Ontario RC Schools can't Teach Abortion is Wrong

[minion]

As long as the Catholic schools in Canada accept public funds they will be held to the public government. That’s the way it works. The government is not going to take tax dollars from gay people and give it to Catholics to teach kids that being gay is wrong.

And just like the Muslims who can have a prayer group in public schools, Catholics can too. Allowing Catholic prayer groups but not Muslim ones would have been discriminatory.

So by your logic…

“In the 1950’s, as long as the Catholic schools in the United States accepted public funds they will be held to the public government. That’s the way it works. The government is not going to take tax dollars from white people and give it to Catholics to teach kids that discriminating blacks is wrong.”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

So by your logic…

“In the 1950’s, as long as the Catholic schools in the United States accepted public funds they will be held to the public government. That’s the way it works. The government is not going to take tax dollars from white people and give it to Catholics to teach kids that discriminating blacks is wrong.”

In short, yes. For better or worse when you accept government money you agree to government regulation.

What you just illustrated though is exactly why anti-discrimination laws were passed when it comes to restaurants, housing, etc. As our society evolved we realized that it was not ok to take money from all taxpayers, blacks included and give it to businessmen to open restaurants and stores that would discriminate against blacks. That’s exploitation.

 

[iloveangels]

In short, yes. For better or worse when you accept government money you agree to government regulation.

What you just illustrated though is exactly why anti-discrimination laws were passed when it comes to restaurants, housing, etc. As our society evolved we realized that it was not ok to take money from all taxpayers, blacks included and give it to businessmen to open restaurants and stores that would discriminate against blacks. That’s exploitation.

Correct. This is what people get when they get so misled and greedy that they take government money first and think about the consequences later. You get their $$$, you pay by their rules. I have no idea why this is so hard for some people to understand.

 

[lerapt78]

As long as the Catholic schools in Canada accept public funds they will be held to the public government. That’s the way it works. The government is not going to take tax dollars from gay people and give it to Catholics to teach kids that being gay is wrong.

You may be trying to compare this to the way it would work in the U.S., however I’m not sure it’s quite the same. If I’m correct, it was in the mid-1800’s that Catholics were allowed to establish denominational schools (going back to the Anglo-French Treaty of Paris which protected the rights of Quebec’s Catholics.) Under the Canadian Confederation of 1867, Catholic education rights were constitutionally guaranteed and protected.

Therefore, unlike in the US which establishes freedom of religion and yet maintains separation of Church and state and does not designate favoritism toward any one religion, Catholic education in Canada is actually constitutinally protected, which is why I think they are able to receive tax-supported funds. Since their specific religious education is protected and guaranteed by the state, the state should not have any right to dictate educational policies which are contrary to Catholic teaching by using the excuse of the schools being publicly funded.

I leave this open to correction from any Canadians on this board.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Hi BlueEyedLady:

You don’t see the issue? The boys and girls are segregated, and the girls on their periods can’t take part at all, and have to sit at the back so that the whole school community (boys and girls, teachers and students) see that they are menstruating? This is an outrageous intrusion into the girls’ privacy; it is astonishing that people could rationalize acceptance of it in a public school, supported by taxpayer dollars. They shouldn’t be promoting religious observance of any kind, and particularly not a religious observance that treats the women as second-class citizens. This is Canada in 2012, not Medina circa 700 AD.

i.thestar.com/images/ce/6d/f2167ead46eca7d856aa36d6167f.jpeg

I am a Catholic school teacher here in Ontario. If I told my female students to sit at the back of my class, I’d probably be fired. if I told the girls they couldn’t come to class if they were menstruating, I’d probably be crucified (and deservedly so).

I maintain the School is endorsing this; it is going on during Friday afternoons, which are part of the Instructional day in Ontario Schools. You want to pray in a Muslim Mosque? Fine, do it on your own time, not at the public schools, who are supposed to be secular. The fact that the Ontario government is okay with this speaks volumes; they will pounce on Catholic Schools for the heresy of teaching that abortion is wrong because it might upset some women. But they have no problem with treating women as unclean in a School Mosque. That’s a double standard.

Jacques

You are completely missing the point. Being in your class is a right that is afforded to all students equally.

The school is not treating women as though they are unclean. This is not the school enforcing this. Actually, I think it would be wrong of the school to force Muslims to change their worship practices.

