The School Funding Thread- Merged

[the 48th regulator]

ME - I have no opinion to catholism, and have not put an opinion forward. I just wrote that "good values" are not better at religious schools.

YOU - No I guess your facts are published, please provide links.

You wanted facts that catholic values are no better then other values. I stated simply that just questioning this makes me question if you believe catholic values are better then others. My comment to put it simply as it seems i must is "the catholic value system is no better or worse then the values of jews, muslims, others, atheists or agnostics". Your questioning of such statements would be as if you said "prove to me that blacks and whites are equal". In this day and age I don't feel I should be proving equality, but sometimes I wonder.

Fact: Catholics get special treatment
Fact: Non-catholics have to pay for catholic teachings

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
Fact      /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact. 
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact. 
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. 
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable. 
5. Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence. Compare question of fact, question of law. 
—Idioms6. after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact. 
7. before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact. 
8. in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived. 

Again,

Can you please back up your above fact based statements?

dileas

tess

 

[Danjanou]

Ok a heated and passionate topic yes. Everyone has been warned once by the staff here to keep it civil. Consider this the last warning, otherwise this one is binned.


Danjanou
Staff

 

[eerickso]

My issue is with the people who voted, "no". Presently Dalton is one of them and furthermore this makes him a hypocrite by definition. The issue between the yes and no (change the system) is largely philosophical.

 

[McG]

Fact: Catholics get special treatment

Can you please back up your above fact based statements?

Well, the quote was provided for the Toronto school board, but it is the same in York & Hamilton and Renfrew.

what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic? 

Many of the reasons have been identified.  Better class conditions, better location, ability to walk without need of school bus, etc.  And consider that most attanding a Catholic School may do so not for religion but for these other reasons.

When a Catholic family chooses to send their children to a Catholic school, it may appear to be a religious choice. According to Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis, 2005, 70 to 75 per cent of the families using publicly funded Catholic schools are considered "unchurched." Most families using separate schools are making a secular choice based on such factors as test scores, programs and location.

Religion is rarely a factor.

from: http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems.php

It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.

Your tax dollars buy you more choice.  You can choose between two school boards.

I, as a Catholic, am paying for your non-Catholic schools.

I, as a non-parent, am paying for your chilren's school.

As a Catholic, should you have children, they will have access to Catholci & non-Catholic schools.  You are only investing in your future options.

 

[a_majoor]

Moving forward:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=6f17f212-0e27-459c-be47-e8db9c7e0c11&p=1

Tory's plan is a good start
National Post
Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Yesterday, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory promised the province's voters that, if elected premier in the Oct. 10 election, he would hold a free vote in the legislature to decide whether his government would implement its controversial plan to provide public funding for private faith-based schools. The gesture demonstrates that Mr. Tory has belatedly taken the measure of voter attitudes on this issue. Since the election campaign began, it has been clear that most Ontarians reject his funding plan.

This editorial board also has concerns about Mr. Tory's plans. But we believe he at least deserves credit for beginning a debate about reforming the current system. The free vote Mr. Tory proposed yesterday would be a fine jumping-off point for moving all of the province's schools -- not just the religious ones -- toward a more sensible and equitable funding model.

As we have written many times in the past, the best way to improve public schools is through accountability and choice. Accountability means standardized tests that permit parents to know how children and schools are faring. Choice means that, at the very least, families should be able to send their children to publicly funded charter schools that teach a mainstream curriculum, but aren't otherwise beholden to any centrally managed education bureaucracy or teachers' union.

In the long run, we believe an even more radical reform is necessary: Rather than the Ontario government picking which schools it will fund and which it won't, it should simply provide a voucher that parents can bring to any school that meets threshold educational credentials -- be it part of the mainstream public system, part of the public Catholic system or a private secular or religious institution. Such a reform would not only provide "fairness," which is at the heart of Mr. Tory's proposal, it would give all parents -- secular and religious alike -- a chance to opt out of a public school system that many find mismanaged and riven with left-wing pedagogical biases.

Notwithstanding the hue and cry that would be raised by the teachers' unions, the public school system would also benefit from such a reform: Faced with the prospect of competition from private schools, it would be spurred to provide children with a better education -- most notably, by casting aside union rules that forbid schools from firing incompetent teachers in favour of superior colleagues.

