Toronto goes nuts

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

25 Jul 2011, 12:58 pm

Why has nobody tipped to the systemic discrimination issue inherent in this debate?

The principal day of worship for muslims is Friday. In a society built upon the Monday to Friday work and school week, what barriers does that present to full participation by Muslims in our society? Is it fair that an observant muslim must choose between religious obligation and the freedom to work or study, where an observant jew or an observant christian is not so obliged?

Children of observant muslims who attend public schools in Ontario (the jurisdiction in question here) are obliged, by law, to attend school on Friday. Their freedoms of thought, belief and opinion, guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are being compromised by a secular law of general application. In these circumstances it is incumbent on government to make its intrusion on religious freedom as minimal as possible--and the provision of space for prayer is a reasonable accommodation.

But once space for religious observance is provided, that is protected space, which is operated by the religious tradition in question. We do not costrain muslim and jewish places of worship from separating men and women. While I question the wisdom of a religious tradition (including my own) that declares women to be ritually unclean during menses, it is not my place, or the place of government, to interfere with the free exercise of religious observance.

I would be more comfortable if children were excused from the premises of the school to attend prayers--but I am also aware that this might not be practical given the geography of the local neighborhood, and might present unnecessary risks to children who are expected to be in the care and under the supervision of the school.

_________________
--James

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

30 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Chevand wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Second, schools that are tax supported. All schools should be privately funded by those who use them.

So you're against the concept of public schools now? And what exactly are parents who can't afford the thousands of dollars in tuition fees supposed to do with their children, hmm?

Do you believe in charity. I believe in charity. Voluntary charity.

Also you put too much faith in schools. Abraham Lincoln never made it to fourth grade. He learned how to read and write at home and just about everything he learned he learned from book and from talking to people.

I learned hardly any mathematics in public school. At age 13 (about 8 th grade) I taught myself calculus and analytic geometry. I didn't need no steeeenking schools. Everything I learned until I got to college I taught myself with the exception of chemistry. For that one needs a lab. From my sophmore year at college until I graduated I took graduate courses in math. That is when schooling paid off for me. And it was at a private university, thank you.

ruveyn

My GOD! I try to respect your thoughts although I disagree with them (which, believe you me, is hard), but this is too much. I've been through a public school and although I will not argue that the standard curriculum is pathetic, the principle of public education is an excellent one. Not to mention, that if people want a more advanced education, there are international programs available which will challenge them properly. I took the IB program and am very satisfied with the education I received. Not only that, but the prestigious private school in my area also offers the IB program, meaning I was taught the same curriculum FOR FREE!

Now I respect the fact that there will be some very generous donations supporting schools in some areas, but you can't expect that to cover an entire country, especially in rural areas. Nor should schools have to rely on private donations. Considering how you and other right-wingers always seem to criticize the left of having too much faith in the goodness of humanity, you are demonstrating an awful lot of faith in the goodness of people. In any case, think of tax dollars going to education as you paying off your tuition.

And the Lincoln example is irrelevant--that was a very different time. These days you need at least a high-school diploma for any good jobs. Unless you are an extremely lucky entrepreneur, anyway.

I simply can't believe that anyone in this day and age would question a child's right to an education! As a recent public school graduate I find it highly insulting.

Last edited by AstroGeek on 30 Jul 2011, 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 Jul 2011, 7:55 pm

some of the best educational institutions in the world are government funded, the niels bohr institute for theoretical physics for an example (research based education)
just because some people doesnt need education doesnt mean others do not, i for one would rather pay for public schooling just to avoid a rise in already rampant ignorance.

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

30 Jul 2011, 8:04 pm

visagrunt wrote:

For once we are in disagreement. Actually, I agree with you up until the last 2 paragraphs. However, the fact of the matter is that a school is a government building and this prayer is being done there. Our federal and provincial governments recognize men as equals, and as such that should apply in the school system. That is not to say we are going against Islam--we are simply not taking it into account. Although I don't think such segregation is acceptable, there is nothing that can be done about it in a mosque. But a school is not a mosque. Although I try to support multi-culturalism, the fact of the matter is that Canada is a country where men and women are equals and anything done on public property should reflect that. That equality is a universal human right, not merely a Western tradition (considering it's hardly traditional anywhere, including the west) and as such moral relativism is not acceptable here.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 Jul 2011, 10:00 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

I simply can't believe that anyone in this day and age would question a child's right to an education! As a recent public school graduate I find it highly insulting.

