Strife
When I travel the world on behalf of Ontarians, and I tell folks in China, India, Japan and Pakistan that 27 per cent of people living in this province were born outside of the country, and 52 per cent of people living in the GTA were born outside the country, the first thing they say is why have I not seen on your television screens what I have seen on the streets of London, Germany, Paris, the Netherlands? Why is there not more strife, struggle and controversy? It's because we bring our kids together in the same classrooms.As Dan says, it's even better than I remembered. McGuinty might have chosen any number of examples from around the world of strife in the streets. But all of the examples cited -- London, Germany, Paris, the Netherlands -- are places with significant Muslim populations, and significant Muslim unrest -- not to say terrorism. The only thing standing between them and us, McGuinty suggests, is our public school system.
Leaving aside the uncomfortable fact that our own accused Muslim terrorists were all products of that same system, what is he saying? That these other countries don't have public school systems? Or, that ours is somehow in jeopardy? (Otherwise, why bring it up?) And what threatens ours? Why of course: the Conservative proposal to extend public funding to 50,000 kids in religious schools. Not the 650,000 kids already in publicly-funded religious schools -- Catholic schools. After all, if Mr. McGuinty thought that he wouldn't have sent his own kids there. Just the new ones.
Connect the dots: if the Conservatives are elected, Ontario's streets will be filled with violent Muslims -- just like London, Germany, Paris, the Netherlands. Nice.
ADDENDUM: Just to be clear -- it probably is true that having kids of different backgrounds mix together at school contributes to greater social harmony. It's also fair, in light of experience, to worry about what might be taught at the odd madrassa. What's wrong is to draw a straight line from funding a few religious schools, with appropriate safeguards, to a total breakdown in social cohesion. What's wrong is to whip this up into the single central issue of the campaign, as if there were some enormous crisis at hand. It's the difference between legitimate concern and fearmongering -- especially fearmongering directed, explicitly or implicitly, at a vulnerable minority. It's the difference between statesmanship and demagoguery.
10/12/2007
related
Keep bookmarked posts here.
60 Comments
You have got to be freaking kidding me.
Shooting hoops with kids from Croatia; teaching the new student from Pakistan the original six NHL teams; getting a crush on the girl from the Philippines; all experiences I had in a public school in Southern Ontario, and all experiences that help kids from different cultures understand each other a little better.
If we get the social dynamics of the playground right today this province might avoid the social problems recently experienced in the Western European nations McGuinty cited.
I repeat: do they not have public school systems?
Very interesting. Way out here on the West Coast, I wasn't really paying attention to this debate until I happened to catch Mike Duffy's show yesterday. Joy MacPhail (with whom I rarely agree) tore a strip off that Liberal lady who ran for the liberal leadership, ol' whatsername. It was the first I heard of an Islamophobic content to this debate. I had assumed it was merely anti-Christian bigotry.
Joy made the point that here in BC, the province does fund all kinds of private schools, including religious ones. The way it is done is insisting on using the provincial curriculum, while allowing additional studies for specific religious points of view of whatever kind of school it is. I think the funding is only partial, however. Parents still have to pay a portion of the tuition in these schools.
To me, this is the way that public policy should operate in order to provide the kind of curriculum that the community expects, while allowing freedom for the expression of particular points of view.
For myself, I wouldn't accept the provincial funding if I were operating a school because I find parts of the public curriculum objectionable. But it seems to me that if the province is paying, the province should have a large say in calling the shots. It is reasonable, and surely within the public interest, especially since the Catholic schools are in the public system as it is.
Unfortunately for the Ontario Tories, the whole issue was not handled well, but it is quite interesting to see the particular angle on which it was attacked.
Don Johnson:
"But it seems to me that if the province is paying, the province should have a large say in calling the shots"
The province pays with taxes paid by every resident of Ontario. So every single resident of Ontario should have a say in where the money goes. In which case, the proponents of religious schools should have the right for their tax dollars to go to the school their children attend, instead of paying for both the public schools through taxes and their childrens' schools out of pocket. Now that would be fair.
And it's also true that McGunity is a hypocrite and a liar and this is just one more example.
I live in Ottawa South, McGuinty's riding. My biggest surprise during the election was that several long time opponents of the Liberal party told me that they planned to vote Liberal for the first time in their life because they were afraid that Tory's faith based schools plan would lead to a proliferation of muslim schools spreading terrorist beliefs and they were convinced they needed to vote for McGuinty since he was the only leader willing to stand up against terrorists. I asked if they would vote for McGuinty if this were not an issue in the election and was told no.
