Religion in Schools (split fm Islamic Terrorism)

[The Bread Guy]

I honestly don't know the public view on the topic. It really hasn't been platform issue in years. Unless they see a strong public support, no political party is going to touch this third rail, no matter how well articulated the position is.

Yup. If Team Blue, a party usually more unafraid of taking broadly unpopular stances to save money than Team Red, didn't do it in Ontario, nor Team Orange (admittedly short tenure) based in those days on a bit of an anti-organized-religion vibe, it ain't ever going to be done.

 

[YZT580]

What is there about the public school system that is so wonderful? There is no discipline and the achievement levels are sub-par. They are dominated by Dewey concepts and controlled by the unions which have a very left wing agenda with which they have been successfully indoctrinating students for decades now although they are less successful in teaching maths and english. The evidence is in the riots and protests at various universities along with the results on standardized testing. Percentage wise private and catholic schools place more students in universities so why do you want to abolish funding for the better system? Genuinely curious.

 

[Kirkhill]

What is there about the public school system that is so wonderful? There is no discipline and the achievement levels are sub-par. They are dominated by Dewey concepts and controlled by the unions which have a very left wing agenda with which they have been successfully indoctrinating students for decades now although they are less successful in teaching maths and english. The evidence is in the riots and protests at various universities along with the results on standardized testing. Percentage wise private and catholic schools place more students in universities so why do you want to abolish funding for the better system? Genuinely curious.

Public schools and public librairies went hand in hand. They were the embodiment of the Reformation. Everybody had access to information and was free to draw their own conclusions. And people were free to voice their opinions.

The Catholic school system in protestant countries was established to protect the flock and control access to ideas. It was justified on the basis of family having the right to raise their children according to their own beliefs.

For protestant parents this largely meant a tendency towards individualism. For Catholic parents this largely meant conforming to their community's beliefs.

The system worked well as long as schools were controlled by the communities they served. The system failed when the local schools were "nationalized" by the provinces on the grounds of equality of opportunity demanding equal funding and then the teachers' guilds took over.

The Catholic schools still serve their community,
The public schools serve the teachers' guilds.

 

[IKnowNothing]

so why do you want to abolish funding for the better system? Genuinely curious.

This author articulates it pretty well.

It’s time to end public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario

End public funding for Catholic schools. Having a vast separate system for Catholics makes no sense in 21st-century Canada. We don’t fund Jewish, Hindu or Muslim schools. Why Catholic ones?

The system is a holdover from the days when Ontario was overwhelmingly white and Protestant. Protection for separate schools was enshrined in the Constitution as a gesture to the Catholic minority (and the Protestant minority in Quebec). All that is just a passage in the history books now. Special status for Catholic schools is a dusty anachronism.

An expensive one, to boot. Two separate systems means two separate bureaucracies. Many neighbourhoods have one Catholic school, one public, each overseen by its own principal and board. Sometimes they exist side by side, teaching more or less the same thing in different buildings a few steps away from each other.

The dual system looks more out of date with every passing year. Ontario is absorbing throngs of immigrants from around the world. The schools help turn their kids into Canadians. They are indispensable engines of integration. Having separate, publicly funded schools for different faiths puts sand in the gears. Dividing kids by religion is the last thing a diverse society like ours should be doing.

Ontarians acknowledged as much when they effectively rejected the idea of extending funding to all religious schools. John Tory proposed it during the 2007 election campaign, when he was the head of the Progressive Conservative party. He argued that if Catholic schools get funding, it was only fair to fund schools of other faiths. To many voters, that seemed like subsidizing division, a deeply un-Canadian concept. Mr. Tory lost the election and, eventually, the party leadership.

But the separate-school system lives on, a classic example of the tyranny of the status quo. The only reason it exists is that it has always existed. With millions of students and parents involved in Catholic schools, no political leader dares to touch them.

 

[YZT580]

This author articulates it pretty well.