Nor would the public system be starved of funding under such a voucher plan. The value of the vouchers would be carefully calibrated to ensure that the funding stripped out of the public system would be balanced against the smaller number of students that system would be required to serve. In the case of most private schools, the value of the voucher would fall short of full tuition. This is as it should be: Parents who seek the advantages provided by high-end private schools should expect to pay the bulk of the costs out of their own pocket.

Seen in this light, John Tory's plan to provide public funding to Ontario's private religious schools has some benefits. The provincial opposition leader's plan would enhance school choice by making it economically feasible for religiously observant middle-class families to send their children to schools that reflect their faith heritage alongside an approved core curriculum of basic language, math and science. Mr. Tory's plan also has another virtue: It would remove an inequity in the current system, which, thanks to a long-standing constitutional provision meant to protect religious minorities, provides public funding for Catholic schools but no other faiths.

Unfortunately, his plan, if implemented, would solve one inequity by creating another: Private religious schools would now receive public funding while private non-religious schools would not. Parents who send their children to secular private schools will understandably ask why it is they have to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pocket, while the families who send their children to the religious school across the street get a free ride. And the government will have no real answer to this.

Indeed, we may be faced with a bizarre situation in which substantively secular schools superficially adopt some religious aspect -- Wicca, Scientology, Gaian earth worship, etc. -- for no other reason than to attract public funding. And if they did so, on what basis would the government deny it? Such problems would be solved by a universal charter system that did not lead the government into such arcane territory.

At the end of the day, the best approach to school funding in Ontario is to acknowledge that the religious schools controversy is part of a larger problem. We applaud Mr. Tory for getting the debate on this issue started. But we believe that he -- or whoever else is elected premier on Oct. 10 -- should take a more ambitious attitude toward school reform. Rather than merely empower the parents of religious children, Ontario's government should empower all families.

 

[McG]

... and now for some just because readings ...

Significant Events in the History of Catholic Education

Supreme Court Challenge: Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Assn. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2001 SCC 15, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 470

and also in 1996

In another decision affecting religious minorities, the Supreme Court held that the Province of Ontario was not legally obliged to fund all religious schools. In a decision supported by seven of the nine justices, the Court held that Ontario's funding of Roman Catholic schools, which is required under the Canadian Constitution, does not impose an equivalent obligation to fund schools established by other religious minorities. Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 was, in its words, the product of "a historical compromise crucial to Confederation". Current Ontario law does not prevent parents from sending their children to the schools of their choice, whether they be public schools, Catholic schools, private religious schools or home schools. Hence, it is not discriminatory. "[T]he cost of sending children to private religious schools is a natural cost of the appellants' religion and does not, therefore, constitute an infringement of their freedom of religion protected by section 2(a) of the Charter."

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/publications/1996_ar/page12-en.asp

 

[the 48th regulator]

Fact: Catholics get special treatment

Can you please back up your above fact based statements?

Well, the quote was provided for the Toronto school board, but it is the same in York & Hamilton.

Fantastic link you sent, and I agree with her beliefs.  All schools should be treated the same.  In no way was I stating otherwise.  They should all be funded with tax dollars.  Again, please read my posts above.,

what would the valid reason be to attend a Catholic school, as non-Catholic?  

Many of the reasons have been identified.  Better class conditions, better location, ability to walk without need of school bus, etc.  And consider that most attanding a Catholic School may do so not for religion but for these other reasons.

Then fix the public system, don't fight against the Catholic School Boards.  Lack of the above flies in the face of poor administration on the Public schools part.  Why penalize a school system that works, to fix the one that do not?

That is Democracy?

When a Catholic family chooses to send their children to a Catholic school, it may appear to be a religious choice. According to Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis, 2005, 70 to 75 per cent of the families using publicly funded Catholic schools are considered "unchurched." Most families using separate schools are making a secular choice based on such factors as test scores, programs and location.

Very Good observation, but it would be interesting to see where the facts came from.

It may help many Catholics realize the true menaing of faith, myself included.

Religion is rarely a factor.

from: http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems.php

That was a statement made by an editor in the Owen Sound times, not Mr. Gennarro

Publication
Owen Sound SunTimes

Publication Date
April 26, 2007

Published Content
It is tragic that a legal right granted to Catholic schools to protect Irish Catholics from prejudice in Protestant British Ontario in 1867 is today being wielded as an instrument of discrimination.

A Protestant majority is no longer being served by the publicly funded school system.

