The Proletariat Congress

Or at least that’s what the Halton Catholic School board would have you think. And that the slightest challenge would drive the faithful to question why they believe in their religion. For this reason, certain books must be kept from the hands of children lest they think for themselves, something that is evidently contrary to the mantra of church indoctrination.

The book in question today is not one of the seven books of the Harry Potter canon (though Dumbledore’s sexuality has caused quite a stir) but of the His Dark Material trilogy (Golden Compass) by Philip Pullman. A trilogy labelled as tripe written by an Atheist (as if somehow this discredits him as a person; nothing more than a bias; discrimination if you will) and the books as anti-religion, anti-god and anti-Catholic characters and plot.

There was some concern that if students were exposed to the contents of the trilogy it may cause them to lose faith - Marianne Mazzorato, superintendent of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board.

Well, if children would lose their faith, did it ever occur to these zealots that it’s not because of the book itself but because children are able to think for themselves and able to see through the farce that is religion? That maybe they just aren’t buying the church’s line about salvation and the threat of hell for being different.

Of course, it could very well be that these people have never actually read the book, much like the anti-Harry Potter brigade, who was more than happy to throw about allegations that the series encouraged delinquent behaviour, despite that if you actually read the books you’d see some very wholesome themes, ie: good versus evil (with good winning), friendship…

Meanwhile, another Catholic school board, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic School Board is reviewing it and placing labels on the book due to Halton’s choice to ban the books in question.

The label reassures the reader that the book is indeed fiction; fiction much like the Bible.

Representations of the church in this novel are purely fictional; the council, the officials and the God in the novel in no way represent the reality of the Roman Catholic Church to which we are blessed to be members.

Younger people know it’s fiction, too bad the adults can’t tell the difference. But what does one expect when someone has been indoctrinated in their youth, given no alternative to that mind-numbing tripe that the church passes off as the ultimate truth?

Golden COmpass becomes cautionary tale

As a person who enjoyed the Harry Potter series, I was intrigued by His Dark Materials trilogy. I have all three books and I’m reading Golden Compass, and I have yet to see the problem that these people are bellyaching about. Perhaps maybe I am immune to it being an Atheist myself and having no problem with the themes of this book. It could also be that I see this as purely a work of fiction and something to be enjoyed.

You know, if you’re worried about a book shattering someone’s faith then your faith is too shaky to withstand the test of time without a lot of strong-armed tactics. If a person’s faith is strong then a mere work of fiction shouldn’t be able to shake that foundation.  If it leads someone to question their faith, then that faith was weak in the first place and no amount of censorship will change that.

The vote was 11-9 in favour of black-focused schools. This opened the door for a new policy to be put in place.

For the last couple of years now, the Toronto Board of Education has been grappling with the idea of piloting black focused schools, that would have an education system styled online the lines of what is used in the Caribbean and Africa in order to tackle the issue of the drop out rate that is prevalent amongst teens of colour, namely those of African and Caribbean descent.

The concerns about the current system included thoughts that the classrooms are suffering from over-crowding and struggling black students aren’t able to get the attention they need from teachers and hence are feeling defeated, For that reason, they drop out. There are other concerns, but the main concern was to address the higher rate of drop out compared to other students. There are other factors involved such as the home environment that these students come from. The students may come from an impoverish home and may lack the resources to succeed academically. There are many reasons.

Some parents wanted change because as many of 40% of black students are dropping out of high school, never going on to achieve a post-secondary education, which is needed in order to get anywhere in today’s world regardless of one’s background. Without that diploma, even the brightest are stuck in a dead-end or worse.

However, there are still parents who are oppose to it, like Loreen Small, the mother of Jordan Manners, a teen who was fatally shot at his school, C.W. Jefferey’s last May. She had come out stating that instead of developing a black-focused school that she would rather see teachers receive help in teaching in a multi-racial classroom. She had even gone as far as to label the move as ’segregationist’.

“This black school thing … it ain’t right,” she told trustees, saying teachers need more help to engage with students in multi-racial classrooms.

“Don’t propose it – Martin Luther King thought we could sit at the front of the bus together,” pleaded Loreen Small, whose son was shot dead last spring at his school in northwest Toronto.