In the US when I was in middle school I was a part of a prayer group that met every day at a different time so that you didn’t miss too much of any one class. It wasn’t disruptive, and students to have a right to pray in schools. Although it is debatable about organizing during school hours. If in this group we believed that men must lie face down while women stand I don’t see what problem that would be of the administrators. Every student chooses to go to this, and they have parental consent. The school is not encouraging or enforcing anything here.

Heck, when I was in high school one of our Muslim foreign exchange students kept a yoga mat in her locker so that she could pray to Mecca during the day in a quiet hallway. (The floor was too dirty.)

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You may be trying to compare this to the way it would work in the U.S., however I’m not sure it’s quite the same. If I’m correct, it was in the mid-1800’s that Catholics were allowed to establish denominational schools (going back to the Anglo-French Treaty of Paris which protected the rights of Quebec’s Catholics.) Under the Canadian Confederation of 1867, Catholic education rights were constitutionally guaranteed and protected.

Therefore, unlike in the US which establishes freedom of religion and yet maintains separation of Church and state and does not designate favoritism toward any one religion, Catholic education in Canada is actually constitutinally protected, which is why I think they are able to receive tax-supported funds. Since their specific religious education is protected and guaranteed by the state, the state should not have any right to dictate educational policies which are contrary to Catholic teaching by using the excuse of the schools being publicly funded.

I leave this open to correction from any Canadians on this board.

Its my understanding that they are constitutionally protected, but that the government is not obligated to fund it. The government can say “We will help you out but in exchange you have to agree to not do ___________.”

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Correct. This is what people get when they get so misled and greedy that they take government money first and think about the consequences later. You get their $$$, you pay by their rules. I have no idea why this is so hard for some people to understand.

It isn’t just with schools either. That goes for anything. You have HUD insured property? You follow their rules. You get farm subsidies? You have to plant what they tell you to.

 

[lerapt78]

Its my understanding that they are constitutionally protected, but that the government is not obligated to fund it. The government can say “We will help you out but in exchange you have to agree to not do ___________.”

I certainly may be mistaken. It seems, as Americans, that we are in dire need of a Canadian constitution expert to weigh in.

(Where’s the guy with the maple leaf avatar?)

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I certainly may be mistaken. It seems, as Americans, that we are in dire need of a Canadian constitution expert to weigh in.

(Where’s the guy with the maple leaf avatar?)

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the Canadian courts. I love seeing tricky issues like this play out in other Western nations’ courts.

 

[iloveangels]

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the Canadian courts. I love seeing tricky issues like this play out in other Western nations’ courts.

I personally HATE IT. I don’t think it’s a game or a pastime. The whole thing is disgusting.

 

[JaMc]

Catholic schools will be leveraged by the Ontario government as long as they are accepting provincial money.
Sadly if you take the money you risk being told what to teach.
This goes back to the 1980s when provincial dollars were offered to the Catholic school board in Toronto and were accepted.
If the money is accepted we are obliged to agree to the terms of the province, if the money is refused, we are not able to offer exceptional Catholic education to all socioeconomic groups.
Decide what is best in the long run.
Live for the moment, and for eternity.

As the old saying goes, Judas Iscariot was the first Bishop to accept a government grant.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the Canadian courts. I love seeing tricky issues like this play out in other Western nations’ courts.

I have a very strong academic interest in things like that. It does fascinate me to see how issues like that are handled in other nations that in many ways are a lot like ours, but still have different foundations and mores.

 

[minion]

In short, yes. For better or worse when you accept government money you agree to government regulation.

What you just illustrated though is exactly why anti-discrimination laws were passed when it comes to restaurants, housing, etc. As our society evolved we realized that it was not ok to take money from all taxpayers, blacks included and give it to businessmen to open restaurants and stores that would discriminate against blacks. That’s exploitation.

Society didn’t just “evolve” out of thin air…

 

[iloveangels]

I have a very strong academic interest in things like that. It does fascinate me to see how issues like that are handled in other nations that in many ways are a lot like ours, but still have different foundations and mores.

You’re a constitutional lawyer, then? Do you work for the federal government?

 

[Phemie]

I certainly may be mistaken. It seems, as Americans, that we are in dire need of a Canadian constitution expert to weigh in.

(Where’s the guy with the maple leaf avatar?)

I’m Canadian but know more about linguistic minority rights in education than religious rights. It’s my understanding that the constitution provides for both protection and funding.

Because education is a provincial responsibility, provinces deal with this in different ways. Some provinces had no ‘public’ schools, all school systems are/were denominational.