It's odd that Roman Catholics, the largest religious group in the world and the least in need of protection, have been elevated to a position of privilege above all others, by having their own publicly funded education system.

The Catholic school system has the absolute legal right to discriminate against non-Catholics in admissions to elementary schools and in employment at all levels.

If we were starting from scratch, would we create this publicly funded system today - one group of schools for a specific denomination of one religion, and one group of schools for everybody else? I think not.

When a Catholic family chooses to send their children to a Catholic school, it may appear to be a religious choice. According to Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis, 2005, 70 to 75 per cent of the families using publicly funded Catholic schools are considered "unchurched." Most families using separate schools are making a secular choice based on such factors as test scores, programs and location.

Religion is rarely a factor.

The unnecessary and wasteful duplication in bureaucracy, services and facilities worsens the perpetual funding crises facing our schools.

Ontario can no longer afford to fund a religious school system where three-quarters of the families using the system don't even attend church.

The Catholic schools are probably as "wonderful" as they say. Why can't my children access them? The UN has twice ruled Canada to be violation of various Human Rights instruments by virtue of the discriminatory nature of Ontario's separate school system. This is shameful and unjustifiable religious discrimination.

I'm not saying that Catholic schools should be eliminated. I'm saying that the publicly funded aspect of them should be eliminated. If their faith-based schools are indeed as central and important to the Catholic community as we are led to believe, there should be no hesitation on the part of the parents to pay thousands of dollars a year to send their children to private Catholic schools, while still paying their taxes to support the public system, as many Jewish, Muslim and Baptist parents are doing under the current system.

". . . with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, colour, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent."

- Pope Paul VI, (pastoral constitution on the Church in the Modern World, December, 1965).

Peter Jones
Brantford

Which Jason Gennaro Responded in Opposition of not agreed, as you would have us believe with the cut and paste above...
http://www.jasongennaro.com/2007/April/public_money_wasted_two_education_systems_published.jpg

It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.

Your tax dollars buy you more choice.  You can choose between two school boards.

No it may be better managed, which assures that my taxes are well used.  Something you rarely hear with Government.

I, as a Catholic, am paying for your non-Catholic schools.

I, as a non-parent, am paying for your chilren's school.

As a Catholic, should you have children, they will have access to Catholci & non-Catholic schools.  You are only investing in your future options.

In the elementary portion yes, in the High school portion no.  Most of our teachings revolve around the age of elementary level age.

MCG, I see you are as passionate as me, but we must not cloud the situation here with mis informed quotes and ideas.

Again, apart from the what if's has there been a case where a student has been stopped from attending a Faith based school (There) that is funded by the Government.

dileas

tess

 

[McG]

That was a statement made by an editor in the Owen Sound times, not Mr. Gennarro

Actually, if you read the quote, you would see the comment was taken from Father James T. Mulligan in Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future.  Interesting enough, while I never found his report, I did see his work has been sited by many on both sides of the Catholic school debate (which leads me to suspect both sides have judged him as credible).  Now, there is a risk that Mr Jones paraphrased things a bit, but he gave the reference for any that want to follow-up.  The message is that even in the Catholic schools, the majority have chosen the location for purely secular reasons.

It's called Tax Dollars, just as equal to your Tax Dollars.

Your tax dollars buy you more choice.  You can choose between two school boards.

No it may be better managed, which assures that my taxes are well used.  Something you rarely hear with Government.

tess,
Thanks for clearly not trying to read what I had written & providing an answer that had no relevance to my observation of "choice."  I give up.  I can't argue with you because you are a moving target and your understanding of the situation seems to change in order to fit which ever argument you feel the need to counter.

You've acknowledged that this is not a case of my tax dollars pay for "my" system & your tax dollars pay for yours.  You know that our tax dollars pay for both systems.  However, here again you are trying to pretend that it is "your" tax dollars creating your system which is "better managed."  You asked for proof that Catholic boards give second class consideration to non-Catholics, and four school boards have been provided for you.  You asked about the CHRC's position on this, but the CHRC can do absolutely nothing because this discrimination is constitutionally protected.  And I know you will just come back with a "why should a non-Catholic want to go to a Catholic school" and "go fix your own system."  You are missing the whole point.  Tax dollars have absolutely nothing to do with it (because we are all paying taxes toward the same things).  It has everything to do with choice.  You have unfettered choice between two school systems and any non-Catholic does not.

