Social progress

[Ben Kenobi]

I have no problem with religious liberty, but unlike you, I think every religion deserves that liberty, not just Catholics. And please post where I have ever said that Catholics don't have the right of a Catholic education,

Ok, good to hear that. Then you should support these schools continuing to teach a Catholic education.

Again, the CCA is pulling their license because they believe the school is violating the constitutional rights of some of their students by including a bible verse that some feel is offensive.
While the school disagrees, it's a matter for the lawyers to deal with. But still, at the end of the day, the SCHOOL CAN REMAIN OPEN if they wish to go private again. The school board is pulling their license to stay under their jurisdiction. They can find another board and stay public, or go private. It would be up to the school to decide if they want to close or find alternatives.

The school board, given that they are governed by the School Acts, and the Constitution in Canada, actually doesn't have the right to kick them out because they are Christian schools teaching Christianity. Unless the current government is willing to alter the constitution to defund Catholic schools nationwide, their funding is protected. The intent of that was to protect protestants in Quebec, but also to assist the integration of the Quebec system into the rest of Canada. It was a carrot to confederation.

This goes back long before the current administration, and this school's charter, etc.

And I'm pretty sure in this country that more people disagree with you, So one more time... Again, does freedom of religion mean just your religion? You keep avoiding answering this basic question.

The constitution provides this protection just for Catholics and Protestants, so insofar as public funding goes, yes, I believe that it should continue. Changing this would require using the amending formula. I've got no problem with people attempting to change this but they should use the correct process, not simple assuming what they want is the law.

You can get married and they want the same thing.

Prior to Obergefell, they had the same rights that I did. If they could find someone willing to marry them, they were permitted to do so.

Why should you be allowed to get married and they can't?

Well, the real question is, "why should the state recognize their choice of relationships as marriage, and not others?"

What about homosexual marriage makes it special?

One more time... they are simply pulling their license because in their legal opinion, the schools are the ones violating the constitution.

Ah. So what you're saying is that it's not about 'leaving Christians alone', but about forcing Christians to believe as they do. Thank you Ming.

THE SCHOOL WILL BE THE ONE TO MAKE THE DECISION IF THEY CLOSE, Not the school board that pulled their license or the government.

What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for a school to teach the Christian faith. I'm not quite sure how you get there from arguing for homosexual marriage, Ming. What does the one have to do with the other?

[Proteus_MST]

I would say that it is quite normal if the state has a say in the teaching plans of schools that receive public funds.

And it is in the interest of society.
Else, what would keep other public funded denominational public schools from using the "Freedom of religion" card in order to teach Creationism, or that the black people are the descendants of Ham who are destined to serve under white masters.

[Lorizael]

Just when you thought Apolyton couldn't get any worse.

[Aeson]

Apparently Ben heard Kid had overtaken him as the worst poster in Apolyton history, and is back to reclaim the title!

[rah]

I don't think you'll like the world you think you're going to like, rah.

I certainly like it better then your backwards view. But you're entitled to that view. As I am to mine. The courts support mine currently. Not yours.

[Ming]

Ok, good to hear that. Then you should support these schools continuing to teach a Catholic education.

The school board, given that they are governed by the School Acts, and the Constitution in Canada, actually doesn't have the right to kick them out because they are Christian schools teaching Christianity. Unless the current government is willing to alter the constitution to defund Catholic schools nationwide, their funding is protected. The intent of that was to protect protestants in Quebec, but also to assist the integration of the Quebec system into the rest of Canada. It was a carrot to confederation.

This goes back long before the current administration, and this school's charter, etc.

Instead of ranting and raving about how Catholic schools are being closed for teaching Christianity, go back and read the actual story.
Fact: They are not saying the school can't teach Christianity.
Fact: The school board is claiming that the school is violating the constitution for including an offensive bible verse, not for teaching Christianity. Whether right or wrong, it is a legal debate.
Fact: The School board is not closing the school. They are pulling their license because of their perceived breach of the constitution by the school.
Fact: The school would be the one making the decision if they are to close. They have the option to find a new school board or go private.

Prior to Obergefell, they had the same rights that I did. If they could find someone willing to marry them, they were permitted to do so.

They could not get the same legal protections offered by marriage that you could. So, unequal.

Well, the real question is, "why should the state recognize their choice of relationships as marriage, and not others?"

They recognize your right to get married, why not theirs.

What about homosexual marriage makes it special?

Gays don't want special... they just equal in the eyes of the law.

Ah. So what you're saying is that it's not about 'leaving Christians alone', but about forcing Christians to believe as they do. Thank you Ming.