It’s time to end public funding for Catholic schools in Ontario

It is better to have a choice. I have had children and grandchildren enrolled in all 3 systems: catholic, faith-based and public and I can guarantee that the quality of teacher and of product is far better in the first two than in the last. In Trenton, if you want french immersion, it is the catholic that provides it although their standards have gone downhill in the last decade. It is worth a little duplication if it provides parents with the ability to chose rather than be forced into accepting a sub-standard system. And Islamic prayer rooms in public schools are proof that we have already divided kids by religion: just possibly not the division we wanted

 

[Halifax Tar]

It is better to have a choice. I have had children and grandchildren enrolled in all 3 systems: catholic, faith-based and public and I can guarantee that the quality of teacher and of product is far better in the first two than in the last. In Trenton, if you want french immersion, it is the catholic that provides it although their standards have gone downhill in the last decade. It is worth a little duplication if it provides parents with the ability to chose rather than be forced into accepting a sub-standard system. And Islamic prayer rooms in public schools are proof that we have already divided kids by religion: just possibly not the division we wanted

I went to Catholic schools in Kingston all they through until I was politely asked to leave my home and tried my hand at college.

Anyways I remember in HS we did provincial testing and if I again remember correctly the Catholic schools, on average, finished 13% higher than public.

 

[YZT580]

I went to Catholic schools in Kingston all they through until I was politely asked to leave my home and tried my hand at college.

Anyways I remember in HS we did provincial testing and if I again remember correctly the Catholic schools, on average, finished 13% higher than public.

One other thing: the public system arose out of the church of England schooling. Most community schools were attached to the predominant religion in the community which was generally but not always Anglican. The Methodists were quite predominant as well. Wasn't a problem because most of our communities were based around the local church: the two grew together. It was Ryerson that standardised the education system in Ontario but he didn't do it with the intent of abolishing the link between the school and the church; that came much later. If you find the school readers from before 1960 or so you will quickly find that stories from the Bible were an integral part of the curriculum. Also, as an aside, the vocabulary was a lot richer than it is now and standards were significantly higher. Pick up a copy of a novel from the 19th century from authors such as Dickens or Walter Scott. I doubt if you will get through the first chapters without having to resort to a dictionary

 

[IKnowNothing]

It is better to have a choice. I have had children and grandchildren enrolled in all 3 systems: catholic, faith-based and public and I can guarantee that the quality of teacher and of product is far better in the first two than in the last. In Trenton, if you want french immersion, it is the catholic that provides it although their standards have gone downhill in the last decade. It is worth a little duplication if it provides parents with the ability to chose rather than be forced into accepting a sub-standard system. And Islamic prayer rooms in public schools are proof that we have already divided kids by religion: just possibly not the division we wanted

Given the population/demographic trends- where do we draw the line of who gets choice and how many times we're willing to duplicate the effort?

Catholic % for Ontario is at 26% and (likely) falling
Muslim is projected to reach 10+% by 2036

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lots of granular, specific discussion on Catholic school boards & whether they should be or not, so pulled this from the Islamic terror thread to continue a life of its own here.

Army.ca Staff

 

[brihard]

Given the population/demographic trends- where do we draw the line of who gets choice and how many times we're willing to duplicate the effort?

Catholic % for Ontario is at 26% and (likely) falling
Muslim is projected to reach 10+% by 2036

Section 93 of the Constitution protects the rights of separate denominational schools that existed when provinces joined Canada. In practice, that protection only extends, to the best of my knowledge, to the Catholic school boards in Ontario. I don’t believe there were any other denominational school boards.

A newly enlarged religious group would have no constitutional claim to an entitlement for their own separate school board. It would depend on the willingness of the province to allow it.

I’m not sure how this does or would work in a system like Alberta’s charter schools- can different religious groups establish charter schools and receive public funding for them?

 

[YZT580]

Given the population/demographic trends- where do we draw the line of who gets choice and how many times we're willing to duplicate the effort?

Catholic % for Ontario is at 26% and (likely) falling
Muslim is projected to reach 10+% by 2036

Sort of a sideways step I suppose but people immigrate to different countries because they want what they see there for themselves. Since people seem to be lining up to come here, whether we admit it or not, we must have something pretty good going or must have had in the past. Things like our education system, our acceptance of those with other beliefs, and financial rewards as well cause people to leave their homeland and come here. We need to be very cautious about changing things unless it is self-evident that they need changing because some of those things are interwoven with the tapestry that is Canada and cannot be removed without causing serious damage.

 

[Kirkhill]

Section 93 of the Constitution protects the rights of separate denominational schools that existed when provinces joined Canada. In practice, that protection only extends, to the best of my knowledge, to the Catholic school boards in Ontario. I don’t believe there were any other denominational school boards.

