Day of prayer is unconstitutional

[SirJosephPorter]

Now it is Ok for Great Briton and Canada to have an official religion, even though it was started by some dude King Henry IIIV who just wanted to get a divorce? Now that is a reason for having an official religion. Tradition is not always good, I can see keeping the monarchy around, that is who you were and is history. What do you mean the Church of England has not done you any harm, how many Catholics died because Henry wanted a divorce, in both Great Briton and Ireland. It is like our slavery and just as bad, something that must be put behind you.

Canada does not have an official religion, Britain does. And regardless of what was done in the past, having an official religion is not harming anybody in Britain today. Britain is as tolerant of other religions, of minorities as any other democracy, perhaps even more so than USA. Thus Britain has civil union for gays, Britain legalized homosexuality in 1965, there are parts of USA which would like to recriminalize homosexuality, if the Courts would let them.

Official religion is just a tradition, like the monarchy. Church of England does not get any favored status with the government, money from the government etc. for being the official religion. Also, I am not aware of any grassroots movement which wants to delist Church of England as official religion.

So again, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

[ironsides]

Now here I agree with you. Having an official religion has not done Britain any harm. My attitude with any societal institution is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It applies to monarchy (I am opposed to getting rid of monarchy in Canada) or official religion (there is no reason for Britain to get rid of it).

Guess slavery and memories of the old south are perfectly ok to commemorate, celebrate and hold parades. We not talking about other things you just mentioned those are not major issues anymore in either country. I compared The Church of England and its past to slavery which it did under a different name in the name of God.

 

[Machjo]

No doubt both the Greens and Tories wanted to make the system fairer, more equitable. But there were problems with both the positions. Getting rid of separate school funding would require a constitutional amendment, a nearly impossible task. Saying that we must get rid of separate school funding was really tantamount to saying that we should do nothing, since in practice, nothing would get done. So Green position was not really all that different from Liberal position from practical point of view.

Reminds me of how Bush (the 1st) used to call for constitutional amendment for just about everything. Want to ban abortion? Let us have a constitutional amendment. Want to ban flag burning? Let us have a constitutional amendment. That was his way of passing the buck, of not doing anything.

So I don’t regard Green position and Liberal position to be all that much different, since the practical result would have been the same in both cases.


No doubt there are good and bad madrasaas. However, the government would have been forced to fund both, under Tory proposal. And you are right; there would be problems with some Christian schools as well.

One good point about Catholic schools is that they are totally transparent, as transparent as the public schools. However, the same cannot be said of some of the Fundamentalist Christian schools, we don’t’ know what kind of ideology they are teaching the students.

Particularly in the case of a school operated from the basement of a mosque or a Fundamentalist Church, it would be very difficult to police what they are teaching and government money may end up going to all kinds of extremist causes.

Overall, I think the Liberal position of not doing anything made sense. Separate school funding is undesirable, but not much can really be done about it. It is part of the constitution.

Where there's a will, there's a way. Quebec managed to get rid of it, so why not Ontario. Clearly the Federal Government is willing to accommodate this, otherwise it could never have happened in Quebec.

If the Constitution cannot be amended to make it more just, then is that a Constitution we ought to be proud of? The Constitution is not the word of God. It is amendable, and so ought to be amended if it can be improved.

 

[Machjo]

And on the point of madrasas, the reason Public Catholic schools are so transparent is precisely because they are public and receive government funding, and so the government can require transparency from them. Certainly under any kind of proposal whereby other religious schools would receive equal funding, they'd be required to aide by the same rules.

By the way, there are privately funded Catholic schools in Ontario that had chosen not to participate in the Separate school system precisely so as to maintain their autonomy. I'm sure the same would apply under any other kind of proposal. On that front, madrasas are no different than Catholic or any other school. Let's not confound madrasas in general with extremist Taliban-run madrasas. Some madrasas are quite open to the secular arts and sciences.

 

[Machjo]

This is one photo of an IRA bombing...

Still think it's done Britain no harm?

Shall I go on about the State sanctioned protection of the Protestants, while they antagonized the Catholics? Or how many wars were waged under the banners of Religion?

How about how in North America, the Catholics were second class citizens under British Anglican rule?

It's done no harm?

I agree. It depends on the kind of official status it has. Nowadays though, it serves a mainly symbolic value in the UK. Catholics now have the upper hand in Ontario.

 

[Machjo]

Canada does not have an official religion, Britain does.

And Britain does not have a Separate school system, Canada does. In the UK, the official status of the Church of England is largely symbolic, unlike in Canada where the Separate school system has concrete consequences. I'd rather just have the Catholic Faith as Ontario's official state religion but not give Catholic schools so much power rather than the other way around, if it was a choice between those two options only.

 

[Machjo]

Perhaps you misunderstood when I said that there was only one God, the God of the Bible, when US constitution was written.