Startling, to see Andrew Coyne so far out on the edge of reason. On policy, it could just be that Dalton McGuinty actually believes in public schools. Politically, it looks like he went for the empty net goal John Tory gave up. Was he supposed to aim wide of the net? Yes, Catholic schools create an awkward policy dissonance, but does anyone really think it's practical to abolish them? Should we tear up aboriginal treaties while we're at it? And isn't it possible that Mr. and Mrs. McGuinty disagree on public vs religious schools?
Connect the dots: if the Conservatives are elected, Ontario's streets will be filled with violent Muslims -- just like London, Germany, Paris, the Netherlands.
That's a helluva leap. Straight line, is it? Who's the demagogue again?
Sean, perhaps I wasn't clear... I agree with religious schools receiving public funding, but with that funding comes accountability to the public curriculum, inspections, standardized testing, etc. I think it is reasonable to expect such things and from what I gather, that is what Tory was advocating.
Personally, while I am for high academic standards, I am not for secular curriculum. I am a pastor of a small church, if we were larger and could afford a school, we would be as independent as possible and not take provincial funding. If we were to take funding, we would rightly be held accountable to the curriculum of the province.
In any case, I don't think Tory was advocating a far-out policy. It seems the Libs tapped into a point of fear and exploited it for their own ends. No surprise there either.
In another post, AC astutely noted that other provinces which fund faith-based schools seem to have avoided the riots of Paris.
Q: Does France publicly fund faith-based schools? I doubt it.
McGuinty's whole argument was garbage in every possible way. And McGuinty is smart enough to know it, too. A truly low moment for any Premier at any time.
Geoff, it's clear the "connect the dots" refers not to an argument Coyne is making himself, but to the argument he alleges that McGuinty was making.
This post has been removed by the author.
I would remind Andrew that this story first exploded not over Muslim schools but over Evangelical ones, the very moment John Tory spoke in code to suggest that he would be willing to provide public money to have Creationism taught in class. You don't have to dig through old transcripts to find that. It was on the front page of all the major papers for a week. Tory
made a gesture to his SoCon base, and got caught doing it. Kerflooey!
Sorry, Bigcitylib, you've got the chronology wrong. This was already a major issue when a reporter asked Tory about the teaching of creationism. That's WHY he was asked. And far from Tory sending a calculated message with his response, he stumbled, obviously caught unprepared. (This produced the immortal line, "it's the THEORY of evolution....", which indicated Tory didn't know that the word "theory" has a precise meaning in science quite unlike that in quotidian English. But I digress....)
Dan, that was not a stumble: talking about the "theory of evolution" is recognizable Intelligent Design talk.
And yes the issue was there but this caused it to flare up.
Of course, by not so subtlety calling Mr. McGuinty a bigot, isn't Mr. Coyne calling the people of Ontario bigots?
I don't buy it.
The people of Ontario don't want to fund religious schools because they're mostly secularists (when it comes to public education anyway). I think most Ontarians would just as soon get rid of the Catholic funding as well, but there are too many people using that system to make that easy, and everyone knows that Catholic schools are pretty much Catholic in name only (which is why so many non-Catholics are comfortable sending their kids there).
The people of Ontario don't like sending their tax dollars to fund religious education. They tolerate (marginally) Catholic schools because "Catholic Schools" are only marginally "Catholic".
This idea that funding religious education with public money was defeated in Ontario because of a fear of Muslims is so much hot air. Which should be obvious when you realize that probably the one community that came out most vocally against the public funding of religious schools was the Muslim community.
Polls have shown that a comfortable majority of the people of Ontario would prefer to abolish the Catholic system.
It would be pretty easy to phase it out over an 8 year period. No disruption of students in elementary school.
You're right, Big, that Intelligent Design propagandists misuse "theory" to advance their cause, but in doing so they are capitalizing on existing, widespread confusion. I saw Tory's response. It was exactly what I have seen many other intelligent, scientifically illiterate people do: They stumble and look confused and then assert strongly, well, it IS just a theory!
And if you still aren't convinced, remember that Tory almost immediately issued a press release repudiating his on-the-spot answer. It was humiliating and he was hammered for it. That hardly sounds like a calculated message to the ID crowd, does it?
"On policy, it could just be that Dalton McGuinty actually believes in public schools."
Geoff, if McGuinty believed in public schools why did he go to a Catholic School and why did he send his kids to Catholic Schools? You could argue that his parents foced him to go and his wife forced him to send their kids, but he also has public statements to the contrary. And, are do you seriously expect us to believe that the first Ontario Liberal Premier to win back-to-back majorities in 70 years is such a pushover?
"Of course, by not so subtlety calling Mr. McGuinty a bigot, isn't Mr. Coyne calling the people of Ontario bigots?"
No, try again. You can believe in one public school system (like the majority of Ontarians do) because you believe religion and education don't mix. That's a perfectly non-bigoted reason to have voted against Tory.
