Fighting to not attend Catholic classes at Catholic school - Ontario

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Vox

In what regard? If people choose where their dollars are allocated, isn't the public making the decision of what gets funded?

Not really, because the default for doing nothing is public. Im planning on sending my kids to a catholic school and i think my property taxes are still going to the public board. I didnt do it when I first did my tax set up and havent bothered to change because it doesnt really matter. So by having to make a choice you prejidice peoples choices against one of the outcomes. If you gave people a choice between public only, per capita student funding, and Catholic with the default choice being per capita based funding then I think you could argue that the public was making a choice but giving one board all of the tax dollars because of apathy is not reprensentitive.

My opinion is that you fund any school that follows the Alberta curiculim and doesnt charge tuition on a per capita basis. Doesnt matter who runs it.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by Rocky Raccoon

By the same token, public schools are funded by Catholic tax payers and by the same logic as above, a Catholic student should be able to go to a public school and make an application for the school to provide him/her with a daily dose of religion.

The father isn't asking for these boys to receive extra teaching, though. He's just asking they they be allowed to sit in the library during the part of the curriculum that conflicts with their beliefs. A better comparison would be if a Catholic child in a public school were allowed to go to the library while the class learned about safe sex. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that happens all the time and isn't a problem.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The father isn't asking for these boys to receive extra teaching, though. He's just asking they they be allowed to sit in the library during the part of the curriculum that conflicts with their beliefs. A better comparison would be if a Catholic child in a public school were allowed to go to the library while the class learned about safe sex. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that happens all the time and isn't a problem.

I think it's a problem any time kids are taught that complaining and asking for special treatment is a better option than being patient, respectful and tolerant. These kids have to learn that the real world is going to be full of situations where they have to swallow their egos and endure things they don't agree with or understand.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think it's a problem any time kids are taught that complaining and asking for special treatment is a better option that being patient, respectful and tolerant. These kids have to learn that the real world is going to be full of situations where they have to swallow their egos and endure things they don't agree with or understand.

Exactly, school is to learn discipline and to be patient. Someday they will be great little employees somewhere.

No need for any of this asking questions or trying to make a difference folly.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The father isn't asking for these boys to receive extra teaching, though. He's just asking they they be allowed to sit in the library during the part of the curriculum that conflicts with their beliefs. A better comparison would be if a Catholic child in a public school were allowed to go to the library while the class learned about safe sex. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that happens all the time and isn't a problem.

No, that wouldnt be a comparison because Catholic schools also teach about safe sex and bith control. They also discuss the reasoning behind the church's preferred methods.

The father is asking for the boy to get his ass kicked for starters.

More seriously though, my question is what is it about te school that the parents believe make it better for thir child's education?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think it's a problem any time kids are taught that complaining and asking for special treatment is a better option than being patient, respectful and tolerant. These kids have to learn that the real world is going to be full of situations where they have to swallow their egos and endure things they don't agree with or understand.

So like teaching kids that you shouldn't subject someone to religious practice that goes against their wishes? Sounds pretty respectful and tolerant to me.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by firebug

Exactly, school is to learn discipline and to be patient. Someday they will be great little employees somewhere.

No need for any of this asking questions or trying to make a difference folly.

What difference are they trying to make in this situation? They already have the right to go to public school if that is the experience they want for their children. What they are doing is akin to going to McDonald's because it's convenient for you and demanding they make you a Whopper. They chose a particular service here. I think the word here is "fussy".

The point is, not everything in life needs to be a petty squabble. The whole point of school is to prepare young people for things they need to know about the real world, and to give them the tools to adapt. Patience is one of those tools. I can't think of anyone with a career who at some point during their professional life, had to sit through classes, seminars or lectures that were boring or about subject matter that was unimportant to them personally. In the real world, opting out just makes them fail though.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

What difference are they trying to make in this situation? They already have the right to go to public school if that is the experience they want for their children. What they are doing is akin to going to McDonald's because it's convenient for you and demanding they make you a Whopper. They chose a particular service here. I think the word here is "fussy".

