Over at the Blogging Tories site, Christian Conservative, there is concern that the public funding of faith-based schools is perhaps not such a good idea. The worry is that the Ministry of Education would have too much control over what is taught. As it is right now, private Christian schools in Ontario can basically teach a bible based curriculum. With Ministry funding and oversight, they would have to teach a curriculum in line with that of the rest of public school system. What a shame. Can you imagine the displeasure of all those virtuous Christian parents at having their untainted children sitting in sex ed classes? Damn, they'd have to learn about evolution too. If it were to serve to dispel the myths of Christianity, maybe public funding of faith-based schools is not such a bad idea after all.

I think funding faith based schools is a brilliant idea. Skeptics of this typically disparage the idea since they don't want "their" tax dollars funding what they consider "mythology" or "religious indocrination." But this ignores the fact that tax payers also include those who have faith traditions - not only atheists. Yes, of the many people who pay taxes, many do "choose" to send their kids to Catholic schools. Many others, if given the opportunity, would "choose" to send their kids to other faith-based alternatives. To my mind, as taxpayers, that is their right.

Moreover, I don't buy the arguments that this is inherently unfair. Choice in public education is not unfair. Skeptics of faith based schools must keep this in mind; just as it's their choice to send their kids to a "faith free" institution, it is also some other parent's choice to send their kids to a "faith-based" public alternative. To deny them that, because of your beliefs (atheist or otherwise), is what is unfair. More pointedly, because you may be cynical of faith beliefs of others, does not give you the right to control the education scene...only your own choice for your "own" children. At the heart of this is "tolerance" for other people's world views and belief sytems. To me, this is the great irony of "one system only" advocates; their views are inherently intolerent...

Imagine then:

I build a hospital. Now my hospital is not just any hospital: It is built with the express purpose of being a private hospital to treat Catholic children.

Of course we are assuming that somehow I've bypassed the current laws prohibiting private clinics such as this one being hypothesized.

Now, my hospital is established, and people can send their children to my hospital as long as they pay for the privilege, and as long as they are demonstrably catholic. But that isn't enough. My hospital deserves public funding. It gets some, just as in our example with private faith based schools. My hospital uses that money to hire the best gangrenous toe expert in the world, the only one that can save a child's life if a child has a gangrenous toe.

My child steps on a nail and gets an infected toe. But my child isn't Catholic, so my child cannot have a lifesaving procedure carried out by a doctor who was hired with public tax money and he dies.

Now, after all that, the questions that if answered could have prevented the whole private hospital from being started in the first place: What need is not being fulfilled by our current hospitals such that a private hospital like our hypothesized one should exist? What function would such a hospital occupy that isn't already occupied in our current system? In short, of what value would such a hospital be to society?

Those are the questions that would most definitely be asked about starting a private hospital, the same should be and are not being asked about private faith based schools. Once those are answered, then maybe we can talk about funding and regulation (regulation of the private hospital could have ensured a stipulation for public use of our gangrenous toe doctor).

Tory attempts to secure religious minority vote

"Education is the great equalizer in society. If Tory has his way, education will become the great divider. For more than 200 years, people have struggled to free the education system from the grip of religious clerics and bring the system into the public domain. Through its publicly funded education system, a society ensures that everyone has an opportunity to achieve success."

What I said.

Craig, I see a secular education system as the "default" just as a standard model car is the default automobile. A secular education teaches children what needs to be known to prepare them for adult life. Religion is not a necessary component of a full and rich adult life just as a luxury automobile is not a necessity to get from point A to point B. A faith-based education is an extra that can be chosen if desired just as one can choose to add the luxury package to a standard automobile. But, the heated leather seats and premium stereo don't come free ... and neither should a religious education.