However, if that is your belief, you don't send your kids to a publicly-funded faith-based Catholic school and you don't talk about your reason to being opposed to it is that it will lead to strife in the streets.
AC,
There seem to be two issues that get confused here. And, to be fair, I am not really sure at times which one is the one you are discussing. One is the issue of whether or not publicly funding religious-based schooling for non-Catholics would be an improvement or not. The other is whether or not the way McGuinty argues that it would not is (pardon the expression) kosher.
On the first point, I think that it would unquestionably not be better. I would even like to see the Catholic system de-funded, but political reality says that won't happen any time soon. As you acknowledge, integration and cohesion are related. Separation and prejudice are also related.
On the second point, the cynical comment would be to say that politicians always over sell the downside of policies their opponents support and that they oppose. Fear-mongering is a requirement for the job, it often seems. But when it is fear of economic bad times or fear of inadequate health care, there is something much less offensive than when it is fear of your neighbours that a politician is selling. So you are right to criticise McGuinty's demagoguery.
The better claim for McGuinty to make would have been that separation can breed intolerance and that intolerance is a two-way street that can result in multi-directional social violence. A non-integrated minority can feel alienated and majority populations can be prejudiced resulting oppression of minorities. Both sides can be perpetrators and both sides can be victims, so the solution is the dissolution of their being "sides" as much as possible. Fully integrated schools is one way to do that. But this was not McGuinty's argument. Too bad.
DW
The Liberals use racism, bigotry or some other egregious method to win an election. This is news how? Did somebody just fall off a turnip truck?
While I can't profess to have an intimate knowledge of the degree of religious integration in the German, French, Dutch, and British public education systems it is self-evident that maximal integration results in maximal cohesion, and that our public education system should aspire to integrate. DW's post articulates this point well.
The more familiar we become with our diverse neighbours the better chance we have to retain and foster a common sense of Canadian citizenship.
Public schools should be diverse, because every kid is not the same and does not learn the same way.
In the Edmonton Public School System, one can choose to go to the neighborhood school. One can choose to go to an all girl's school. One can choose to go to one of several Christian (non-Catholic) schools. One can go to the Jewish school. One can go to a school using traditional (old school) methodologies. One can go to a sports school. One can go to a performing arts school. One can go to an an international baccaluareate school. One can go to a school for gifted students. One can go to a school emphasizing one of several languages (French, Ukrainian, Chinese, Japanese). All use ATA-qualified teachers. The Edmonton Publics School system has one of the highest public satisfaction ratings of any system in North America.
Alberta has a public charter school law. Many of these schools could choose to be public charter schools, and the Edmonton Public Board is open enough to allow diversity within the public system.
Catholics, in most provinces, have rights granted to them in the Constitution. Paul Martin made the arguement that rights, once granted, should never be taken away.
What a strange turn of events? Tory is accused of supporting creationism and Evang. Christians. Recall the concerns folks had about McGuinty before he got into office. Someone should ask him to honestly answer if he believes in creationism? Ask him if he believes in gay marriage? Abortion? Is it right for Catholics to dissallow marriage to a non-Catholic?
McGuinty's entire family has benefitted from education in one of those "religious" schools that he says are so devisive. This whole fiasco only proves the point that Ontarians are only able to absorb one issue at a time.
People don't take the time anymore to read the paper, go to election debates or be involved in their community.
In Ontario, whether true or not, people see the Catholic School system as inclusive and racially diverse. So the constant whining about fairness just didn't play and it didn't matter where McGuinty or his kids went.
The argument that only 50 thousand students were in the parent funded private religious schools didn't wash because everyone knew that once funding was given, the population of so called faith based schools would explode to the detriment of the public schools and perhaps even the Catholic system.
It's not common to hear personal criticism of the elite favourite John Tory. But the policy was not so grand as AC claims. As others have said, Tory cynically tried to appeal to both evangelical Christians in rural Ontario, and religious minorities in urban areas including Don Valley West.
In the end McGuinty's response was overall pretty measured and subdued despite the quote mentioned by AC. He did not for example resort to negative TV advertising to make his case in favour of the current system. Overall, McGuinty's campaign seemed pretty positive, and certainly from the average voters point of view could not be deemed Islamaphobic.
In Ontario, whether true or not, people see the Catholic School system as inclusive and racially diverse.
How many people in Ontario do you think realize that the Catholic school boards are virtually the employers that are allowed to disregard the human rights code by only hiring confirmed Catholics to full-time positions?
You can bet that John Tory knows this, but wouldn't have dared mention it during the campaign since it would have sparked allegations of an anti-Catholic crusade. After seeing the results of the election, Tory may be wishing he had just been more forceful in his position. It certainly would not have caused him to do any worse than he did.