Now, if you want to continue on fooling yourself that your tax dollar is not "more equal" by providing you access to everything any other Ontarian would have plus gives you a second school system which can discriminate against the majority of Ontarians yet is funded by all taxpaers, well then I guess there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind. 

At the very least though, tell me that you've cast your vote for equality in this poll (that denominational schools be funded but the Catholic system loose its constitutional protection which would ensure that it is alway "more equal" than any other denominational system).

... I really don't care if there is a single secular public school system, two competing secular public school systems, or a plethora of competing publicly funded school systems (though at a point I would expect the overhead of smaller & smaller boards to see reduced fiscal efficiencies).  I do think special constitutional treatment of one religious group needs to end.

 

[Shamrock]

...I do think special constitutional treatment of one religious group needs to end.

As do I.

However, I see far too many people using this as a platform to bash Catholocism.  This, and a great deal of demands the Catholic school system be abolished place me, as a product of that system and someone who would like his children to go through same, in a defensive position. 

That means that if I have to vote to preserve a system that promotes the special treatment of my interests, I will do it. 

I'd much rather see a constitutional ammendment granting equal and proportional consideration for all groups provided all groups are willing to meet the same standards. Incidentally, which parties have actually said they'd do what?  I just reread all their hyperbole and can't quite figure out who stands where (except the Liberals, and with their track record...)

Incidentally, should I get my wish and equal funding be given, what happens in communities where there aren't enough students to balance the school's costs?  Will more  public funds be pumped in to these areas to balance?  Or will those schools unable to hold their heads above water be left to sink?

Now, back to another thing that's been bugging me.  Why can ROTP refuse entry to conscientious objectors?  It's publicly funded, too.

 

[McG]

Why can ROTP refuse entry to conscientious objectors?  It's publicly funded, too.

Bonafied occupational requirement.  This has also passed the supreme court test (though not necessarily in a question specific to RMC).

 

[glock17]

As do I.

However, I see far too many people using this as a platform to bash Catholocism.  This, and a great deal of demands the Catholic school system be abolished place me, as a product of that system and someone who would like his children to go through same, in a defensive position. 

That means that if I have to vote to preserve a system that promotes the special treatment of my interests, I will do it. 

  Tough to argue against that logic.

I think people are bashing the idea, not the specific faith.

 

[ex-Sup]

I’ve made a few posts to this thread, and read the many varied responses. I think it time that I wade into this full tilt.

In my previous post I asked if any posters are teachers and citing a lack of replies, I will assume no. The many posters to this thread are basing their views on their experiences as a student or a parent. Not to sound pompous, but I feel that I have much more “firsthand” experience. I have been a teacher for the past ten years, and am now entering my fifth as a department head. If you doubt my credentials, I’ll gladly PM them to you.

The fact is folks that a lot of kids in our school system need help. Not physically or academically, but morally and socially. How do I know…I see it everyday. Some kids come from good solid homes where they get love, attention and support. Unfortunately, there are a whole lot that don’t. Where do these kids get the moral and ethical guidance that they need? Society…let’s not even go there. Their peers? If they can’t even find their own way, how can help others?

These morals and values come from school and the teachers that instruct them. What values you ask? Love, compassion, brotherhood, tolerance and many others. Don’t they teach this in public schools you ask? Well, they may, but what is the root of these values. I can answer that they are based on the teachings of my religion. There are topics and issues that I can deal with that my colleagues in public schools can’t touch. Why? Because they deal with themes (religion, etc.) that are generally off limits in a multi-religion school. How do I know? I have close friends that teach in the public system.

The education that a student receives in a public school is no different from that taught in a Catholic school; we use the same curriculum. However I truly believe that it is the “value” added that separates the Catholic (or any religious system) from the public system. This is why many non-Catholics choose to send their children to Catholic schools. How do I know? I have had parents tell me this. It is unfortunate that some parents have experienced difficulties enrolling their children in the Catholic system, which certainly hasn’t been the case in my city.

What different values, please explain. Why should a non-catholic pay for your values, why can other values get the same credit? As a student you believe you gain something different in religious school, what is that?

The only thing I felt I had different in my experiance in the catholic school board and my friends who went through it was isolation from other cultures. I am not bashing catholics, for I would be bashing half of my family. I just find it hard to understand why others should pay for a catholic value system. If you want your kids to learn catholism then pay from your own pocket... but if no constitution change is made, then all religions should get equal treatment.

