Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As long as a number of provinces in Canada continue to provide free religious education (to Catholics only, conveniently), then it's obvious there is NO separation of church and state in Canada. It's quite the contrary, actually. Since parts of Canada, like Ontario, officially endorse one particular religion over others, then by definition, Canada has state religion.
I disagree with your latter point. Canada is officially non-denominational; being neither Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and so on; up to and including the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Canada does believe in a Supreme Being, according to the preamble to its constitution, but that Supreme Being is not identified as one worshipped by a particular sect. The closest one can call it is a monotheistic being, such as is understood by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, the constitution (at Charter s. 2(a)) makes room for other beliefs: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and so on.
It is important to remember what Canada was like in 1867, when the constitution was drafted. Protestant English-speakers in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec; and Roman Catholic French-speakers in Quebec and New Brunswick. To get the latter on board with the idea of forming a country, constitutional protections were included, so that Roman Catholic schools could be established, and that Catholicism would not die in the new country (given that the protestant UK was in charge in those days, this was a big fear of the Roman Catholics in Quebec and NB in 1867). "Well, hell, if they want to be Catholic, let them be Catholic; as long as they sign on to the idea of a new country called Canada. Draft the constitution accordingly."
This is why Canada has Catholic schools--they have constitutional protection. However, it is also why cries for publicly-supported Jewish, Islamic, etc ("Just like the Catholics!") schools will fall on deaf ears. Those religions do not have constitutional protection.
Regardless, adherents to Roman Catholicism (which you incorrectly assert as Canada's "state religion") do not enjoy any kind of privilege in Canadian politics. If an RC tried to run on an RC platform (i.e. no birth control, no abortions, forced conversions on marriage, etc.), he or she would lose, big time. We don't like our politics to be tied up with religion in Canada; and thus, Canada has no state religion.
Last edited by ChevySpoons; 11-17-2014 at 03:45 AM..
I disagree with your latter point. Canada is officially non-denominational; being neither Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and so on; up to and including the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Canada does believe in a Supreme Being, according to the preamble to its constitution, but that Supreme Being is not identified as one worshipped by a particular sect. The closest one can call it is a monotheistic being, such as is understood by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, the constitution (at Charter s. 2(a)) makes room for other beliefs: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and so on.
It is important to remember what Canada was like in 1867, when the constitution was drafted. Protestant English-speakers in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec; and Roman Catholic French-speakers in Quebec and New Brunswick. To get the latter on board with the idea of forming a country, constitutional protections were included, so that Roman Catholic schools could be established, and that Catholicism would not die in the new country (given that the protestant UK was in charge in those days, this was a big fear of the Roman Catholics in Quebec and NB in 1867). "Well, hell, if they want to be Catholic, let them be Catholic; as long as they sign on to the idea of a new country called Canada. Draft the constitution accordingly."
This is why Canada has Catholic schools--they have constitutional protection. However, it is also why cries for publicly-supported Jewish, Islamic, etc ("Just like the Catholics!") schools will fall on deaf ears. Those religions do not have constitutional protection.
Regardless, adherents to Roman Catholicism (which you incorrectly assert as Canada's "state religion") do not enjoy any kind of privilege in Canadian politics. If an RC tried to run on an RC platform (i.e. no birth control, no abortions, forced conversions on marriage, etc.), he or she would lose, big time. We don't like our politics to be tied up with religion in Canada; and thus, Canada has no state religion.
None of this should have any bearing on anything in 2014 Canada, so I actually can see and agree with newdixiegirl on this one.
It is important to remember what Canada was like in 1867, when the constitution was drafted. Protestant English-speakers in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec; and Roman Catholic French-speakers in Quebec and New Brunswick. To get the latter on board with the idea of forming a country, constitutional protections were included, so that Roman Catholic schools could be established, and that Catholicism would not die in the new country (given that the protestant UK was in charge in those days, this was a big fear of the Roman Catholics in Quebec and NB in 1867). "Well, hell, if they want to be Catholic, let them be Catholic; as long as they sign on to the idea of a new country called Canada. Draft the constitution accordingly."