And...seeing as how Catholics always vote Liberal anyway - federally and provincially - John Tory really had nothing to lose in highlighting the gross unfairness of the Catholic school system.
McGuinty may have a fair point with the Netherlands example, as the Dutch have by far the most extensive publicly funded accommodation of immigrant communities (mainly muslims), including Muslim schools.
Andrew - if bringing 50,000 schoolies into the public system was deemed to be "taking $400 million out of public education", has anyone determined how much money would be "put into public education" if the Catholics were turfed out? Should we just pull a figure of 5.2 billion out of our ass?
My concern on the matter of one public system is that people generally think that outcomes are better at Catholic schools, especially in matters of discipline. Until the public system faces up to this perception AND does something about it most people are going to go along with keeping the funding.
Unfortunately the advocates for "public" education, such as Annie Kidder's group, include the CDSBs and are thus compromised - but she was looking mighty uncomfortable when pressed on that on that dreadful Toronto Star City Desk thing on Rogers TV.
The animus against faith-based schools was not restricted to Islamophobia; for example, the argument quickly turned to ending funding at superstitious Catholic schools, or merely defending Catholic schools by pointing out how uncatholic they are.
The issue may be more problematic than the simplcity of racism/intolerance will allow. There is an alarming level of anxiety, paranoia and histrionics that rational appeals cant cover over.
"There is an alarming level of anxiety, paranoia and histrionics that rational appeals cant cover over"
Hilarity. You and Coyne want to fund schools that believe in invisible begins who watch us when we are sleeping, and know when we are awake (like Santa Claus) and we are the irrational ones.
"islamophobia" does not exist. Unless Naomi k. is a "Capitalistophobe", me a "socialistophobe" pc-types are "truthophobes" and so on. Opposing an idea (an idea, by the way, that is exceptionally violent) doesn't not constitute a "phobia" or fear of.
Funding religious schools is nuts. Just nuts. For christ sakes, look around the world. Do we really want that crap in Canada?
While I'm not a huge fan of funding religious schools, I do see the need for regulating them more and allowing parents to direct some of their tax dollars to directly support the education of their own brood. McGuinty played on people's bigoted fears and won the election with it.
Stevo says: "How many people in Ontario do you think realize that the Catholic school boards are virtually the employers that are allowed to disregard the human rights code by only hiring confirmed Catholics to full-time positions?"
So true. You have to bring in a certificate of baptismal or a Catholic Faith reference from your church. This is completely archaic.
A sample from a typical teacher recruitment policy:
"As members of a Catholic school community, all teachers are expected to
participate in the liturgical activities that form the living witness to God's Word,
Truth, and Life."
- YORK CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Ontario's publicly-funded Catholic schools have safeguarded their right to hire Catholic teachers over non-Catholics since Confederation (depite a short time before section 136 of Bill 30 was in appealed).
Now there's diversity for you Mr. McGuinty. Let all the kids of European descent mingle and never shall their paths cross with Mohammed, Bhagiratha, Spriros, Kui-Wai or the occasional Angus Ferguson in public school.
BTW - Not all Catholics are of European descent, however, visiting a typical Ontario Catholic school and you'll find that the majority of students are white and mostly 'European'.
The Canadian primacy of "diveristy" and "multiculturalism" is darn comical. What is taught in a madrassa, Catholic school, Jedi school or Scientology school will all create kids with different social values, norms and outcomes. Some will be better than others, on aggregate.
We absolutely have to make rational choices about which ideas are appropriate and innappropriate for our country to fund. I'm sorry. The koran has no place in Canadian public education. Neither does the bible, for that matter. Keep your darned fairytale to yourselves.
And if our obsession with "equality" means that the bible has to get the boot to keep the koran out, then today is a double-good day. Canada is a secular country. I'd like it to stay that way, thanks.
The truth of the matter is that most Canadians don't truly value multiculturalism. Some do - I think that AC does - but most don't. For many, multiculturalism was, at one time, simply a conveniant tool to attack Canada's Judeo-Christian heritage with.
All you have to do is look at this thread - it's full of comments from hateful, arrogant, offensive, closed-minded agnostics/atheists who are quite obviously very intolerant towards religion as a whole, and think that they're somehow better and more rational than religious people like myself.
Through out the 70s, 80s, and 90s, many secularist folks like this probably championed multiculturalism not out of some noble love of cultural diversity, but because they correctly deduced that multiculturalism, by its very nature, lessens the impact and prominence of the predominant culture of the land... and at the time, that culture was Judeo-Christian.
However, multiculturalism is a double-edged sword for secularist folks in that you might end up bringing in cultures that are just as religious, if not more religious, than the very traditional culture that you're using multicultarlism against.