I don't think that religion, other than a quick survey of the major religions and the basic tenets of each, should be part of the provincial curriculum. At most the study of religions should be should be such that students become aware of the world's religions in order to promote acceptance of the customs and difference of others. Why do specific religious teachings need to be taught in schools when there are churches for that purpose? Do we need all religion, all the time? Again, I say that those who want all religion, all the time should have to pay for it. I should not have to subsidize them with my taxes.

Because of my views, I might be perceived as a hardline Atheist akin to Richard Dawkins et al. That's OK with me. Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the acceptance of what my senses tell me is reality here and now. Atheism is a world view that embraces a reality supported by empirical evidence. I personally don't need to read anything more into the events in my life than my experience of events themselves. The concept of a god directing my life is totally foreign to me as I have been given absolutely no proof of a deity. Until that proof comes, I cannot support public funding of faith-based schooling.

Rolf said: "A faith-based education is an extra that can be chosen if desired just as one can choose to add the luxury package to a standard automobile. But, the heated leather seats and premium stereo don't come free ... and neither should a religious education."
Rolf, as a tax-paying,non-Catholic faith-based parent of four, should I have to pay for the basic "car" AND the "luxuries"? In all other provinces except Newfoundland and the Maritimes, the basic education is paid for and the parents pay for the religious component. Are you at least advocating for funding for faith-based schools to cover the general curriculum?

Rolf also states: "Religion is not a necessary component of a full and rich adult life just as a luxury automobile is not a necessity to get from point A to point B. A faith-based education is an extra that can be chosen..." For parents who are interested in integrating their kids into Canadian society but not assimilating to the point where they loose all traditions/culture/language/faith, faith-based education is not an "option". I distinctly remember learning in high school that Canada is a "mosiac" where we hold on to our cultures yet "fit together", while the U.S. is a giant "melting pot" of blended cultures. Can you accept that for some people public school is not an option and they should be able to use their tax dollars to educate their children so long as curriculum standards and guidelines are met?

675,000 students presently attend Catholic schools in Ontario with no adverse concequences. We keep hearing about increased administrative costs, so I'd like to quiz:
A large urban centre has 6 public boards and 6 Catholic boards, each with 12,000 students, in zones A to F. What would be the cost savings difference if we amalgamated the P and C boards so that we now had only 6 public boards, each with 24,000 students, OR we amalgamated public with public and Catholic with Catholic boards so that we only had boards AB, CD, EF for both public and Catholic with 24,000 students each? No difference, either way we go from 12 boards with 12,000 to 6 boards with 24,000. The combining of boards is only a cost saver in small towns, while any changes, esp in large urban centers, will have huge costs.

So... 675,000 Catholic students and their families are content where they are and would cost the same per pupil if transfered to public schools. No cost savings for administrations in big cities or we would have intra-amalgamated boards if feasible.

What bothers me is that little complaining is done about funding faith-based schools until the non-Catholic faiths ask to direct their tax dollars to their schools. Non of three major political parties are willing to consider amending the Constitution so Catholic funding will persist. All faiths should be treated equally. If the Catholics get full funding including religious studies, so should the other faiths.

Happy Canada Day!

Happy Canada day to you too, Gila.

A far as I’m concerned, faith, in whatever form, should not be a consideration in the publicly funded education of a child. So let’s remove faith from the picture entirely. What do we have left? An education where a child will still be educated in the required necessities of math, science, history, geography, language, health & fitness, technology, and so on. In other words, an education grounded in reality based on the research and learning of the world’s foremost mathematicians, scientists, historians, etc. And, most importantly, this reality is constantly being updated as new ideas and discoveries are incorporated into the curriculum in order to maintain relevancy to the rapidly changing world around us. The key word in the last two sentences is the word "reality". This reality that I’m speaking of is in direct opposition to the religious mumbo-jumbo written by scientifically illiterate scholars in ancient times. This reality that I’m speaking of is in direct opposition to a world view based upon the supposed dictates of a deity. This reality that I’m speaking of is in direct opposition to the unproven beliefs and myths that a faith-based education rests upon. The bottom line is this: why should the public fund an education thatis based upon a deity that no one on this planet at any time has proven to exist?

