to better understand their world and themselves. There is nothing inherently wrong with parents wanting to raise their children in an educational structure and system that complements their beliefs and culture. The danger arises when one group (supporters of the current "public", huministic, socialistic, system) imposes its will by isolating and segragating all who do not share its one vision. An inclusive, open, dynamic eduction system would encourage diversity by welcoming differing views and opinions. It would take the opportunity to learn and grow instead of fearing differences and further isolating all who do not adher to the one true "faith" - a socialist, politically correct one size fits all eductaion system.
KC,
What are the social consequences you talk about? People disagreeing with you? That's called a free society.
As for Wicca and Scientology, I am not a relativist. I personally do not put them in the same league as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc.
That said, there is nothing to stop a court from seeing otherwise if enough people adhere to them. Remember, we are talking about funding schools that already exist. As best, I can tell, these do not.
As for your point of 'truth'. How can you say this is 'true' unless you have read every Catholic, Islamic, Jewish text and the arguments for them? Sounds you have a faith based position to me.
Cerebus,
You are sounding like someone who is paranoid about Islam. Again, if there are any extremist schools, they could be monitored. Jewish schools would also be funded.
As far as dividing us...quite the opposite, people of religious faiths have more in common with regards to values than they do with secular humanists, who want us to be defined by our race, gender and sexual orientation.
I will address this in part 2 or 3.
Ron,
I agree with much of what you wrote.
Jon,
Thanks for the comment. As I recall, only people who own property have to support a certain school system and those who don't do not.
Thanks to everyone for your comments.
Nicol - Its fine to not be a relativist--Im not a pure relativist either--but if you're not going to be a relativist you need to at least provide some standard by which we can judge who is right and who is wrong and you havent. You still havent provided any reason why Scientology and Wicca should be judged differently from the major religions other than you're not a relativist and you say so. If you have some basis I would very much like to hear it.
The social consequences I am talking about is the social discord that will result from isolating a sizable portion of our population such that they are rarely exposed to people who are different from them in the formative years of their lives.
I don't have to read every religious texts to disregard them. The simple fact is that they claim to be authoritative sources of information on things they cannot prove. Human beings usually do not except the things they are told in books simply on the word of the author--the only exception to this rule is with respect to religion.
As for parents choosing how their children are educated while that is a fair argument what Tory is proposing does not do much to extend that choice. What he is proposing would merely give parents the "choice" (they already have the "choice" but that is another argument) between a secular school and a religious school as if there is only one dimension of choice. What about all the other types of educational philosophies that parents might want the state to pay for (Waldorf for example)? Do they get funding too? If they dont are you restricting their choice? What is it about religion (according you major religions) that makes them somehow more valid and deserving of funding than other parenting choices?
KC,
Scientology, we have still not concluded whether or not it is a cult and with Wicca, it is not really a religion. There is no defintion to it. It is nebulous and many people disagree on it. Even most Wiccans refuse to call what they believe a relgion. It's value system is also very secular.
"I don't have to read every religious texts to disregard them. The simple fact is that they claim to be authoritative sources of information on things they cannot prove."
Again, how do you know if you do not read? That is the problem with modern secularism. It claims authority on something it has not read about or studied. That is the root of ignorance and why religion - must - be taught in public schools. Too many secularists just do not understand people of faith. That is what leads to divisions in society.
"What is it about religion (according you major religions) that makes them somehow more valid and deserving of funding than other parenting choices? "
When 'secularism' quit being neutral and started pushing a hard left wing value system that is rooted in ideology and is what a vast number of Ontarians disagree with.
As for myself, I would have no problem with some other schools being included if they so desired (ie. Montessori).
What it all comes down to is values. When secularists started using the educational system as a left wing pulpit, that is what started this problem.
Again, what you need to ask, is why do - so many - people not like the public system? Why are the standards so low?
If the public system worked, we would not be having this discussion.
I'll deal with this more explicitly in parts 2 or 3.
Scientology, we have still not concluded whether or not it is a cult and with Wicca, it is not really a religion.
The only true difference between a cult and religion is the number of people involved really so I dont quite see how you arbitarily assigning a belief system to the "cult" or "religion" category should be determining public policy.
Again, how do you know if you do not read?
You know because nothing in it is independantly verifiable. They just claim to be the truth and then lay down a whole bunch of doctrine. There is no way for me to go out and verify any of the real substantive parts of them. And I HAVE read a good chunk of the Bible btw... not that I think that makes much of a difference.
When 'secularism' quit being neutral and started pushing a hard left wing value system that is rooted in ideology and is what a vast number of Ontarians disagree with.
I dont agree with you about much of what you say here. First of all I went to school and remember it being pretty bloody conservative save for sex ed which at my school you were allowed to opt your kids out of. Even if I did accept that schools are too "left wing" I hardly see how establishing a plethora of religious schools on the public dime is the way to fix it. Secondly I disagree that the standards of education are low and even if I did I wouldnt agree that spreading the money around to a greater number of schools (thus losing the advantages of economies of scale, and students who live close to their schools) its going to be worse off.
KC
"You know because nothing in it is independantly verifiable."
How do you know if you - never - read it or any of the history surrounding it. I am not trying to put you on the spot but, this is a very incorrect statement.
You do realize that no valid historian will say that there was not a man named Jesus who claimed to be the son of God and was crucified? Whether you believe him is one thing, but the fact that such a person existed on this earth is not religion, it's history. Read the writings of historians of the time. Read Tacitus, read Josephus.
That a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed who was crucified for claiming to be the son of God is found in more documents than just the Bible.
Again, maybe you will still conclude he was not who he says he was. Fair enough. But how can you say you are sure if you proudly say you have not read any other evidence?
This is exactly - why - we need religious education in schools.
A for you saying you went to a conservative school where kids could opt out of sex-ed...well, not knowing you I have no way of verifying this. All I can say is you definitely did not go to a public school in Ontario in the past decade.
Thanks for the discussion.
I am opposed to the Tory funding of religious schools. I'm sure that all has been said about this and I can't add much to the debate, but when all is said and done, I am strongly against it.
Perhaps this point, however, may be new to the debate. The Muslim Council of Canada, perhaps the only moderate Muslim group in Canada, have come out against this proposal. I think that says something important. Let me just quote them:
http://www.muslimcanadiancongress.org/
BEGIN QUOTE
"TORONTO - The Muslim Canadian Congress has criticized the proposal by the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario to fund private religious schools by diverting funds away from the public education system.
The MCC stands for the separation of religion and state. Religious organizations have no role to play when government services are provided to the public. In every sphere of life where government interacts with its citizens—in law making and law enforcement, in utilities, transit, public recreation, social services, and above all, in education—religion is as irrelevant as gender or race.
For this reason the MCC demands that every province in Canada should have a single public school system, available to every child. We believe that only a single unified school systems should be supported by tax dollars.
END QUOTE
"The Muslim Council of Canada, perhaps the only moderate Muslim group in Canada, have come out against this proposal."
They are actually The Muslim Canadian Congress. Are they moderate or left-wing? Depends on the issue.
On issues such as the Afghanistan, The War on Terror, America and SSM their views come straight out of the progressive/left-lib hand book. Read some more statements...they refer to the 'so called war on terror' and Harper being a tool of Bush/Blair etc.
I am not at all surprised that they disagree with John Tory.
They may be moderate in terms of Isalm, but in terms of the general political landscape, they are more left-wing.
Post a Comment
<< Home