Anti-religious bigots in Ontario realized that this may become the case as it pertains to the Islamic culture that is growing in Canada, and hence voted against John Tory and his party. John Tory genuinely thought that Canadians loved multiculturalism, and hence would naturally jump on board the idea of providing public funding for all religious schools that met basic school curriculum criteria since Catholic schools are already publically funded and we Canadians are suppossed to love cultural (re: religious) diversity... to put it bluntly, he thought that multiculturalism advocacy came largely from a genuine love of multiculturalism (religion is, after all, an integral element of most cultures), and failed to realize that multiculturalism is often a politically correct front for anti-religion agendas, and anti-religion bigotry.
It's not anti-Christian, per se, and it's not Islamophobia, per se - it's secular fundamentalism, fuelled by the sort of bile and closed-minded naturalistic views and intolerance that many folks on this thread have displayed.
In my view, the idea that our universe of intricate design has a Creator is quite rational.
But to the intolerant closed-minded agnostics/atheists, they're not open to a civil discussion over such ideas, and they simply want a society lacking religion as much as possible because religion offends their intolerant "sensibilities".
Multiculturalism is, in and of itself, not particularly popular in Canada. It was an useful tool at one time for secularists and secular fundamentalists, and hence it was championed at one time, but it is far less useful now because of how Islam is a large part of many immigrant cultures to Canada.
Hey Brock, does anti-Semitism exist? Or are the Jews just evil?
DW's nailed this one - there can be a rational debate about whether to extend public funding to religious education - a rational argument which, with respect to the brave "anonymous," does not rely on any (necessarily irrational) religious belief.
But McGuinty and the Grits didn't engage in this rational debate. Instead they engaged in demagoguery, comparing a voluntary parochial system to enforced segregation and raising the fantasy specter of social strife. In so doing, I submit that McGuinty introduced a greater amount of religious tension into Ontario politics than ever would have resulted from Tory's plan.
Some have said it's absurd to call the Ontario voters bigoted for supporting McGuinty. I certainly give us the benefit of the doubt and assume that we voted Grit because we opposed religious school funding on dispassionate, rational grounds. But the same cannot be said of McGuinty. The path of logic that leads from his campaign ends in, and is ever marked by, anti-religious prejudice.
He could have argued that a liberal society takes no position on matters of religion, and that it is therefore improper for the state to provide funding for religious education. He did not make this argument. (It would have required him to argue for the disestablishment of the Catholic system, or at least to explain why disestablishment was impractical. He never did.)
Instead he argued that religious education by its very nature breeds social strife - that religious education is contrary to public policy not as a matter of ideology but as a matter of passion. He offered not a scintilla of true evidence, instead appealing to our natural and proper revulsion at the current religious strife in Europe - despite the absolute lack of any comparable conduct here, and despite the great success of religious schools (both public and private) in turning out students with equal or greater academic achievement than those graduating from the public system.
McGuinty's campaign necessarily appealed to a basic mistrust of religious Ontarians and a belief that, because they are not trustworthy, they cannot be encouraged. I don't believe McGuinty's appeal worked - I cannot believe that my neighbors in Ontario endorse such intolerance - but there's no question that McGuinty endorsed it, heartily. And that's why he deserves the unreserved condemnation of true liberals of all political stripes, regardless of the merits of the school funding debate.
I meant to add that McGuinty's demagoguery does not necessarily indicate that he's prejudiced against religion. There's another rational alternative - that though not personally prejudiced against the religious, he was perfectly willing to fan the flames of prejudice in pursuit of electoral success.
Which is worse I leave to your collective better judgment.
Oh look, more religious people whining because they've just had their shit handed to them.
Almost 70% of this province voted for parties that pointed out the obvious fact that subsidizing the superstitious beliefs of morons everywhere is terrible education policy.
This province and its citizens are competing against billions of people around the world for whom prosperity is something they are desperately working towards. They are utilizing every rational idea possible, gaining the scientefic knowledge needed to build a truly first-class society.
Meanwhile, here in Ontario, we have a collection of misguided old people who fear death and have turned to a supreme Deity for salvation who are determined that the next generation of this province waste time in schools that spend classroom hours debating whether or not Jesus was conceived through an invisible sticky gooey spirit, or whether Muhammed was really divine or just a war-mongering asshole.
That is something the people of Ontario have rejected, in overwhelming numbers. You have lost, and your breed is dying out. Good riddance.
Hey anonymous - very courageous, incidentally, to take a stand on behalf of an obviously deeply held belief, but not putting your name to it - I can't help but notice that those of us arguing in favor of religious toleration have used nothing but rational arguments, and you, the self-appointed champion of scientific rationalism, haven't made any rational arguments at all.
