The early settlers of Canada brought with them the religious feuding of Ireland leading to a divide between the majority Protestants and incoming minority Catholics.  Like hockey players seething in the penalty box, the two sects were segregated into independent religious schools.  This was prior to even the writing of the Canadian constitution and forming of the country itself, and thereby it was written with the allotment for this school system.

That system persists to this day, having survived a supreme court decision upholding the right of government funds biasedly towards a religious sect or sects, despite the updated Canadian rights as formulated in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  So obviously it is legally permitted.

Canada is fortunate in its current religious climate.  While boasting similar religiosity demographics as the United States, with ~70-80% Christian and 10-20% non-religious, it's much more of a pacified faith than what is seen south of the border.  There is a war in the US, fought not with guns but with legislature and propaganda with science education and minority rights at risk.  This all with the establishment clause demanding freedom of and from religion right there in the Constitution preventing favourable treatment towards Christianity or any other religion.

The situation in Canada with regard to religious schools is not in violation of our legal rights, but that should not be the end of it.  While I would prefer it, I am not calling for the suspension of government funds to these schools (yet).  What is needed--however needless as it may seem right now--is a constitutional amendment providing freedom of and from religion and the separation of church and state--while we still can.

The consitutional freedoms in the United States constitution is the only thing holding their school systems together right now.  While Canada's are doing relatively fine, the constitutional rights aren't meant for the easy times; they're meant for the worst of times.  We have the opportunity in the time of peace and tolerance to properly protect the minority from the tyrrany of the majority.

The multimedia lobbyists are already pounding at Canada's door, leading to a fight for our rights with regard to digital media; let's close the door on the religious lobby that could well follow.

Posted by Ellyoda Mon, 28 Jul 2008 03:27:42 (comments: 29)
next >>
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:53:09
I see your point.

I mean religion is a mere opinion or belief (though being Agnostic *Agnostic Neutral to be more specific* I'm not 100% sure how it feels. Anyway the United States is one of the most diverse nations in the world and its time for it to start acting like it.

But I don't think the U.S. should be looking towards this when copying Canada as priority, no, no, no, no not this first...but free health care! Grinning
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:25:08
Religious semantics is really screwed up in informal usage.  Formally, if you haven't accepted the claim of a god existing as true, you're atheist by definition.

Anyway, I'm actually talking about Canada copying the US in this case.  Canada isn't having the problem with religious lobbying that the US does, but doesn't have legitimate constitutional protection if that starts happening.  The will of the majority is what's holding it together.

Universal health care FTW Grinning
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:08:57
I'm not sure about the Canadian Education system but this would surely be at the bottom end of the spectrum with problems with the education system and government.

Though as I said I know absolutely nothing about Canadian education so ignore what I said. WinkWink
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:18:08
I'd be the first to say that the Canadian school system is fundamentally flawed.

While this is focused heavily on the educational system, it's a governmental matter in all areas; right now it's just that publically funded Catholic and Protestant schools is the only example I know of that has the government subsidizing or promoting a religious position aside from "God keep our land" in the national anthem.

As a programmer, I see this as a security hole.  While right now noone is attacking the system, there's still the danger of exploiting the flaw.  What I'm suggesting is to install patch.  It's not really realistic I understand, I was just making the point.
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:39:40
So there's a lot of Irish in Canada? I'vs always thought it was mostly French.

 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:23:38
There's a lot of everything in Canada.  Some provinces don't have public catholic and protestant schools anymore, but Ontario does.

From what I've seen there's more background from Scotland and England than the Irelands, but I was referring somewhat simply on the origins of religious conflict.  There's plenty of immigration from all over western Europe and more recently many from east asia.

I know less than I should about history to explain the French connection to Canada, but a very, very simplified version would be that there were English and French settlements that were separated by the British (since Canada was still a colony of Britain) into upper Canada (Ontario) and lower Canada (Qu├ębec) to resolve cultural conflict.
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:51:40
Are there many Sri Lankans? Grinning
 
Mon, 28 Jul 2008 21:48:38
Yep it's better to prevent than to fix!
 
Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:32:36
"Religious semantics is really screwed up in informal usage.  Formally, if you haven't accepted the claim of a god existing as true, you're atheist by definition."

Yes that really is screwed up.

I am an agnostic (neutral) meaning that I'm not sure whether there is or isn't a God and as of now it is impossible to tell. (Yes I've looked up the Big Bang Theory *though there are some things I don't understand about it).
 
Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:59:31
If you get into specifics,
atheist - without belief in a god or gods
agnostic - without knowledge thereof

They aren't mutually exclusive, and neither state a position, but rather reject presented evidence.  Technically, I'd say everyone in the world is agnostic whether they admit it or not, because nobody actually has any knowledge of it.  Atheist just means you aren't convinced that the claims are true (and NOT that you are stating definitively that there is no possible god.

And hopefully not beating it to death, the only reason there's a word "atheist" is due to the number of people believing a random claim.  You don't have abigfootists, but if 90% of the world started believing in bigfoot, we might.

The main thing to understand about the Big Bang theory is that it isn't an explanation for the existence of the universe, but rather the origin of the current state of the universe from the singularity.

Simplified, all matter was at one point densely compacted, then expanded.  There is no supported theory on where that singularity came from.  It's rather pointless and near impossible to go back any further, so for all intents and purposes, it's informally said to be the "beginning of the universe" but it's really the beginning of the universe as we know it.

/grammar and science lesson LOL
next >>
Log in or Register for free to comment
Recently Spotted:
*crickets*
Login @ The VG Press
Username:
Password:
Remember me?