It is very unfortunate that your experience in Catholic schools has been less than positive. My experience, and that of my friends was the complete opposite. I was not isolated from other cultures; religions…somewhat. I attended school with many cultures, as I likewise have taught kids from many cultures. I was fortunate to learn about other religions, even visiting their places of worship. It has given me a deep respect and appreciation for other religions and the ideas they espouse.

I know that what I have to say will not sway some, just as I will not change my views. I don’t have or know what the right answer is, but I know what I see everyday. Maybe if everyone knew or saw what I do, then they agree that we need more guidance in schools, not less.

 

[R.O.S]

I was fortunate to learn about other religions, even visiting their places of worship. It has given me a deep respect and appreciation for other religions and the ideas they espouse.

While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.

 

[the 48th regulator]

While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.

So then,

We finally have you working with the thread.  You will be voting conservative then?

And please don't give me the quick post of "Stop putting words in my mouth".  AS by your own admition you agree with the concept of funding for all schools, secular and not.

This has been my argument from the beginning, and I will not stand by the "It's no fair Catholics get it and others don't" Argument.

Many Catholics would agree with you.

dileas

tess

 

[ex-Sup]

While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same.

I don't think (?) we have a mosque here, but I have been to the local synogogue. This was part of the gr.11 world religions program. I also remember multi-faith celebrations on a few occasions. Sadly, we have gotten away from the places of worship tour (I think it became too difficult logistically & financially). The world religions class is still part of the requirement in catholic schools. I know that a lot of students find it interesting and beneficial to learn about religions other than their own.

 

[R.O.S]

We finally have you working with the thread.  You will be voting conservative then?

Yes, I am even helping out the local candidate here.

So let us clear up, I believe in no religious funding period. However, if we cannot change the constitution, and I bet it would involve a lot of disorder and whatnot then I believe that other religions deserve fair treatment = public funding as well.

After going back and reading your posts 48th I think we both misinterpreted each other, as is the result of reading words that are typed with little review and body movements to coencide. You believe in the funding for other religions? yes? you will be voting conservative? yes?... Seems to me we have been doing a little american friendlyfire, kinda shoot anything that moves.

 

[the 48th regulator]

While this maybe off topic, I would really like such an experiance to be practiced at all schools. I have been to a synogogue and a mosque during mass, and have found the experiance very positive, and I hope that many others do the same. This is why I love Canada so very much that while other people in different places fight over small differences in religion or culture, Canadians can sit down togather in the table of brotherhood and sisterhood. This is why I also cannot agree with the current situation that one religion is held in high regard in our constitution while others are not. I understand there are worse scenerios in the world, but this is why Canada is so great we are different.

Yes, I am even helping out the local candidate here.

So let us clear up, I believe in no religious funding period. However, if we cannot change the constitution, and I bet it would involve a lot of disorder and whatnot then I believe that other religions deserve fair treatment = public funding as well.

After going back and reading your posts 48th I think we both misinterpreted each other, as is the result of reading words that are typed with little review and body movements to coencide. You believe in the funding for other religions? yes? you will be voting conservative? yes?... Seems to me we have been doing a little american friendlyfire, kinda shoot anything that moves.

Uhuh.

Okay.

dileas

tess

btw, which candidtate?

 

[R.O.S]

btw, which candidtate?

Rob Alder. http://www.robalder.ca

 

[warrickdll]

...
Given the vast amount of resources being poured into the public system already, the argument isn't about money, rather how it is spent and the lack of parental input or discretion for spending.
...

...
The principle is universality of a publicly funded benefit.
...

How I believe the misunderstanding is taking place:

1) The government provides funds to the public (secular) school system to meet its educational service requirements.

2) For budgeting purposes, parts of the public educational funds are calculated out on a per child basis. That should be per child in the public system; with a contingency based on the maximum possible.

3) Parents then decide not to send their child to a public (secular) school.

4) The above parents (item 3) then, incorrectly, assume that the government should pay them the money from the public educational funds that were calculated out on a per child basis.

5) It does not matter if the above parents (items 3 and 4) intend to use the money for educational purposes, since it was never their money – it was always the public’s money, and intended for public education.