Shorter Mader: I are the courageous because I am Mader, the only Mader in the world, to whom you can find me if you wish, I are the courage.
Shortest Mader: McGuinty beat my Tory, I are the upset and am going to cry because people hate and everything I believe.
Classy, anonymous: I point out that you haven't made a rational argument, and you respond with ad hominem. You've totally convinced me.
Two points, at risk of continuing a not-particularly-profitable dialog:
1) I didn't vote for John Tory.
2) I hadn't thought that people who take the position you take did so because they "hate [me?] and everything I believe," but now that you put it that way, do you think it would be fair to characterize your comments here as demonstrating a hatred for the notion of religious pluralism and tolerance? If hatred isn't the right word, what is? That's a good faith question, notwithstanding our sniping back and forth, and I'd look forward to a good-faith answer.
Leaving Andrew Coyne's predictable enthusiasm
for immigrants and immigration aside I'd like
to make two points.
First, the John Tory debacle was a minor league
replay of the Robert Stanfield idiocy in the
1974 federal election which put Trudeau back
in power where he could complete his destruction
of the Canada our fathers and grandfathers built.
Instead of running against a widely despised
opponent -- and Trudeau was intensely hated
in many parts of Canada in 1974 for imposing
Official Bilingualism and for his profligate
spending in the 1972 to 1974 period of minority
government supported by the NDP -- Robert
Stanfield, a typical Red Tory, thought he
needed a big policy idea and picked "wage
and price controls". Even life-long Tory
voters held their noses and voted for Trudeau
to escape Stanfield's misbegotten scheme.
Although it did them little good as Trudeau
imposed them only a year later after winning
the one-issue election with promises never
to impose controls. One of the "liberal"
promises, I guess.
So along comes another Red Tory in the Stanfield
mold who thinks he needs not just a policy but
a whole basketful of them so the McGinty
Liberals can pick the most convenient targets
from several dozen -- instead of simply attacking
McGinty's record of corruption, incompetence
and utter contempt for promises made to the
electorate. The best that could be said for
John Tory's religious school funding scheme
was that it might have skimmed off a few
immigrant and ethnic votes in the GTA.
Second, the level of politic discussion and
debate in Canada has declined to the point
where rational thought seems no longer to
enter into the process. Instead voters
react like Pavlov's dogs to stimulation
with the appropriate buzz words with nary
a second's thought about the nonsensical
claims being peddled.
Case in point, McGinty's terrorizing voters
with the collapse of the public schools when
money is diverted to religious schools. Did
anyone point out the money wouldn't go unless
the students went as well. Suppose 5 percent
of the students leave the public system and
5 percent of the school funding leaves with
them. How is the education of students in
the public system harmed by having the same
number of dollars per student but less
crowded classrooms. Suppose the religious
schools were only partly funded -- for example
getting 80 percent the dollars spent per
student in the public system. Won't that
leave more money that could be spent on
students in the public system, thereby
increasing the dollars per student spent
there?
It's bad enough that the average voter
seems incapable of asking such questions
but nobody else did either -- to the best
of my knowledge. Not the journalists.
Not the commentators. Not even John Tory's
Progressive Conservatives who were getting
hammered on the issue!
Immigration Heretic
I have picked a handle. I don't want to be confused with the guy above. I was formerly anonymous; I will reply to Mader a bit later.
Mader, didn't I meet you at the FI's Student Leaders thing a few years back?
Anyhow, yes. Hatred for the Jewish ethnicity does exist. Islam, my friend, is a religion, not an ethnicity. If I say that the Jewish god is a violent prick, which he is, I'm not being anti-semetic. If I say "Jewish blood makes people violent" that is anti-semitic.
islam is an idea. Nothing more, nothing less. Like all other ideas, it must stand the test of criticism, reason and debate. The phrase "islamophobe" does nothing more than stop this debate. That is the very function of the word.
Schools that use Star Wars scripts, the Koran, Bible or whatever do not deserve public funds in a secular country. It sickens me to think that my tax money would go to a school that would teach supremacist , violent nonsense. I thought we were past that, as a civilization.
Anonymous
Re Stanfield. Good analogy. I had forgotten that one, I was quite young at the time.
Liberals have been out of office so few times that they havent really made this mistake. Typical opposition trying to show they are ready to govern with ideas. It worked for Harper, kind of, last election. But there the government was so weak they made the mistake of doing nothing for 3 weeks and lettuing the nascent Tory campaign build up a head of steam. Only got Mr Harper a minority though.
Tory announced this early, like the Harper's SSM announcement. But unlike that announcement which disappeared before anyone paid attention became the focus of the campaign....hats off to one Warren K for working his dark magic (sign of respect not agreement by the way)
McGuinty was vulnerable and JT blew it. The Liberals know it as well, it should have been a minority, Tory or Liberal.