In Newfoundland for example you had the Catholic schools, Integrated schools (Anglican, United, Baptist, etc), Pentecostal and, IIRC, Salvation Army. All schools were provided the same amount of money per student annually. Newfoundlanders voted to give up their right to denominational education in 1997. To do so required changing some of the articles of the constitution and required parliamentary approval. The system is now a public system for all intents and purposes - although all traces of the denominational system have not disappeared. My friend, for example, will not take down the crucifix in her classroom and they celebrate religious holidays – with the addition of acknowledging non-Christian religious holidays for those students. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador there are 3 private Catholic schools. They were Catholic schools before 1997 and opted to be private Catholic schools rather than go ‘non denominational’.

In other provinces, municipal taxes are designated by the payer to go toward either the public or Catholic system.

 

[lerapt78]

I’m Canadian but know more about linguistic minority rights in education than religious rights. It’s my understanding that the constitution provides for both protection and funding.

Because education is a provincial responsibility, provinces deal with this in different ways. Some provinces had no ‘public’ schools, all school systems are/were denominational.

In Newfoundland for example you had the Catholic schools, Integrated schools (Anglican, United, Baptist, etc), Pentecostal and, IIRC, Salvation Army. All schools were provided the same amount of money per student annually. Newfoundlanders voted to give up their right to denominational education in 1997. To do so required changing some of the articles of the constitution and required parliamentary approval. The system is now a public system for all intents and purposes - although all traces of the denominational system have not disappeared. My friend, for example, will not take down the crucifix in her classroom and they celebrate religious holidays – with the addition of acknowledging non-Christian religious holidays for those students. Today in Newfoundland and Labrador there are 3 private Catholic schools. They were Catholic schools before 1997 and opted to be private Catholic schools rather than go ‘non denominational’.

In other provinces, municipal taxes are designated by the payer to go toward either the public or Catholic system.

Thanks for the information, Phemie. It’s my understanding that the Ontarian province in particular assigns special priviledges to Catholic schools - is that correct?

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for the information, Phemie. It’s my understanding that the Ontarian province in particular assigns special priviledges to Catholic schools - is that correct?

I’m not sure what you mean by that.

A good overview can be found on wiki – I know, not the most reliable but in this case it probably explains Canada’s education system better than anything else I can give you.

I grew up in NB and there there was no separate school system. Schools were community based and in my small village there were two. Both were under the same school board. Which school you attended had more to do with where you lived in the village than with what your religion was.

At one end of the village you had a school right next to the Catholic church. It was a bilingual school (French/English) and accommodated all the students from that end of the village, both Catholic and Protestant. There was prayer, Catechism classes (from which the Protestants were exempt), two Sisters as teachers and the priest visited regularly.

At the other end of the village was a school close to the United Church. That school was uni-lingual English, although French kids attended because of where they lived. (All French kids were bilingual by the end of grade one regardless of which school they attended if they hadn’t been to begin with, because even in the bilingual school, where the children were taught in their mother tongue, the teachers taught both the English and the French kids in the same classroom.). We always considered the uni-lingual school ‘Protestant’ but it was probably more ‘public’ than denominational.

All the schools at the time were funded by county taxes so the quality and equipment varied greatly by county. In 1967 there was a reform in NB’s education system and schools became the provincial government’s responsibility. All schools were provided with the same amount of money per student, giving more equal access to education even for small communities. They took over schools that had been built by religious communities and schools effectively ceased to be ‘Catholic’ about 2 years later (I remember religious education in grade 10 in 68-69 in a school that had been run by the Christian Brothers until the end of the 67-68 school year, but by the fall of '69 there was no longer religious education.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You’re a constitutional lawyer, then? Do you work for the federal government?

Nope, just started law school here in the US. I may have to give it up though in favor of grad school because the cost is killing me and I would have better prospects with a Master’s.

My undergrad was in Psychology and Poli Sci though. I really do like looking at legal questions and seeing how every nation answers them and the processes they go through. But everyone has a dorky hobby.

 

[BobCatholic]

There is no religious freedom in Canada.

Also no freedom of speech.

 

[JMJSHJ]

This comment by the Education minister is disgusting, illegal and immoral. In Canada we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and it includes freedom of religion.

Also to those who say that when Catholic schools get Government funding then they have to accept Government Control I say hogwash. First off the Government money comes not from the Government, but from the people. In Ontario people are given the choice of funding Catholic schools or Public Schools. If you don’t like Catholicism then don’t fund it.