What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for a school to teach the Christian faith. I'm not quite sure how you get there from arguing for homosexual marriage, Ming. What does the one have to do with the other?

As usual, you just make stuff up when you are wrong. One more time, the School board simply pulled their license for a perceived violation of the constitution. They have multiple options to stay open. And if they close, it will be the school's decision. They are NOT BEING FORCED TO CLOSE. And, I have not said a single thing that you just claimed I said.

[Jon Miller]

Well, the real question is, "why should the state recognize their choice of relationships as marriage, and not others?"

What about homosexual marriage makes it special?

If you assume that some people are homosexuals, which, despite some recent studies, is still the position of the majority of researchers, then by expanding the definition of marriage to include two men and two women you end up with ~10% more marriages. This results in a more stable, productive and healthy society and a better future for the members of that society.

JM

[Jon Miller]

So ... vestigal arranged marriage at best. (Sounds like the arranged marriage was called off, and then a consensual marriage ended up happening.)

Arranged does not mean nonconsensual. All arranged marriages are consensual, at least among the educated Indians (the ones I would know).

Arranged means that the partners are picked by the families. It doesn't mean that the individuals do not have a veto or any choice in the manner.

I also think that you also should count the case where two people meet at school and one suggests to their family that they (the family) should arrange their marriage to the other person as an arranged marriage because the picking is still done by the families (it is just suggested by the individuals).

How many millions (billions?) of teenage (and sometimes younger) girls have been sold into abusive relationships by their family?

How many millions (billions?) of teenage (and sometimes younger) girls have been manipulated into abusive relationships outside of cultures where arranged marriages take place?

It doesn't seem like arranged marriages are the problem here.

JM

[Aeson]

Arranged does not mean nonconsensual. All arranged marriages are consensual, at least among the educated Indians (the ones I would know).

As I said ... vestigial at best. And you're cherry picking at that as there are many non-consensual arranged marriages that occur. In any case, it's the wrong word to use if it really is consensual. It really is nothing more than the family giving advice if it's truly consensual. (Also, "consensual" in practice often means the girl being threatened or browbeat until giving up her hopes and dreams and bowing to the will of the family.)

How many millions (billions?) of teenage (and sometimes younger) girls have been manipulated into abusive relationships outside of cultures where arranged marriages take place?

I am not upholding "manipulated into abusive relationships" as a good thing. You on the other hand hold up arranged marriages as the ideal.

It doesn't seem like arranged marriages are the problem here.

Hand-waving away problems because there are other problems isn't going to work.

[The Mad Monk]

If you really believed raising kids and getting married are actually societal issues, and not something that should be left up to personal choices, then you would support government telling people who to marry and how many kids they should have ...

That works under the assumption that the government knows best.

[Proteus_MST]

That works under the assumption that the government knows best.

Actually, under a similar assumption, a dictatorship is the best form of government.
You just need to always have dictators which try their best to govern for the benefit of all their citizens
and also have the necesssary wisdom, knowledge and intelligence, to actually make plans that can stand the test of reality
(which also means that Trump would make a rather bad dictator ... considering that he actually fulfills none of the points I mentioned)

[MJW]

I did a little research and the Liberal party doesn't like them quoting the Bible. LOL If they could do that they could do anything and that clause in the Canadian Constitution doesn't do anything. Having said that I still look down on Ben's arguments in a condescending way even though they are stronger. Because morality is vague and based on feelings and finding ways to make yourself look good after the fact (not logic) there is going to be an easy way for the Court to give the "right" team the victory. The only way for a Confederation to be stable is to have a blanket ban on the Federal government doing anything involving morality to stop them from weaseling in. So the Confederation guys were just suckers and there's nothing to fight over.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would say that it is quite normal if the state has a say in the teaching plans of schools that receive public funds.

This is a difference between Canada and Germany. Canada has constitutional protections for Catholic schools, which are permitted to teach Catholic doctrine, unlike all those other things that you referenced which are not Catholic doctrine.

[Ben Kenobi]

Because morality is vague and based on feelings and finding ways to make yourself look good after the fact (not logic) there is going to be an easy way for the Court to give the "right" team the victory.

All schools teach morality. The question is what morality the schools ought to teach, which is a conflict addressed by the Schools question, and one that was considered long ago. It was determined that there was value in preservation of religious minorities in English speaking Canada, particularly the Catholic schools.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you assume that some people are homosexuals, which, despite some recent studies, is still the position of the majority of researchers, then by expanding the definition of marriage to include two men and two women you end up with ~10% more marriages. This results in a more stable, productive and healthy society and a better future for the members of that society.

Given that the overall marriage rate in Canada has declined, this argument carries no water.