Your "right" to a public education is bought at the expense of taxing people with no kids in the schools. In short public education is funded by stolen money. Taxation is theft.

ruveyn

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

30 Jul 2011, 10:01 pm

ruveyn wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

I simply can't believe that anyone in this day and age would question a child's right to an education! As a recent public school graduate I find it highly insulting.

Your "right" to a public education is bought at the expense of taxing people with no kids in the schools. In short public education is funded by stolen money. Taxation is theft.

ruveyn

Well if it really counts as extortion to you then you would love Somalia. Except it won't be the Government doing the extorting, so pick your poison.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Jul 2011, 10:08 pm

ruveyn wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

I simply can't believe that anyone in this day and age would question a child's right to an education! As a recent public school graduate I find it highly insulting.

Your "right" to a public education is bought at the expense of taxing people with no kids in the schools. In short public education is funded by stolen money. Taxation is theft.

ruveyn

Hi, the government provides to you a service. And you pay for that service. That's taxation.

In the case of public education, the service is "let's hope these guys are not stupid so that they at least know how to count so that you can actually trade stuff with them" in the most basic level. In the more complex level the service is "let's train your future employees so that you actually have a task force that knows better than a donkey". Finally, it has a lot of "maybe if we educated them, there would less crime" sort of thing.

Let me show you the graphic again:

Code:

Happiness of smart people
|*
| ***
|    **
|      ****
|          ********
|                            *
|                              *
|                               *
|
|
----------------------> ignorance among idiots

There is a reason public education won the battle world wide. It brings benefits to rich elites , governments and, god forbid, the rest of the people.

_________________
.

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

31 Jul 2011, 6:41 am

ruveyn wrote:

AstroGeek wrote:

I simply can't believe that anyone in this day and age would question a child's right to an education! As a recent public school graduate I find it highly insulting.

Your "right" to a public education is bought at the expense of taxing people with no kids in the schools. In short public education is funded by stolen money. Taxation is theft.

ruveyn

Except that all of society benefits from having an educated workforce. And it's a nonsequiter to say that because tax dollars from people with no kids in school fund education then education is funded with stolen money. It could be said that they are funding their own education. If they choose to give up access to public schools in favour of a private school, then that is their choice. For someone who talks about people being good enough to donate to charity, you sure are selfish about your tax dollars. Think of them as a charitable donation. (and it isn't only our current welfare states that commit this "theft" of taxation--it's been done since Roman times when people didn't even get social services for it--you've got a much better deal).

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

31 Jul 2011, 7:36 am

sartresue wrote:

I think that the school tried to be fair in making this sort of prayer area available but now it has gone too far. Imagine, young girls having to feel guilty because of a normal bodily function. I absolutely never told anyone at the age of 13 that I was having a period!Young girls feel ostracized enough without this garbage. This whole segregation mess is pandering to a few religio extremists. It is completely over the top.

And all across the Western world, sectarianism and special treatment is flourishing because of Islam, bigoted adherents (not all but probably a large minority), and its useful idiots. We get the countries we deserve.

Last edited by Tequila on 31 Jul 2011, 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

31 Jul 2011, 7:38 am

ruveyn wrote:

Taxation is theft.

So even a nightwatchman state would be too much for you, considering you take that sort of position?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2011, 9:32 am

Tequila wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Taxation is theft.

So even a nightwatchman state would be too much for you, considering you take that sort of position?

A necessary evil. Better to cough up 5 percent to save the other 95 than to risk losing all. Government in its minimal form is a necessary evil because not all humans are good. But beware! A necessary evil is still an evil. Even the most minimal government has a tendency to grow like a tumor that eats away at our liberty.