The government has not collected tax money, from everyone, just to meet the whims of some parents (even parents with good intentions). The government provides the public (secular) system for everyone’s benefit, and that is what is being funded; not X number of children.

The public (per child) money that is not used, due to parents buying private services, is folded back into the education budget (or general budget) and the next year’s budget and taxes are re-estimated.


Parents already receive tax breaks and money from the government for their children; expecting even more money from the government, just because they don’t like the public education system, would be putting them in the same class of people as those who try to withhold paying their taxes based on the amount that DND uses.


On the matter of choice: Parents should be able to send their children to any accredited school and meet their responsibilities as parents; but the government should only fund the public (secular) schools. If parents want choice within government funding then they can send their child to a public (secular) school outside their catchment.

...
Do you think Ontario taxpayers are paying to make children Catholic?  That is not the case.  Taxpayers are paying for their education.
...

Having the Catholic school system is forcing the tax payers of Ontario to subsidize the Catholic Church.

Think of it this way: The government funds a school, and a soft drink company says it wants to run it; I’ll call this company Pep-C (hopefully not a real company).

The government is already funding all the education at the school. While Pep-C gets to mark everything with the Pep-C logo; gets to advertise how great Pep-C is to the assembled children (children who are there for education).

Sure, Pep-C will pay for the Taste-Test-Challenge, and other direct Pep-C classes; but other than that the whole thing is coming out of the tax payer’s pocket - and for no good reason. Pep-C would have paid for the whole thing; they require the brand loyalty they are establishing by getting the consumer during their formative years.

Pep-C would fight tooth-and-nail to keep this free ride going for as long as possible. And, if Pep-C failed to keep the monopoly on this, Pep-C would desperately try to convince people that the fair thing to do isn’t to stop doling out money to Pep-C, but to have the tax payer dole out more money to other businesses (like Koke, and Dr. Salt - hopefully not real companies either) to run the same scam, and to keep the free ride going.

By funding the Pep-C school you are subsidizing the Pep-C company. If you cannot see how this is happening then the people who run Pep-C are probably having a good (but diabolical) laugh right now.


Okay, enough with the Pep-C.

...
There are six Canadian provinces which already support separate religious schooling, without any of the apocalyptic consequences...
...

Then there are six provinces that are doing it wrong. There doesn’t have to be any apocalyptic consequences, it is just wrong for the government to fund religions (again though, ask someone in BC if they enjoy having their tax money funding religious schools in Bountiful).

Government services such as courts, policing, health care, and education, do not require separate institutions for peoples’ varying religious beliefs.

No where in Canada do you need, or should the government ever provide, Islamic courts, Sikh policing, Protestant health care, or Catholic education.

Even if the government contracts out services, it should never be funding religions. It’s not just education; it could be something as benign as a soup kitchen.

I’m not saying a religious group can’t run a soup kitchen – but it cannot receive government money. You cannot have freedom of religion (or just freedom) if either the government is funding religious belief, or the government is being controlled by religious belief.

 

[Shamrock]

Think of it this way: The government funds a school, and a soft drink company says it wants to run it; I’ll call this company Pep-C (hopefully not a real company).

The government is already funding all the education at the school. While Pep-C gets to mark everything with the Pep-C logo; gets to advertise how great Pep-C is to the assembled children (children who are there for education).

Sure, Pep-C will pay for the Taste-Test-Challenge, and other direct Pep-C classes; but other than that the whole thing is coming out of the tax payer’s pocket - and for no good reason. Pep-C would have paid for the whole thing; they require the brand loyalty they are establishing by getting the consumer during their formative years.

Pep-C would fight tooth-and-nail to keep this free ride going for as long as possible. And, if Pep-C failed to keep the monopoly on this, Pep-C would desperately try to convince people that the fair thing to do isn’t to stop doling out money to Pep-C, but to have the tax payer dole out more money to other businesses (like Koke, and Dr. Salt - hopefully not real companies either) to run the same scam, and to keep the free ride going.

By funding the Pep-C school you are subsidizing the Pep-C company. If you cannot see how this is happening then the people who run Pep-C are probably having a good (but diabolical) laugh right now.

Okay, enough with the Pep-C.

I'm sorry, this is nothing more than a strawman. 

Catholic schools don't "brand" an education -- no Catholic student has been exposed to Catholic algebra.  There's no Christian physics.  I don't recall once seeing a Jesus fish in any of my text-books.