I am sure at least some of the Founding Fathers were learned men, knew of religions besides Christianity or Judaism. And we don’t have to go as far afield as Islam. Greek studies were quite common in those days, anybody who had any education at all would be aware of the ancient Greek (and Roman) Gods and Goddesses.

So the point is not that the Founding Fathers were ignorant, uneducated men who knew only of God of the bible. The point is that most of the US population was ignorant, uneducated and only knew of God of the Bible. Since the constitution was written for the benefit of almost exclusively Christian population, it is highly unlikely that any God besides God of the Bible was meant when God was mentioned in the US constitution.

Now, it may be that the founding fathers were astute enough to realize that while God will be interpreted to mean God of the Bible, that perhaps in a future, multicultural, pluralistic society, God may be interpreted with a broader meaning.

However, the US constitution was written for a Christian population and it stands to reason that God in that context meant God of the Bible. People would not have accepted the constitution if they had thought that God meant any God, that the constitution gave anybody the right to practice any religion in USA. In those days, religious tolerance meant tolerance towards all the branches of Christianity, not necessarily towards other religions.

Indeed, intolerance towards other religions was quite widespread in those days. White man nearly wiped out the Indian population, in an effort to bring them to Christ. Witches were persecuted and burnt, for not following Christ. These days the constitution is interpreted to mean that witches have the right to practice their religion. It is highly unlikely that people would have accepted the constitution in those days if they had thought that God means any God, including the Wican God or the Native Indian Gods.

I'm sure the writers of the Constitution were astute enough that if they'd meant to impose a Christian interpretation of God, they'd have realized that to just say 'God' would not suffice. Clearly if they chose not to specify, they intended it as is. Remember, these were educated, learned men very familiar with every aspect of the English language, including grammar, lexis, etc. People like that weigh each and every word as meticulously as lawyers writing complex contracts. They're aware of the meaning of every word and choose their words carefully. So if they'd chosen to word the constitution as they'd done, they certainly meant it as it was written.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Guess slavery and memories of the old south are perfectly ok to commemorate, celebrate and hold parades.

I thought they already did that in USA, ironsides. Recently Virginia governor issued a proclamation glorifying Confederacy, South's role in Civil war and implicitly, slavery. I assume you had no problem with that. And yes, according to Republicans, it is perfectly OK to commemorate slavery and memories of Old South.

We not talking about other things you just mentioned those are not major issues anymore in either country. I compared The Church of England and its past to slavery which it did under a different name in the name of God.

It is up to British people to decide if they should have an official church. They don't seem to have any problem with it. they don't seem to be in any hurry to get rid of the official religion, and I can see why.

 

[DaSleeper]

I agree. It depends on the kind of official status it has. Nowadays though, it serves a mainly symbolic value in the UK. Catholics now have the upper hand in Ontario.

And as long as the silent majority or at least a high enough percentage of property taxpayer in Ontario keep putting their type of school support preference as Separate it will exist:smile:

Edit:I forgot to add......while were off the OP subject:lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And on the point of madrasas, the reason Public Catholic schools are so transparent is precisely because they are public and receive government funding, and so the government can require transparency from them. Certainly under any kind of proposal whereby other religious schools would receive equal funding, they'd be required to aide by the same rules.

By the way, there are privately funded Catholic schools in Ontario that had chosen not to participate in the Separate school system precisely so as to maintain their autonomy. I'm sure the same would apply under any other kind of proposal. On that front, madrasas are no different than Catholic or any other school. Let's not confound madrasas in general with extremist Taliban-run madrasas. Some madrasas are quite open to the secular arts and sciences.

Quite so, there are all kinds of madrasaas. However, it will be very difficult for government to control what goes on in madrasaas, transparency will be very difficult to enforce. If a school agrees to take government money, how is government going to enforce transparency, short of keeping somebody in the school full time? Government money may go to support causes such as terrorism. That is why it is best not to get into funding private schools.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

And Britain does not have a Separate school system, Canada does. In the UK, the official status of the Church of England is largely symbolic, unlike in Canada where the Separate school system has concrete consequences. I'd rather just have the Catholic Faith as Ontario's official state religion but not give Catholic schools so much power rather than the other way around, if it was a choice between those two options only.

I don't think Catholicism is Ontario's official religion. It is just that Catholic schools are funded from public money. As to getting rid fo the funding, that cannot be done unless there is a consensus in the province. In Quebec, there was such a consensus, all parties agreed that funding should be abolished.

In Ontario, there is no way conservatives are going to agree to abolish the funding. Liberals cannot advocate abolishing the funding on their own, that would be a sure vote loser.