A newly enlarged religious group would have no constitutional claim to an entitlement for their own separate school board. It would depend on the willingness of the province to allow it.

I’m not sure how this does or would work in a system like Alberta’s charter schools- can different religious groups establish charter schools and receive public funding for them?

We have public school boards which are now secular/non-denominational.

We have comparably funded Catholic school boards.

We have charter schools that can base their programme on any theme but religion.

We have private schools that can be and sometimes are religiously affiliated that, like the charter schools.

We have home schooling support.

All of them work from a common curriculum as far as I know.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just so we are clear, Kirkhill, by "we" in your post above, I assume you mean "Alberta".

Section 93 only applied once: At the original time of the entry into force of Confederation. Thus, only Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are subject to it.

Since neither N.B. nor N.S. had separate religious school boards protected by law at the time of the union, only QC and ON, with their protected religious separate boards were covered by that section. As a result, section 93 became to be considered part of their constitution (yes, there ARE a Constitution of Quebec and a Constitution of Ontario: they are in the BNA Act of 1967, since, prior to Confederation, they were a single entity under the Union Act).

That is why, in 1997, when Quebec decided to move to purely linguistic school boards, they required an amendment to the constitution. It became Section 93.1, which basically states that Section 93 does not apply to Quebec. It required the assent of Quebec and of the Government of Canada, as per the amending formula applicable under the Canada Act 1982 referred more commonly in Canada as the Constitution Act 1982.

I have no doubt that, if Ontario so chose, they would get an equal amendment so that they wouldn't be subject to it anymore either.

 

[Eaglelord17]

In practice public schools in Ontario were Protestant not secular. That only changed with a charter challenge in the 80s based off freedom of religion ending it.

In my opinion it should go one of two ways. Either:
A) only fund public schools and the catholic boards can either find their own seperate funding or fold or
B) allow any religious school to be funded from public funds and taxpayers choosing to support said school boards instead of the public boards (as it is with the catholic boards).

Personally I would rather A. It would lead to more funding available to the public boards, lead to less duplication of services and hopefully allow better programs and more diverse program options with the savings.

Do I see either option happening? No. The status quo is easy to maintain and there are still plenty of parents who would prefer their child go to a catholic school than public school (as a non-religious person I am even looking at it as I think the morals they teach matter even if I don’t agree with the religion behind it).

I also don’t see the push materializing for separate religious boards of other types, your secular types (and catholics) will try and suppress any draw of funding from the pot into other religious boards. Thats direct competition which would lead to less funding and students.

 

[brihard]

Just so we are clear, Kirkhill, by "we" in your post above, I assume you mean "Alberta".

Section 93 only applied once: At the original time of the entry into force of Confederation. Thus, only Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are subject to it.

Since neither N.B. nor N.S. had separate religious school boards protected by law at the time of the union, only QC and ON, with their protected religious separate boards were covered by that section. As a result, section 93 became to be considered part of their constitution (yes, there ARE a Constitution of Quebec and a Constitution of Ontario: they are in the BNA Act of 1967, since, prior to Confederation, they were a single entity under the Union Act).

That is why, in 1997, when Quebec decided to move to purely linguistic school boards, they required an amendment to the constitution. It became Section 93.1, which basically states that Section 93 does not apply to Quebec. It required the assent of Quebec and of the Government of Canada, as per the amending formula applicable under the Canada Act 1982 referred more commonly in Canada as the Constitution Act 1982.

I have no doubt that, if Ontario so chose, they would get an equal amendment so that they wouldn't be subject to it anymore either.

Thanks for that! So S.93 was a ‘point in time’ only and would not extend the same protection at the singe point in time of any other province subsequently joining confederation?

 

[Kirkhill]

One other thing: the public system arose out of the church of England schooling. Most community schools were attached to the predominant religion in the community which was generally but not always Anglican. The Methodists were quite predominant as well. Wasn't a problem because most of our communities were based around the local church: the two grew together. It was Ryerson that standardised the education system in Ontario but he didn't do it with the intent of abolishing the link between the school and the church; that came much later. If you find the school readers from before 1960 or so you will quickly find that stories from the Bible were an integral part of the curriculum. Also, as an aside, the vocabulary was a lot richer than it is now and standards were significantly higher. Pick up a copy of a novel from the 19th century from authors such as Dickens or Walter Scott. I doubt if you will get through the first chapters without having to resort to a dictionary

It is interesting that you refer to Ryerson, the Methodists and the Church of England.