Regarding the integration of other cultural groups, yes, Canada is considered to be a cultural mosaic rather than the American idea of the melting pot. Within this cultural mosaic there is no reason whatsoever why public schools cannot accommodate children of other cultures. In the Greater Toronto Area, the public school system has been successfully embracing cultural differences for years as people of many different nationalities and cultures have come to reside there. Reality, there’s that word again, would dictate that children from other cultures are going to be exposed to the "Canadian way of life" by the very fact that they have immigrated here. This exposure is bound to bring changes to the way they perceive themselves and the world. To a certain extent this is necessary in order that they integrate themselves into Canadian society. If they wish to do so, it is up to the parents of immigrant children to keep their homeland cultural traditions alive as they see fit. It is not the responsibility of the taxpayers of Ontario via the Ministry of Education to keep the cultural traditions of the world alive.

In regard to the cost savings of combining boards of education, I can’t comment as I’m not well versed in education administration.

Basically, there are several arguments that seem to get mixed together, so lets try to separate:
First of all we DO fund the Catholic schools in Ontario and they are 96% of the faith-based students. No dire consequences. Catholics are integrated and functioning well. Quebec gives all non-public schools approx 60% of what it would cost to send those kids to public school, while all the other provinces, except Nfld and the Maritimes, give some funding to faith-based schools as well. Since none of the three political parties are willing to consider removing or reducing the Catholics' funding, should we fund the other faiths in Ontario until we have (or if we have) political will to make changes to the guaranteed Catholic funding, or the extended funding for Catholic high schools?

Next: The argument about whether to fund faith-based schools seems to degenerate into whether we should allow faith-based schools! That is not for dicussion - school choice exists and will continue to exist. There are students presently attending faith-based schools and that will continue with or without funding. The question is only whether we should continue to discriminate against non-Catholic families and whether we should allow their education taxes to be used for their children's education.
If we fund schools we will be able to make demands about what is taught - wouldn't that be preferable to no funding and no input?

Culture: Faith-based schools are not stictly about religion, they also often teach a language as well as traditions and heritage. It is an oversimplification to say that public schools can accomodate all cultures; it is completely untrue. They can try, and sometimes succeed, but you will never see a child with strict dietary laws and religious practices completely accommodated at a public school. It is also an oversimplification to assume that all cultural and religious practices can be addressed by the parents at home, especially when the child is experiencing something completely different at school.

Canada's mosaic is supposed to be about integrating people while maintaining their cultures and traditions. Forced assimilation is not on our agenda!

In Ontario we presently fund French, Catholic, Ukrainaine heritage, Native, Arts based, Sports based, special needs, behavioral programs, as well as a gay and lesbian high school. Everybody is funded within their niche schools. I can respect your opinions; you dislike religion and don't want religions and their associated heritages to continue. Canada is a free and open society; can you support faith-based parents who want a great education for their kids, with a value system that they can support, and continuity of their culture and/or language within an atmosphere of equality and fairness for all?

Hello Rolf. I can see from your posts that you are an avowed secular humanist, with no toleration of a theological approach to life. You denigrate religion as "religious mumbo-jumbo written by scientifically illiterate scholars in ancient times". I do not agree, but I respect your views, and your right to hold them. What you should respect, and obviously do not, is that to a very many people, religion is an integral part of their lives. So vitally integral that they feel the need to educate their children in that style. Witness the fact that approximately 33% of Ontario studens are educated in a Catholic faith based system.
I want to clear a few misconceptions.
1. Not all of the people who take a theological approach to life are backward, illiterate people who are stuck in the past millenium. Many are highly educated doctors, lawyers, politicians, professors, intellectuals and professionals of a variety of sorts, all contributing to the well being of our society.
2. Not all religious thought comes from past millenia. There are a great many modern, highly astute and intelligent theologians alive in the world toda.
3. Most (I agree not all) seriously religious people valye morality, democracy, toleration, human rights -- and all other values that we hold dear here in Ontario. I agree there are exceptions -- just as there are secular humanists who also do not value these important values.
4. You claim that secular is the default -- by whose standards? Yours? Why are your standards more important than mine? Perhaps you are being chauvinistic and intolerant by insisting that secularism is the only approach that can be taken in publicly funded education.