The lesson, have more than one idea. And if you are going to change the channel change it early. As well, you big policy idea better not run upstream against your base....Price controls did and so did extension of funding (credits would have been palatable to the Ontario Tory base)
I await the inevitable court challenge. But the Liberals have all the manouvering room the need on this one.
I just wonder if we are going to get a 2% increase in PST?
A 2% increase in PST would be in
character but I also wonder if we
will get funding for religious
schools from the McGinty Liberals.
There's a history of that sort of
thing: Trudeau gets a majority
by running against wage and price
controls imposes them one year later;
Trudeau gets back into
power by running against Joe
Clark's 18 cent a gallon gasoline
tax and imposes an even higher
gas tax when back in power but
which looks smaller because it
was stated in liters instead of
gallons.
Immigration Heretic
Rationality is not an end in itself, and neither is secularism, but both are taken as such. If our only value is to obtain an integrated secular state, one can adopt a policy of religious tolerance or pass laws outlawing religion and jail evangelists; one approach is as good as the other and many countries serve as examples of both.
So it is that the Bible is a Star Wars script and Islam is an idea. As Jeremy Bentham tells it, when measuring pleasure, Shakespeare is as good as lawn-bowling. There are no transcendant moral visions or higher values. One is free to protect or persecute, as long as it obtains secularism.
I'm not sure if the only options are "religious tolerance" (I think you meant "tolerating religions") or "jailing evangelists". This is surely an either/or that the legions of believers would find useful, and as such, it is entirely useless as a comparison.
So, to you religious nuts. Go ahead. Be religious nuts. It doesn't affect me. I will criticize you and expose how silly it all is. And we can get along smashingly well.
But, if you nuts want to take money from me to fund the feeding of your kids religious indocternation, we have a problem. That is unacceptable. The current system of Catholic schools getting funding is unacceptable, and extending this funding to madrassas is wildly unacceptable.
Again. Be religious nuts. Go find your meaning and parrot Kirk Camron's anti-science ideas. Just keep your darn pious hands out of my pocket.
Public school is for education. The way that the right-nuts and left-tards treat education risks our system becoming fully dysfunctional.
But yes, fduquette, keeping the bible and koran out of school does not equal some nihilistic, relativistic, postmodern wasteland where Shakespeare is as meaningful as lawn-bowling. But Star Wars is both better written and more entertaining than any holy book I've read. And Yoda is a much more kind and reasonable god than the god of the new/old T or koran.
Oh, if rationality and secularism are means towards an end, then what is? A storm of frogs and the end of the world? Are we just waiting for god to kill us all?
It is curious that Ontario does indeed fund faith-based schools; roughly 40% of students attend; the issue was whether to extend this public policy to the remaining 2%, or as it has been put otherwise "Eek, a mouse".
The "end" or purpose to which a religious person today would strive is a prophetic one.
Secularism manifests an identity crisis. Who are you? How are your truths not illusions as you claim mine are?
Though formerly unsympathetic to John Calvin's idea of an "elect", that God chooses believers or that living a spiritual life is like a natural capacity or a gift, one wonders if people choose rationality because they have no other choice.
Brock, no one is forcing you to send your kids to a religious school. You seem to believe that your are unique in paying taxes and therefore should be able to deny other people the right and freedom to send their children to the school system of their choice.
Contrary to a previous statement of yours, Canada is not a secular society and never has been. Sounds like you have been listening to the false belief of some of the elites in Canada instead of paying attention to what the reality actually is.
Diversity strengthens Canadians society, and allowing diversity in school choices makes Canada even stronger.
Your intolerant beliefs towards others who are different then you is not something to be celebrated.
Gerrard
A scintillating debate on the merits of crap versus turds.
"My state-snctioned illiteracy program comes with revealed knowledge and magical thinking!"
"Oh yeah? Well mine has socialist propaganda, revisionist history and politically correct dogma without all those nasty religious bigots. Except Catholics. We're cool with them."
Well, then let us celebrate the history of "inclusiveness" and "diversity" of the believers, then.
Ok, then, let us go forward and "teach" religion in the classroom. For starters, let's teach about that loving nailer Martin Luther, who in a (I'm sure) multicultural and tolerant spirit of "diversity" said:
(the synagogue)is a "defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut".
Will we teach that? How about the koran? Shall we "teach" some of these choice morsels?
A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24
Disbelievers are losers. 2:121
Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/int/long.html
What, exactly, will we teach?
Hey, how about math, science, languages, history and various vocational subjects? As in, teach knowledge and not superstition.