Those are the basic elements of the Upper Canada Rebellion of 1837.

The Church of England was the Established church of the state.
It is the church-state relationship referred to in the US first amendment.

To be an officer of the state you had to be a member of the Church of England. This automatically excluded Catholics.

But it also excluded protestants that were variously described as separatists, dissenters and non-conformists. These included Quakers, Baptists, Moravians, Unitarians, Deists and Atheists. They also included Presbyterians and Methodists.

In Upper Canada in 1837 the Crown had set aside land for churches and schools. The local Church of England Bishop, a Scotsman name of Strachan (variously pronounced) held that all those lands were solely for the use of the established church and were denied to dissenters like the Methodists. Egerton Ryerson was a Methodist who wanted to establish schools.

He was supported by a radical Scots pamphleteer name of William Lyon Mackenzie, recently immigrated from Scotland, and as such a Presbyterian, and by the members of another Scottish import, the Mechanics Institute, essentially a night school for tradespeople, men and women, that was funded by fees, subscriptions and donations. They started in Glasgow during the French revolution.

Ryerson was kicked out of his C of E house at 17 by his father for becoming a Methodist. In Upper Canada Methodism was associated with Americanism.

Ryerson, his Methodists, mechanics and Presbyterians, wanted some of Strachan's tax free church lands for their own schools. Strachan was as tight-fisted as any and he was backed by the local Establishment, the Family Compact.

Meanwhile the Presbyterians had a different set of beefs.

The Church of England ran with bishops appointed by the Crown.

Scotland fought England for the best part of 200 years to prevent that happening in Scotland. Since 1560 Scotland had been Geneva School Presbyterians. They would have no bishops, especially bishops appointed by a crown, let alone a foreign crown. That was the crux of their argument against both English and Papal bishops. The Scots demanded the right to hire and fire their own ministers at the parish level and decide for themselves what they could read, what they could believe, what they could say and print, and what they could teach their kids. They co-operated between parishes using a pyramid of group meetings, elected representatives and moderators. There was no permanent central authority. But this structure formed the Scottish Establishment. And to be an officer of the state in Scotland you had to be a Presbyterian and foreswear bishops.

In 1707 the Scots Establisment united with the English Establishment. Anti-Episcopalian Presbyterians were forced to come to terms with Anti-Presbyterian Episcopalians. The simple solution was to for the Crown to recognize Presbyterians in Scotland and Episcopalians in England. All others need not apply although they could go to their own churches in peace.

The problem arose outside of Britain. In Ireland, Newfoundland, America and Canada. Under the joint crown which establishment was to be recognized. The English said the Episcopalians. The Scots were disagreeable.

Ultimately this was the cause of the grief in Ireland and America. And in Canada. The English claimed all the offices and privileges on the grounds of being Established Episcopalians and denied them to the Scots Presbyterians. This drove the Presbyterians out of Ireland to America. They became no more gruntled in America.

Concurrently the Wesley Brothers were organizing a working class revolution - church for tradesfolk. People getting together and singing new songs praising God and Jesus to old tunes they sang at the pubs.
They took trade away from the Establishment church and thus were denied offices.

They actually got their start in the Utopian colony of Georgia, founded and governed by another Scot name of Oglethorpe. The colony was founded as a refuge for the poor and a military barrier against the Spanish in Florida. It was also explicitly opposed to slavery as long as Oglethorpe was governor.

So the Methodists and the Presbyterians had a joint reputation as radicals. And they cost the English Establishment America and made life miserable for them in Ireland by siding with the Americans, the revolutionary French and the local Catholics.

So Strachan wasn't having any of that nonsense in his Canada.

Mackenzie and Ryerson were of contrary opinion. Their side got a boost with the British Reform acts of the 1820s and 30s which opened public offices to all dissenters, Catholics and even Unitarians and atheists. All they had to do was swear allegiance to the Crown.

The rebels lost the battle but Strachan lost the war.

And thus you have the basis for the modern compromise on religion and education in Canada.

And the demand for separation of church and state in the US.

No laws concerning the establishment of religion.

Nothing to prevent people believing and professing, even Islam or Catholicism. Toleration is the byword. But religion could not be used as a litmus test for public office.