The truth is that there are a variety of people in Ontario -- some secular, some athesists, some agnostics, some marginally religious, and others heavily immersed in their religion. As long as they are moral, upstanding, law abiding, productive citizens of this province and country, they should have the right to educate their children according to their conscience, without preference given to one style or the other. I am a religious person, but my Ontario is big enough to allow for a multitude of views -- all with equal rights. Yours is obviously not -- it is secularism -- or go fend for yourself. Who is chauvinistic -- you or I?

Jerrold, what I respect is that religious people have the right to hold whatever views and beliefs they see fit. It is the belief itself that I do not respect. Belief in this case being the belief in a supernatural being that has not been conclusively proven to exist.

I essentially agree with your first 3 points. Without question, many professional and well educated religious people make positive contributions to our society. The question I have to ask though is, wouldn’t these same people make the same positive societal contributions if they were not religious?

I am aware that there are many highly regarded theologians studying various religions from a modern perspective. But the basis of their studies are the ideas that were appropriate for life in a much different society that existed 2000 or so years ago written by and for people who were unable to conceive of life as we live it now in the 21st century. Is modern theology not just a re-interpretation of 2000 year old ideas? Is modern theology not just a way of interpreting these Bronze Age ideas to fit the modern world?

Yes, I agree that most religious people have good intentions. I’d even go one step further and suggest that most people, religious or not, have good intentions. But, how is it that secular humanists and other non-religious people acquire positive societal values without a non-religious education?

In his earlier comment to this thread, Jay asked the question, “what value is derived from faith based education over and above the public education system?” I’d like to rephrase that question to read: Since we’ve established and agreed that non-religious people can and do make positive contributions to society, what non-existent value or benefit is added to society by a faith-based education?

Regarding the “secular as default” issue, and I repeat myself here, until there is absolute proof of a deity, why should we fund an education that promotes belief in that unproven deity? Until this proof is provided, secular is the default position. I can make the claim that I can fly without the aid of any external devices. There’s just me and I say that I can fly. Without the evidence of an actual live demonstration of my flying ability, would you incorporate the idea that I can fly into your view of the world? I doubt it. Thus, your non-belief in my ability to fly becomes the default position.

There’s another pertinent related question that deserves consideration that is beyond the scope of this reply to address. Putting my secular humanism bias aside for a moment and looking at this from an educational perspective, what justification is there for the inevitable siphoning off of already scarce resources from the public education system to fund faith-based education?

I do not deny that people in our province have the right to educate their children according to their religious beliefs. I don’t support religious education per se, but accept that people have the right to religious education. In your summation, you said, “I am a religious person, but my Ontario is big enough to allow for a multitude of views -- all with equal rights.” My reply is simply, I am a non-religious person, but my Ontario is big enough to allow for a multitude of views -- all with equal rights. So, I don’t think that it’s a matter of one of us being chauvinistic or intolerant, it’s more a matter of belief vs non-belief. I can’t speak for what you feel is central to your beliefs, but integral to my non-belief is not allowing the use of public monies to fund faith-based initiatives of any sort. Again I repeat, until the day that the existence of a higher power is proven, no public monies should be used to finance faith-based education. And, on that day, if and when it comes, I’ll be obliged to reevaluate my position.