The point is, not everything in life needs to be a petty squabble. The whole point of school is to prepare young people for things they need to know about the real world, and to give them the tools to adapt. Patience is one of those tools. I can't think of anyone with a career who at some point during their professional life, had to sit through classes, seminars or lectures that were boring or about subject matter that was unimportant to them personally. In the real world, opting out just makes them fail though.

If you had a right to have McDonald's make you a whopper than by all means go ahead and ask for one. Sitting idly by and allowing your rights to be infringed is no way to go through life.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by valo403

So like teaching kids that you shouldn't subject someone to religious practice that goes against their wishes? Sounds pretty respectful and tolerant to me.

They chose to enroll their kids in that school though. It's like the old saying; "When in Rome...". If someone is willingly and purposely subjecting themselves to the cultures and traditions, they should have an obligation to show tolerance.

The school already said the kids don't have to participate in the liturgy, so the school is showing tolerance. The fact that they don't want to have to babysit the kids during that time, is a different issue.

Originally Posted by valo403

If you had a right to have McDonald's make you a whopper than by all means go ahead and ask for one. Sitting idly by and allowing your rights to be infringed is no way to go through life.

They chose the school presumably knowing what the curriculum was. How reasonable is it to send their kids to a Catholic school then opt out of the Catholic portions and expect accommodations? It's Brampton... there are tonnes of public school options. It's one thing to choose to opt out, which although silly, is their right (and the school already respected that). But I don't see why the school then needs to make alternatives for those kids. What section of the constitution is that right in? What right is being infringed exactly?

[WilderPegasus]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

No, that wouldnt be a comparison because Catholic schools also teach about safe sex and bith control.

When did this start happening? I remember in my Catholic school around grade 7 or 8 the sex ed books had all mentions of that stuff blacked out.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by WilderPegasus

When did this start happening? I remember in my Catholic school around grade 7 or 8 the sex ed books had all mentions of that stuff blacked out.

Since at least the 1990s. Some schools were slower to catch on though.

[seattleflamer]

Originally Posted by Vox

In what regard?

I'm referring to other jurisdictions where there are frictional/prohibitive costs to a supposed constitutional right. Alberta school jurisdictions (maybe just Calgary?) cover the cost.

Example, tuition for my niece at St Mary's in Winnipeg cost ~$6K/year to attend while if she instead went to the namesake in Calgary, local property tax covers it.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by polak

In Junior High, I made my religion teacher cry because on my religion final I answered the long answer question with an explanation on why I don't believe in God (I think the question was "what does God mean to you" or something like that).

She took me aside the next year and told me "how disappointed" she was with my answer and literally started to full out cry. I was still able to get above 80% on religion throughout all of Jr. High and High School despite being a little athiest smartass though.

Ya my teachers really didn't give two shats - I guess i was lucky

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by gargamel

The father isn't asking for these boys to receive extra teaching, though. He's just asking they they be allowed to sit in the library during the part of the curriculum that conflicts with their beliefs. A better comparison would be if a Catholic child in a public school were allowed to go to the library while the class learned about safe sex. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that happens all the time and isn't a problem.

If the Ontario curriculum is anything like Alberta's I feel like the students would be missing out quite a bit.

It highly depends on the school and the teachers but by highschool the religion classes takes a pretty big shift from learning about Catholic doctrine and prayers to learning about world religions, their histories, cultures and how they shaped the world, ethics, and critical thinking (which will probably be a shock to most non-Catholics).

I'm sure it would be a big surprise to a lot that movies like The Cider House Rules can be part of the curriculum. There's not a huge list of mainstream serious movies that caused more religion uproar than one that paints abortion in a positive light (or at least makes it so it's not so black and white) and then throws in some incest rape for good measure, it's sure to have given a couple Catholics aneurysms. And yet a large part of highschool religion discussions revolved around movies and case studies like that to get the young adults thinking. Also grade 11 has a huge focus on the other religions, and a lot of the time in a very positive light. It also looks at their history which gives some background on conflicts like those in the middle-east - for a large portion it's Social Studies 2.0 disguised as a religion class.

There's also a lot of ethic discussions, many times where Catholicism has nothing to do with it. Think the genocides in Rwanda and people like Rusesabagina.

Of course there's going to be religion fluff and a certain bias which occurs throughout the semester, so it's not like you can just sit out certain parts, but it's not so clear cut.