I'm assuming that she's referring to the idea of expanding funding for faith-based schools to all faiths: If belief in the force is a faith shared by 20,000 Canadians, should those people be able to get funding for a school?
Yeah, I get it. I was trying to make a joke - trying to write a typical BC Socratic-teaching inquiry in Yoda-speak. Obviously it wasn't a very good joke.
I do believe the Knight rank must be attained, not claimed. The religion would be "Jedi." So all those who claimed to be jedi knights on the census can be summarily declared as invalid.
Maybe, but as far as I know, Tory's Tories haven't actually set any criteria for which religions will be funded, or how many adherents they must have, or anything. Me, I'm looking forward to the first pagan or Satanist school funding request:
*splutter* *fume* "NO, we meant REAL religions, not those fakey things that people just made up!"
Quite likely. Question is, who gets to draw the line between them? And where? And what happens to a funded religion that drops below the line? Gods forfend one of them should die - and they lost their funding?
The more one goes into this idea, the more intensely stupid it seems.
At this point, I feel the need to trot out the old and oft-repeated statement that "freedom of religion" in the US constitution wasn't about, y'know, freedom of *all* religions. It was originally intended as a freedom for protestants to do whatever the hell they wanted to the catholics, as a reversal of fortunes from the old world.
Or so I heard it told.
But that's an aside, really. I don't know enough about the different curricula to comment on that, but the concept of a separate, and separately funded, religious education program, always bothered me. I lived next to a Catholic high school while in Toronto, so I've had plenty of opportunities to be reminded of the issue, and to dwell on it :)
The people who should be feeling slighted the most are other religious families who desire to give their kids a religious education, but have to pay for it. Me, frankly I'd just as soon stay far, far away from the whole religious doctrine in school issue.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 12:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 05:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 05:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 06:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-02 03:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 01:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 01:59 pm (UTC)So much for the movement :/
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 02:22 pm (UTC)*splutter* *fume* "NO, we meant REAL religions, not those fakey things that people just made up!"
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 02:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 02:31 pm (UTC)The more one goes into this idea, the more intensely stupid it seems.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 11:50 pm (UTC)Or so I heard it told.
But that's an aside, really. I don't know enough about the different curricula to comment on that, but the concept of a separate, and separately funded, religious education program, always bothered me. I lived next to a Catholic high school while in Toronto, so I've had plenty of opportunities to be reminded of the issue, and to dwell on it :)
The people who should be feeling slighted the most are other religious families who desire to give their kids a religious education, but have to pay for it. Me, frankly I'd just as soon stay far, far away from the whole religious doctrine in school issue.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 02:44 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-29 02:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-01 12:41 am (UTC)Trust not those who promise without foundation...