"My belief if that all atheists should die, because they haven't been predestined to salvation." See the problem here? We should have what we want insofar as it doesn't harm others. Related to your example, your "harm" is not so terminal as the ostensible anedote I've provided, but you do seek, because of your beliefs, to control the society that others live in due to your beliefs. You seek to deny others something that people freely want for themselves...and the public purse can provide for both...for just as you say that "you don't want public funds financing religious based education", I can say that "I don't want public funds financing secular education." Let's split the difference, and allocate accordingly...it's worked so far, contrary to the cheap rhetoric that bounces around the editorials these days...

As for your "default" notion, that is the most slick piece of rhetoric I've ever heard...It's very charming...but I wonder if it only works on those who already share your opinion...you have to convince opponents of your view some other way...

Regards,

Koestler.

Have a look again at the comments:

Finally, I might point out the United Nations Human Rights Committee's report of April 2006, pages 5-6, which state:

"21. The Committee expresses concern about the State party’s responses relating to the Committee’s Views in the case Waldman v. Canada (Communication No. 694/1996, Views adopted on 3 November 1999), requesting that an effective remedy be granted to the author eliminating discrimination on the basis of religion in the distribution of subsidies to schools (arts. 2, 18 and 26).

The State party should adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

I should think that that statement is self-explanatory. Either no public bias toward a specific religion, or they all receive equal recognition (monetarily), and we evil secularists get to ensure a uniform and monitored curriculum.

So tell me, is your self-righteousness so much more estimable and of that much more import than the United Nations Human Rights Committee's ruling? Moreover, you do realize how ridiculous it sounds to say "I can say that "I don't want public funds financing secular education" don't you? You're saying (hypothetically of course...) that you don't want the current public education system funded by public monies.

As for rhetoric, wow, where to begin. Do you go to a church? Do you listen to the preacher man once a week, once a month? I invite you to find the rhetoric spoken weekly at a church any less "slick" than Rolf's soundly drawn arguments.

I might also direct you to an excellent resource that I found most useful in earning my degree (from a public institution here in Ontario no less), it's called VirtualSalt, and it is a repository of rhetorical devices, their descriptions, common usages etc. Have a look.

Good day to you.

In your reply above, you said, "you do seek, because of your beliefs, to control the society that others live in due to your beliefs." I have two issues with this statement.

First of all, secularism, humanism, atheism or whatever you want to call it, isn't a belief system, it's a way of being. Nothing is made up or manufactured to supercede reality or fact. There is no need to draw a distinction between ourselves as human and a supernatural entity that judges our actions and controls our destiny. Myself and others judge my actions and I, insomuch as I am able, control my destiny. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of living in reality. I live on planet Earth. My senses tell me that the earth is there, thus I have direct evidence of its reality. Thus, I know that the earth is there as opposed to believing it is there. I cannot say the same for a supernatural diety in the sky.

The second part of my response concerns the issue of wanting to control society. As a secularist, I don't necessarily want to control society. What I do want is to live in a society that is controlled by rational people, not religious zealots who want to make the rules based on irrational beliefs. And just what is it that Evangelical and Dominionist Christians want? To have absolute control over society? To force their irrational beliefs on us all? To institute biblical law? A Christian theocracy? They won't be content until we are all living in a Christian theocracy. I view public funding of faith-based schools as a misguided step in this direction.

Reviewed your the comments Jay. Near the beginning, that Craig guy goes on about "choice in education" and you ardently accuse him of being rhetorical...spell out the difference for me; why is that rhetoric while Rolf is speaking "truth"...becaue so far, I think you are simply picking and choosing whatever suits you and labelling it rhetoric accordingly (in spite of your appeal to authority "e.g., VirtualSalt")

Yes, The UN is clear...all or none...I'm content with all; that is, that all religous/faith based schools be funded...That is consistent with the UN...So tell me jay, "is your self-righteousness so much more estimable and of that much more import than the United Nations Human Rights Committee's ruling?"