.
Ironically, although this constitutional provision was mostly put in place because of Quebec at the time as you say, today it has no bearing at all in Quebec and is used by Catholics in Ontario to maintain their separate, publicly-funded school system.
In British Columbia, you have to pay tuition to all private schools, religious or otherwise. I suppose a private school could be run soley by donations and volunteers but I don't know if that would have an effect on provincial funding.
The amount of tuition will vary based on a number of factors. All private schools which conform to the provincial educational standards receive funds on a per student basis although it is a reduced amount compared to the public system.
I am assuming private schools also receive a lesser amount per special education student than public schools but I could be wrong. I know private schools have to account to the provincial government yearly on how they spend their special education funding. I don't know if they have to tell the province anything other than how many regular students they have every quarter.
I understand that private schools are reviewed periodically to ensure they conform to educational standards. I think it's every 5 years but I could be remembering wrong.
Interesting. So discrimination is completely ok and legal in Ontario so long as it's based on religious discrimination.
Absolutely shameful that this continues while so many other province have "seen the light". And I thought my home province of NS was backward...
I don't live in Ontario anymore but if I did I wouldn't feel strongly about it (might even send my kids to French Catholic schools), but it is admittedly something that's very hard to defend in a 21st century modern diverse society.
I disagree with your latter point. Canada is officially non-denominational; being neither Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and so on; up to and including the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Canada does believe in a Supreme Being, according to the preamble to its constitution, but that Supreme Being is not identified as one worshipped by a particular sect. The closest one can call it is a monotheistic being, such as is understood by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. However, the constitution (at Charter s. 2(a)) makes room for other beliefs: Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Shintoism, and so on.
It is important to remember what Canada was like in 1867, when the constitution was drafted. Protestant English-speakers in Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec; and Roman Catholic French-speakers in Quebec and New Brunswick. To get the latter on board with the idea of forming a country, constitutional protections were included, so that Roman Catholic schools could be established, and that Catholicism would not die in the new country (given that the protestant UK was in charge in those days, this was a big fear of the Roman Catholics in Quebec and NB in 1867). "Well, hell, if they want to be Catholic, let them be Catholic; as long as they sign on to the idea of a new country called Canada. Draft the constitution accordingly."
This is why Canada has Catholic schools--they have constitutional protection. However, it is also why cries for publicly-supported Jewish, Islamic, etc ("Just like the Catholics!") schools will fall on deaf ears. Those religions do not have constitutional protection.
Regardless, adherents to Roman Catholicism (which you incorrectly assert as Canada's "state religion") do not enjoy any kind of privilege in Canadian politics. If an RC tried to run on an RC platform (i.e. no birth control, no abortions, forced conversions on marriage, etc.), he or she would lose, big time. We don't like our politics to be tied up with religion in Canada; and thus, Canada has no state religion.
Good post. It should also be added that in the beginning there were two school systems, the Protestant one and the Catholic one. The Protestant one morphed into the public school system over time as most people were neither Catholic nor Protestant sent their children to the Protestant schools.
Here in BC, Catholic schools don't get any more funding than any other non-public school that follows the BC curriculum, but they still get atheists and other non-Catholics paying and sending their children there because they think the public education is inferior.
I see some merit in the school's position. This could be an age issue.
The parents said they were told that school administrators didn't believe the material would be age-appropriate for the nine- and 10-year-old students in Grades 4 and 5 who would be seeing it at the fair.
It's annoying enough, but the ridiculous money they waste on building such extravagant schools is such a waste. You need a building, not a bloody royal castle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandman249
I see some merit in the school's position. This could be an age issue.
The parents said they were told that school administrators didn't believe the material would be age-appropriate for the nine- and 10-year-old students in Grades 4 and 5 who would be seeing it at the fair.
Why would learning about gay people be a problem for 9 or 10 year olds? What year is this?
I hope Catholic Schools keep their bigoted views and maybe they will be marginalized even further.
Last edited by Stoke; 11-28-2014 at 10:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