“My son died at C.W. Jefferys in 2007. If we can all just come together and be as one,” said an emotional Small, who broke down in tears in the hall after her presentation.

“If black kids need to graduate, let’s get teachers in there and learn how to interact with black kids,” she said.

Despite the pleas and warnings issued by some, the motion was still passed. Those who had favoured the motioned hailed it as the start of a new era. The motion included a plan to:

• Open an Africentric alternative school in 2009.
• Start a three-year pilot program in three other high schools.
• Work with York University to improve school achievement.
• Develop a plan to help failing students.

While in theory is sounds like it might work, the concerns about segregation isn’t completely unfounded. It would reduce the exposure of students to other students of unique backgrounds. It wouldn’t be do any favours for a society that prides itself on being a multi-cultural patchwork of rich cultures brought together to progress as humans.

“I just feel being with a mixed group of people is better, you know, you get to learn different cultures, different aspects of different people, the way they live,” said Grade 10 student Terrin Smith-Williams.

Strange, that despite opposition during the Ontario General Election last October in which John Tory’s Progressive Conservatives suffered an overwhelming defeat, with Tory not even gaining a seat despite being party leader because of the proposal to increase public funding for religious schools that this motion for black-focused schools would go through. Especially when there were many cries about how the funding of religious schools would increase segregation along religious lines, that this was given the go-ahead.

To go ahead with such a measure appears to be contrary to the general opinion of the voting and tax-paying public who’s sentiments seem to point toward a singular system where there is no one excluded for any reason.

There are other ways of dealing with a system that is failing certain students, and it starts with eliminating funding for the Catholic school board. They are permitted to exclude students because of religion despite being publicly funded and that in itself is just wrong in this day in age.

With the funding that would be reclaimed from privatizing this board of education the public school board would be able to effectively lower the number of students per classroom, increase resources and hire more teachers and be able to address the needs of students who are struggling. It would allow the public school board to address a key point of the plan for the black-focused schools, which is to help students who are failing by developing a plan to give them a fighting chance.

The same funding would be better spent allowing students to choose an academic education or one that is focused on developing skills through a vocational programme that would see them eventually placed in apprenticeships.

Some students will still drop out but at least more will stay in school and will be in a culturally rich environment where they aren’t isolated from their peers unless their behaviour is a danger to their peers.

Of course, not everyone sees it this way. So, they need to experiment to learn that some times just because something seems like a good idea in theory and looks workable on paper that in practise it is doom to fail.  On the other hand, it could very well work, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t change one fact, that on the surface, this appears to be segregationist.

Toronto trustees vote in favour of black-focused schools
Board okays black-focused school

Religion is stagnant; its individual core tenets and principles steadfast and unyielding to change and the evolution of societal norms in the 21^st century. It is inflexible and its followers are most resistant to change when that change is an front to their “moral principles” and what to them is morally acceptable. Stricter beliefs and intolerant leaders create intolerant followers and believers.

The faithful see their beliefs as the only way and the beliefs of others as heathen beliefs that will damn them for eternity. The faithful want to see their children given a proper ‘moral’ upbringing, even if it means forcing their beliefs on others as has been done for hundreds of years before some people said enough is enough.

One subject in the public school that has caused controversy other than mandatory prayer is that of the teaching of creation as an alternative theory (or intelligent design) along with the theory of evolution. At least in the US this has been an area of sensitivity for both religious and secular proponents. It hasn’t been cause for attention here in Canada, or at least in Ontario until opposition leader John Tory brought up the subject of faith-based school funding.

He has made an election promise to create a separate public system for parents who want to send their children to a religious school and it would be publicly funded. This move would violate the sacred boundary that separates church and state. A boundary that the provincial Conservatives have held no respect for, as former Ontario Premier Davis in 1985 reversed his 1971 decision regarding the full-funding of the Catholic school board.

It is already enough of an insult to the taxpaying public that we have to fund the separate Catholic school system along side the public system that is struggling under constant deficits and compounding funding problems brought on by the controversial school funding formula introduced originally by the Harris Conservatives as part of their ‘Common Sense Revolution‘ promise.