Rolf, I guess you are right...those tiny oscillating, swirling little balls of energy that make up all matter are something that we all observe directly every day...Indeed, my senses tell me that molecules are there, thus I have direct evidence of their reality.

Oh oh, this is the part where jay says: "you actually don't believe that sub-atomic particles exist..."

"I cannot say the same for a supernatural diety in the sky"...(Yet the scientist in charge of the human genome project can still believe in such a diety, and draw a distincition between faith and science)

So humanism is a "way of being" as opposed to a "belief system"...You sound positively Buddhist...well done!

You say, "And just what is it that Evangelical and Dominionist Christians want? To have absolute control over society? To force their irrational beliefs on us all? To institute biblical law? A Christian theocracy?" My last scanning of the bible suggested otherwise; that Christ didn't want the creation of a "Capernaum". That said, I'd prefer a Christian with that view controlling the scene, rather than you who are more similar to the extreme nut jobs who want to create a "Capernaum"...(similar in process...not content, of course).

Rolf you say, "Myself and others judge my actions and I, insomuch as I am able, control my destiny." I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with this "belief" in light of what the science of determinism has to tell us...whether we take deteminism as a general principle, or in it'ss applied form (neurophysiology, psychological behaviourism, etc)...it tend to be directly antithetical to your notion of "controling your destiny" Luke...

Regards,

Koestler

Scanning, scanning, ah there it is, right near the very beginning of the bible. Dominionists, a real known group of politicized xians base their desired goal of theocratic rule on Genesis 1:26-28. It says it in the bible, it must therefore be true right?

Next, free will or the "science" of determinism, hmm. Hard to have an honest discussion of that with most xians since their understanding of cause->effect relations usually parallel that of a 5-6 year old's, where everything is teleological, and everything is the way it is because the bible says so.

As for self-righteousness, I don't see how my pointing out the UN's findings could be at all interpreted as that, which your clever quote seems to imply. Show me the detailed fiscal plan and studies that demonstrate why funding all religious schools would be better than funding none of them and I'll happily consider that option, especially considering the Minitry of Education would have more of a say in such an education.

Finally, rhetoric again, a quote please? About the only thing you can construe as rhetorical are my legitimate questions as to the value of faith based education and funding. They're the crux of the issue, all other debates aside. Here they are again for reference:

"The real issue is what value is derived from faith based education over and above the public education system? What value and why is that value desirable for Ontario's 12 million citizens, and Canada at large? Moreover, what values aren't being taught in a public classroom that are or would be in a faith based classroom, and why are those values deserving of money? Conversely, why are those values not being taught in a public classroom?"

You quote the old testament...I thought that this didn't apply in light of the "new covenant..." but once again you've labelled me, this time a "xian" so disregard this...

"Next, free will or the "science" of determinism, hmm. Hard to have an honest discussion of that with most xians since their understanding of cause->effect relations usually parallel that of a 5-6 year old's"

"Name calling", or critising the holder of an opinion rather than the opinion itself...once again great rhetrical strategy, jay.

Thanks for having dominion, jay...and loading the "real" questions for us...

Regards,

Koestler

I repeat myself, for rhetorical effect of course :)

"The real issue is what value is derived from faith based education over and above the public education system? What value and why is that value desirable for Ontario's 12 million citizens, and Canada at large? Moreover, what values aren't being taught in a public classroom that are or would be in a faith based classroom, and why are those values deserving of money? Conversely, why are those values not being taught in a public classroom?"

Re: Head+Wall=bashing

Is the unrestricted thoroughfair of ideas not allowed in your world, jay...

"The real issue is what value is derived from faith based education over and above the public education system? What value and why is that value desirable for Ontario's 12 million citizens, and Canada at large? Moreover, what values aren't being taught in a public classroom that are or would be in a faith based classroom, and why are those values deserving of money? Conversely, why are those values not being taught in a public classroom?"

Oh no...jay has rendered me wordless, spelling mistakes and all...

"However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth." John Stuart Mill