Time for the Catholic schools to go.
fdu, the "identity crises" is a manufactured fit of "WE NEED FAITH" from the faithful. It is every bit as stupid as the creationists manufacturing of a narrative about the eye being evidence of god. You do not need an imaginary friend and poorly written book to find identity and meaning in your life. Unless you are weak.
That you may be a religious bigot is your problem Brock. Send your kids where you like. You, however, have no right to impose your secular beliefs on others.
That religion has at times committed grave crimes is beside the point, so has secularism. In fact, it could be argued compellingly that secular ideologies have killed far more people then misguided religious beliefs ever have.
Show some tolerance. The forced assimilation of all children in one school system against the wishes of their parents is a breathtaking example of the state's coercive powers.
Value diversity. It is our greatest strength. That you are so blindly one-sided on the issue of religion shows that you are afraid of "others". Don't worry, "others" won't hurt you.
More freedom of choice which we value so much in our democracy is the way to go instead of your fearful retreat into a monolithic education system. More choice in schools will only make this nation stronger.
Gerrard
The stupid, it burns.
"The forced assimilation of all children in one school system against the wishes of their parents is a breathtaking example of the state's coercive powers."
You don't want to go down that path. For hundreds of years we have tolerated parents telling their little kids that if they don't believe in imaginary beings in the sky (who are the product of primitive desert gangs) that they will be tortured for all of eternity. How the fuck is this not child abuse? Millions of children have grown up emotionally scarred because we have allowed primitive assholes like you to have total domain of their education.
Public, secular education is an effective counter-weight to this bullshit. Thank fortune that this terrible proposal was defeated.
So it is that "skeptic" would tell us that parents are child-abusers, incapable of determining what is in their child's best interests; so instead we should have the nanny-state replace parents and choose what to educate our children with: vote Liberal.
LKO might be interested to know that a fellow of my acquaintance called me a bigot - to my face, using that very word - because I had the temerity to suggest that non-Catholics should be treated equally with Catholics in Ontario. He trotted out McGuinty's canard about diversity in the Public School system - as if Tory would force everyone into different schools, or that non-Catholics somehow do not represent any racial or cultural diversity.
There were only three primary ways to parse this issue: to treat all faiths equally and extend funding (as is supposedly required under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("fund all"); to deny all faiths any funding ("fund none", which would violate other sections of the Constitution which provide guarantees to Catholic education); to hold that discrimination is sound government policy ("fund some").
Yes, there were fears surrounding the possible implementation of a "fund all" policy: to what extent would the Government tell schools what religious education could and could not include -- to what extent would the Ministry of Education violate the principle of the separation of church and state, or otherwise close down private religious schools.
But that doesn't diminish McGuinty's seemingly bigoted attitude in favour of Catholic education.
It's ironic, isn't it. Dalton McGuinty is saying that the public school is the only thing which provides a sense of community, implying that politicians are absolved from leadership in creating community. So that's why John Tory is always complaining about McGuinty's leadership.
Thanks for the post.
skeptic said:
"You don't want to go down that path."
Why not?
"For hundreds of years we have tolerated parents telling their little kids that if they don't believe in imaginary beings in the sky (who are the product of primitive desert gangs) that they will be tortured for all of eternity. How the fuck is this not child abuse?"
Great. The state knows better then the parents. Who could disagree with that?
They expunged God from society in Russia last century. That worked out well.
"Millions of children have grown up emotionally scarred because we have allowed primitive assholes like you to have total domain of their education.'
And hundred of millions, if not billions have thrived in part because of their religious faith.
"Public, secular education is an effective counter-weight to this bullshit. Thank fortune that this terrible proposal was defeated."
Right. Public schools often produce poorer academic results then other school systems. If graduating children with an inferior education to face the 21st century is your goal, then yup, you are absolutely right.
Gerrard
No, diversity is not our strength. That is just a platitude (and extra obnoxious one at that) that the White Guilt crowd made up to justify mass immigration from the third world. I'm happy to see that the nut-right is mimicking the nut-left. This is the surest way to kill an idea.
Our "strength" is science, rule of law, markets, public policy and the like. Diversity doesn't play into it at all. Are you an undergrad sociology student?
But yes, I'm an "anti-religious bigot". I'm also an anti-communist/fascist/socialist/NDP/CPC/etcetc bigot. I disagree with lots of stuff, as I'm sure you do too.
But for us, as platitude-laden thoughtless Canadians, the ultimate question is this:
Is tolerating intolerance the path to a tolerant society?
Wow, That is one of the biggest stretches of the imagination that I have ever read. It's so big a stretch its almost libel.
I think maybe you are seeing Islamophobia lurking everywhere or you have an agenda to smear Mr. McGuinty. Hmm which could it be?????
Anyways Coyne you just discredit yourself with that kind of ridiculous slag and it keeps you well out of Chantel's league.