Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Toronto goes nuts

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

Previous topic | Next topic

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

02 Aug 2011, 11:07 am

AstroGeek wrote:
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?


Ah, but I think that the entire Roman Catholic separate school board is an affront to GLBT people in Ontario. But it is a basic principle of constitutional law that the constitution cannot invalidate itself--so constitutional guarantees of religious schooling have to live side by side with section 15. So I live with it.

I am content to see a public school system in which observant muslim children are free to pray on Fridays, provided that other students are free to form associations to support other aspects of diversity, including sexual orientation. A public school that gives muslim students a place to pray, must also give GLBT students a place to meet. If it permits Jewish and Sikh students to wear religious headcoverings, then it must permit LGBT students to visibly self-identify as well.


_________________
--James


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

02 Aug 2011, 9:06 pm

visagrunt wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
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?


Ah, but I think that the entire Roman Catholic separate school board is an affront to GLBT people in Ontario. But it is a basic principle of constitutional law that the constitution cannot invalidate itself--so constitutional guarantees of religious schooling have to live side by side with section 15. So I live with it.

I am content to see a public school system in which observant muslim children are free to pray on Fridays, provided that other students are free to form associations to support other aspects of diversity, including sexual orientation. A public school that gives muslim students a place to pray, must also give GLBT students a place to meet. If it permits Jewish and Sikh students to wear religious headcoverings, then it must permit LGBT students to visibly self-identify as well.


Prays be topic

If the paternalistic religios have their way, then more enlightened/egalitarian faith communities must have their say within the school to encourage diversity, including Atheism. Any religion that discriminates against females based on the time of month is just foolish, and any school that segregates LGBT students is likewise. The Public school system must accommodate many differences so that all diversities are represented and visible.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

02 Aug 2011, 10:59 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but I think that the entire Roman Catholic separate school board is an affront to GLBT people in Ontario. But it is a basic principle of constitutional law that the constitution cannot invalidate itself--so constitutional guarantees of religious schooling have to live side by side with section 15. So I live with it.

Well, I think the entire Catholic vs. non-Catholic school system is stupid in any case and should be done away with. My province gets by just fine with a single secular school system.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Aug 2011, 12:00 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Ah, but I think that the entire Roman Catholic separate school board is an affront to GLBT people in Ontario. But it is a basic principle of constitutional law that the constitution cannot invalidate itself--so constitutional guarantees of religious schooling have to live side by side with section 15. So I live with it.

Well, I think the entire Catholic vs. non-Catholic school system is stupid in any case and should be done away with. My province gets by just fine with a single secular school system.


Newfoundland and Labrador had the presence of mind to amend the constitution to abolish its parochial boards. I am not sure that there is anyone in Queen's Park with the political courage to do the same thing in Ontario.


_________________
--James


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Aug 2011, 3:16 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
Well, too bad you can't go back and live in Britain in the early 19th century.


Tom Paine was all about getting away from England and its damned Monarchy. Paine was a revolutionary. In his day, self-government was a way-out revolutionary concept.

ruveyn



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

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

03 Aug 2011, 3:21 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
Well, too bad you can't go back and live in Britain in the early 19th century.


A lot of the classical liberals I know nowadays would laugh at you if you suggested that to them. They don't want that any more than, say, most socialists want to live in North Korea.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

03 Aug 2011, 9:24 pm

Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Well, too bad you can't go back and live in Britain in the early 19th century.


A lot of the classical liberals I know nowadays would laugh at you if you suggested that to them. They don't want that any more than, say, most socialists want to live in North Korea.

I admit that socially what you want is a lot different. The monarchy was (and still is) a stupid concept. And parliament was in drastic need of reform (aka: democratization). But how is it any different economically? [I'm genuinely curious--economically the 19th century sounds exactly like what ruveyn wants.]