 

[Kirkhill]

By the way, those Culloden teuchters with whom so many of you sympathise, as supporters of Charlie and the Stewarts, and his bishops, were therefore Anti-Presbyterian. That puts them on the side of authority, top down governance, appointments and controlled access to information, controlled assembly, controlled utterances and controlled opinions.

The free speechers, the Masons, the Presbyterians on the field that day were all wearing Redcoats and breeks, wielding musket and bayonet....and came from the lowlands. They joined the English on the government side.

And I will happily tell you about the Killing Times and the Highland Host when the Stewarts let the Teuchters loose on the Southron Covenanters.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Thanks for that! So S.93 was a ‘point in time’ only and would not extend the same protection at the singe point in time of any other province subsequently joining confederation?

A little more complicated (as usual in Canada). Subsection (3) covered the possibility for a Province to "establish thereafter" dis-sentient or separate school boards, after which such boards would become covered by S.93. No province that I know of did so make any establishments, but nevertheless, Specific references to this section, with required mods, were made for Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland at the time they became provinces (respectively in the Manitoba Act 1870, Alberta Act 1905, Saskatchewan Act 1905 and Newfoundland Act 12-13, Geo VI, later specifically amended in the Constitutional amendment 1998 (Newfoundland Act)) so their systems of separate boards, if any, became protected by similar constitutional protections.

But I think in those new provinces, except Newfoundland, there weren't any such separate boards ( and except Manitoba, but it was different than the Quebec/Ontario separate boards that existed). The other two were created out of the North-West Territories and there were no such denominational boards in the NWT at the time.

 

[HavokFour]

I can only speak as someone who attended schools in both boards in one city (and am likely on the more youthful end of things), but am fully for "don't rock the boat". Both boards don't really discriminate when hiring/enrollment to the point where some here may be in for a shock over how few actually follow the faith, because there are so few now compared to the past. You'd have to start shuttering schools just like the churches if you went for strict adherence.

Provincially (Ontario) the entire education system needs a massive shot of funds. From what a family member has said who works for the Catholic board here, they are beginning to buckle just like the Public system.

EDIT: To clarify, "don't rock the boat" because it will absolutely be used as an excuse to further cut back on Education funding.

 

[IKnowNothing]

A newly enlarged religious group would have no constitutional claim to an entitlement for their own separate school board. It would depend on the willingness of the province to allow it.

No constitutional claim- but we'd get to the point where they'd have a logical and arguably moral one- not to mention a lot of voter weight.

Lots of granular, specific discussion on Catholic school boards & whether they should be or not, so pulled this from the Islamic terror thread to continue a life of its own here.

Army.ca Staff

Boooooo. My overarching point actually dovetailed into the extremism - or more accurately, combatting it at home.

We need to be very cautious about changing things unless it is self-evident that they need changing because some of those things are interwoven with the tapestry that is Canada and cannot be removed without causing serious damage.

That's exactly where I'm coming from- just with a more proactive/preventative viewpoint.

Let's say that we want to a return and reinforce a "Canadian" identity that has been waning the last decade or two. Personally, my view of a "Canadian" identity is that at it's core it's essentially a pride in a shared/joined history + a strong sense of community layered on onto a de-mystified/ secularized Christian morality, with some stereotypical tropes (I am Canadian commercial and Olympic spirit) sprinkled in.

Anecdotally- when I left the sticks and went to the city for Uni 15 years ago- the above was largely entrenched. The exchange/international students were whole different story- but among 1st, 2nd, nth generation Canadians the cultural divides between rural vs urban, rich vs poor were far more pronounced than those between different ethnic and religious groups (of which which there were a lot)- I don't think that is still the case.

How do we get it back? How do we keep it from getting worse? I'd argue that circling wagons around a (shrinking) institution that has limited value in integrating people (Catholic schools) while letting the one institution where the job will be done (public schools) at wither and fragment and risking future institutional division as the potential proportional demand for other religious boards rises year over year is not it.


@HavokFour - that non adherence is exactly the risk I'm talking about. The more the Catholic system stops being "for Catholics" and becomes "For Christians and other white's non religous multi-generation secular Canadians that can't afford private school but want to avoid public school" - the less effective the public school system is going to be in integrating Canadian children into a cohesive Canadian society, and farther and farther down this fractured spiral we go.