If Liberals and conservatives get together and form a joint policy platform to get rid fo separate school funding, it could be done. But I don't see that happening, there is too much politics involved.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm sure the writers of the Constitution were astute enough that if they'd meant to impose a Christian interpretation of God, they'd have realized that to just say 'God' would not suffice. Clearly if they chose not to specify, they intended it as is. Remember, these were educated, learned men very familiar with every aspect of the English language, including grammar, lexis, etc. People like that weigh each and every word as meticulously as lawyers writing complex contracts. They're aware of the meaning of every word and choose their words carefully. So if they'd chosen to word the constitution as they'd done, they certainly meant it as it was written.

We won’t know what they intended, they are all dead. However, we do know how it was interpreted. It was interpreted to mean Christian God, the God of Bible only. It had no place for Indian Gods or Wiccan Gods, the only alternatives existing in USA in those days.

 

[Machjo]

And as long as the silent majority or at least a high enough percentage of property taxpayer in Ontario keep putting their type of school support preference as Separate it will exist:smile:

On that you're right, just like any other social vice like slavery, Apartheid, etc. If you can't succeed on the free market, no problem; that's what democratic mob rule is for.:smile:

 

[Machjo]

Quite so, there are all kinds of madrasaas. However, it will be very difficult for government to control what goes on in madrasaas, transparency will be very difficult to enforce. If a school agrees to take government money, how is government going to enforce transparency, short of keeping somebody in the school full time? Government money may go to support causes such as terrorism. That is why it is best not to get into funding private schools.

The same way they do with the publicly funded Separate schools.

 

[DaSleeper]

On that you're right, just like any other social vice like slavery, Apartheid, etc. If you can't succeed on the free market, no problem; that's what democratic mob rule is for.:smile:

Why is it only democratic when Liberals do it???

 

[Icarus27k]

Declaring religion-related stuff in public life unconstitutional is one side of a constitutional argument. The argument is between people who take the US Constitution literally and strictly and people that are more likely to take it symbolically and more leniently.

It's clear the Framers wrote a lot of ideals into the Constitution but didn't grasp those ideals' full meanings. When they wrote freedom of religion into the First Amendment, they didn't think that could also apply to a non-religious person's freedom from religion.

It's now just a debate about whether we want to strictly apply the church-state seperation or not. Declaring the Day of Prayer unconstitutional is an example of strictly applying it.

 

[DaSleeper]

It is an element now in power in Washington that wants to turn a "Republic" into a democracy...

 

[Machjo]

I don't think Catholicism is Ontario's official religion.

I never said it was the official religion. I'm just saying that if it was a choice between the province pretending to be secular and then grant a particular religious community a special status on the one hand, or making that religion official but mostly as a symbolic gesture with only minimal impact on equality of religions on the other, I'd choose the former. In fact, that might be a reason Britain is more moderate than Canada when it comes to religious legislation. Because it does have a state religion, it must be careful to appear as impartial as possible, whereas in Ontario it is possible to enforce preferential treatment for certain religious communities at taxpayers' expense with impunity since they can always crow how secular the province is.

It is just that Catholic schools are funded from public money. As to getting rid fo the funding, that cannot be done unless there is a consensus in the province. In Quebec, there was such a consensus, all parties agreed that funding should be abolished.

Agreed.

In Ontario, there is no way conservatives are going to agree to abolish the funding. Liberals cannot advocate abolishing the funding on their own, that would be a sure vote loser.

Agreed. It's not about justice, but the will of the mob.

If Liberals and conservatives get together and form a joint policy platform to get rid fo separate school funding, it could be done. But I don't see that happening, there is too much politics involved.

If Catholics actually earned enough money themselves, they'd probably agree to some kind of Swedish-style voucher programme so that we can all decide what school to send our kids at, or at least deduct private school fees form our taxes. The problem then is that it would be harder to funnel the taxes of non-Catholics into the Catholic system or at least force non-Catholics to not have their own religious schools, essentially saying that the public can fund Catholic schools but that they cannot use their own money to fund other schools other than secular unless they're willing to pay twice by paying for private schools and taxes to the public system too, thus giving Catholics the upper hand.

So I agree with you that it is a major political battle since it essentially allows Catholics to get their public Catholic schools funded by their taxes and others' taxes too. They'd have much to lose.

 

[Machjo]

Why is it only democratic when Liberals do it???

When Liberals do it, it's still mob rule.

 

[Machjo]

Declaring religion-related stuff in public life unconstitutional is one side of a constitutional argument. The argument is between people who take the US Constitution literally and strictly and people that are more likely to take it symbolically and more leniently.

It's clear the Framers wrote a lot of ideals into the Constitution but didn't grasp those ideals' full meanings. When they wrote freedom of religion into the First Amendment, they didn't think that could also apply to a non-religious person's freedom from religion.

It's now just a debate about whether we want to strictly apply the church-state seperation or not. Declaring the Day of Prayer unconstitutional is an example of strictly applying it.

I'm sure they were aware of the existence of atheists even in their time.