You might want to read -Common Sense- by Tom Paine who wrote on this very subject.

ruveyn

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

31 Jul 2011, 9:50 am

ban all public display of religion, problem solved, it is a private matter of faith is it not?

(contrarian i know, possible, probably not, desrable, probably not(supression never is)

_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

31 Jul 2011, 10:12 am

Oodain wrote:

ban all public display of religion, problem solved, it is a private matter of faith is it not?

(contrarian i know, possible, probably not, desrable, probably not(supression never is)

Peaceful assembly in public that does no snarl up traffic should not be prohibited. We have parades for example. Provision is made to restrict the parades to certain streets for limited periods of time.

ruveyn

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

31 Jul 2011, 1:19 pm

AstroGeek wrote:

You are not incorrect, but I see few options to give effect to these ideals.

1) You could create a separate school system on a Sunday to Thursday schedule. But Ontario is having trouble enough with a Roman Catholic separate school system, and I see no appetite, whatsoever, for creation of a new, parochial system.
2) You could adopt staggered school weeks, parents could choose which two days their children would not attend, so that muslim children would be free to attend on a day other than Friday. But this runs the risk of creating a "separate but equal" system in which only observant muslims have an incentive to opt for different schedules. This might provide some relief for school overcrowding if implemented on a broader scale, though.
3) You could cut the school week to four days (and extend the day and move to year-round schooling to maintain teaching hours).
4) You could excuse muslim children from school grounds during prayers (but this assumes the presence of a mosque within the vicinity, and safe method of transporting the children to and from the mosque).

But if observant muslim children are going to be forced to attend school on Friday, then we, as a society, must respect their freedom to worship. The fact of the matter is that we put religious space in public property all the time. We have chapels in hospitals and in airports. We have chapels at universities. Within those spaces I am not prepared to see the state wander in and say, "this kind of worship is acceptable, but this kind is not."

_________________
--James

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

31 Jul 2011, 7:23 pm

visagrunt wrote:

But if observant muslim children are going to be forced to attend school on Friday, then we, as a society, must respect their freedom to worship. The fact of the matter is that we put religious space in public property all the time. We have chapels in hospitals and in airports. We have chapels at universities. Within those spaces I am not prepared to see the state wander in and say, "this kind of worship is acceptable, but this kind is not."

A good point, but I still feel that if Christians were implementing sexist means of worship in such public chapels then it should not be considered acceptable. As far as I know, outside of Catholicism and Anglicism (and maybe Eastern Orthodox?), most of Christianity is not too sexist. However, the government should support all female preachers, whether ordained or not. And the fact that such sexism is done on public property means that the government of Ontario is inactively saying condoning it. Perhaps I can bring up an example that would hit home a bit more for both of us: What if this was a situation of discrimination against gays?

AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

31 Jul 2011, 7:30 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Tequila wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Taxation is theft.

So even a nightwatchman state would be too much for you, considering you take that sort of position?

Well, too bad you can't go back and live in Britain in the early 19th century. There were basically no public services (so you wouldn't have to worry too much about the government stealing your money) or regulation of business. But, oh wait! Cities were cess-pools and children were often forced to work at a young age. This despite the fact that the business-owning class gave generously to charity. But oh well, they were still free, weren't they? They didn't have to give up half their income (not that you give up that much in the USA) to help improve the lives of others. So they were all free to starve on the street.

DISCLAIMER: I realize, of course, that in this period the British government was not democratic. But they still followed, approximately, the policies that ruveyn seems to advocate: Minimal to no regulation, no social services, etc. etc. Also, I am not one of those people who views the Industrial Revolution as a bad thing. It was a necessary phase of history. Perhaps it could have been done more humanely, but it has still allowed us to get to where we are today. However, in order to move from the rather miserable life I describe to what we have today, guess what we needed: SOCIALIST PARTIES. They (or other parties under their pressure) instituted the programs that made life more bearable for the lower class.

Page 2 of 3 [ 39 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

Toronto goes nuts Post Reply New Topic

Toronto goes nuts