The last thing a modern secular society needs is more public funding for the religious agenda. We need a solid line drawn between the two. We cannot and should not endorse the use of public taxpayer funds for a religious education. To create a system based on this idea would be introducing a modern form of segregation.

Additionally, if the public were to fund such a system, what measures would be in place to ensure that the provincial mandated curriculum was followed by all schools and that all students got equal access to the same academic knowledge that their peers in the secular public system would get?

They teach evolution in the Ontario curriculum, but they also could teach the fact to the children that there are other theories that people have out there that are part of some Christian beliefs. It’s still called the theory of evolution. ~ John Tory

Why should the public pay for students to be taught Creation? Creation has no place in any classroom unless that classroom is one that teaches philosophy and allows for the debate. Creation has no scientific merit and as such, is untestable because it fails to meet the criteria that would allow for it to be tested as a plausible scientific theory. It should and always remain outside of the science classroom as it is a myth and myths have no place in the world of facts.

Theories in themselves do not have to be factual but they must have testable elements. Creation isn’t even a theory; to be a scientific theory, it needs to be testable based on the scientific method. Evolution is testable given the characteristics. Creation and Intelligent Design cannot be tested because there is no way to test for God.

If parents want this included in their child’s education then they should pay to send their child to a private school. If not then send them to the public school but don’t expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for your child’s religious education. Religion is a personal thing and it does not belong in the public school system.

Tory ignites creationism debate

EDIT (Sept. 6/07, 3:15pm) - A Conservative party spokeswoman, Ingrid Thompson, has issued a statement clarifying the remarks made by provincial Conservative leader John Tory. She has embellished on his earlier comment, explaining that schools that would teach creation in science class would become ineligible for public funding.

If there are schools that teach creationism in science class, they would not be eligible to be funded as part of this proposal.

She went on to add that all faith-based schools that want to qualify for funding would have to follow the Ontario curriculum.

Creationism in science class would disqualify schools for funding: Conservatives

Saying that schools that teach creationism in science class does not undo the damage that was done by John Tory and his endorsement of creationism as a teachable subject.

People are easily offended with the most harmless comments these days. Politicians often find themselves walking on egg shells in an attempt to soothe the most fragile egos. They find themselves unable to speak their minds without someone crying foul.

Consider this statement from Premier Dalton McGuinty on the subject of faith-based school funding:

If you want the kind of Ontario where we invite children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and become sequestered and segregated in their own private schools, then they should vote for Mr. Tory. If they think it’s important that we continue to bring our kids together, so that they grow together and learn from one another, then you should vote for me.

He is advocating that the public system doesn’t discriminate and brings students of different faiths and cultures together for a common purpose: to learn in an academic environment that prizes knowledge and achievement over petty differences. The system has students put those differences aside to work together towards a common goal of achieving academic/practical knowledge. In the process, they even learn something about another religion or culture they might not have known if they were in a school that was for a single faith.

So, what’s the problem?

According to the United Jewish Appeal and the Canadian Jewish Congress the comments were ‘hurtful’ and ‘offensive’ because the faith-based schools teach about tolerance and acceptance. But how can we have tolerance and acceptance when we are segregated along religious lines?

This doesn’t fit into the modern frame of secular Canadian society in which we need to spend more time coming together to learn that our differences should be celebrated. Religion is a divisive subject and as a nation we don’t need anything else to divide us up. We have plenty to keep up divided and feuding.

There is nothing offensive about what Premier McGuinty has says. It’s brutally honest and some people cannot take that level of honesty and prefer to live in their rose-coloured glass world; in their protective bubble.

But the religious groups expressing offence have demanded an apology and have offered flimsey excuses.

UJA Federation of Greater Toronto chair David Engel has come out saying:

The remark is deeply offensive to our community and all faith communities. We just want him to take back the comment that was offensive to our schools. Our schools teach respect for all members of Ontario society – not the opposite – and we encourage our students to strengthen the society around us through their volunteer work and their careers.

You can teach respect just as you can lead a horse to water. You cannot force someone to respect anyone else just as you cannot force a horse to drink. People learn respect when they are around others who are different.

You can give students the skills they need to do their jobs but you cannot teach respect; you cannot force anyone to learn respect; they learn it through personal experience.

Apologize, Jewish groups tell McGuinty