I am very, very much out of practice at my drinking though. I might need to get a pinch-drinker! (Fortunately, I know just the guy.)

As far as beer goes, I am due for another trip out east. We had a lot of fun last time. Then we can have a real discussion. Last one sitting at the bar wins!

Still, with the 2000km gap, we probably can’t just run down to the local for a pint, so I’ll have to try to avoid potentially inflammatory language. That’s tricky for me, since I’m all about the hyperbole.

My fundamental issue with the separate school board in Ontario is a Charter one: freedom of religion means no State-sponsored religion, so either thier should be no publicly-funded religious schools, or there should be a system for all religions. Having just one sect of one religion funded publicly is inherently unfair. And, since I’m quite sure that separate-but-equal is not at all the same thing as equal, that means there should be no state-funded religious institutions.

I suspect we’re not in disagreement about that at the level of constitutional principles. Your disagreement seems to be more pragmatic.

This analysis gets coupled with my basic disrespect for religion as something that is at its core anti-rational–I mean religion is all about “faith” which is pretty much anathema to “reason”–which leads me to argue even more strongly that there shouldn’t be government-funded religious institutions. I like reason. I like the metaparadigm of constantly improving paradigms, none of which is “right”, but each of which is “righter” (or at least more useful than the last).

(It may be possible to say that my believing this makes me an extremist–in the sense, I guess, that recognizing that religion is fundamentally anti-rational is a minority position–but I think that it’s generally a mistake to equate me with religious extremists. A religious extremist and I may both hold our opinions with equal passion, but there’s a difference of kind: mine are based on reason and subject to change upon receipt of new information or analysis. Theirs, by definition, are anti-rational being based on faith, and at some level are not subject to change. At some point you decide whether you’re going with reason, or with faith, and it’s not possible to analyze whether or not you made the right choice without first having made a choice, since the tools of analysis are different depending what you chose. While I don’t think this is as laugh-or-go-insane-funny as Kierkegaard did, I recognize the truth of it.)

So I’m already predisposed to want to get rid of the separate school board.

Then they go and do something like this. Banning books is bad enough–hell, in my mind it basically equates to evil–but banning books because they promote athiesm? I mean, come on, how fragile does your religion have to be that you’re worried that reading a young adult book offers a real threat to it? If it’s not sturdy enough to weather that assault, how is it supposed to survive things like the theodicy problem?

So now I’ve got an institution that I already think shouldn’t exist, and it’s both offering a platform for the extra special idiots to make their complaints and acting on those complaints in a way that i see as being actually harmful to the children it is supposedly responsible for.’

So yes, my reaction is “Hell, shut it down already”.

(Tangent: it never ceases to amuse me that groups that do these things don’t realize how counter-productive they are. What’s the best way to make a lot of kids read a book? Tell them it’s too dangerous, or dirty, or violent, or whatever, for them to read. Best way to get a movie all kinds of publicity?? Organize a boycott. Hell, every article I linked to mentions the books have a forthcoming movie adaptation. The complainants are generating free publicity for the very thing they are objecting to. This cracks me up. It does not make me any less annoyed with the complainants.)

Now, on to your specific points:

Chris, I don’t know where you got the idea that I think only the Catholic school CAN teach the things I mention. My point was that the public schools DON’T and make no effort to do so. Yes, people can be just as mean coming from either system, but I would prefer a system where we at least try to teach kids the consequences of their actions. If the public schools actually tried to do this, I would be all for a single public school system. The point is they don’t, and so I can’t support not funding a separate school system.

See, this baffles me. If you recognize a problem with, or gap in, the public school curriculum, wouldn’t the obvious solution be to fill in the gap or solve the problem? The fact that you don’t suggest this is what lead to my conclusion that you think only a religious institution could do this (or else why not just fix the problem you perceive with the public system), and my conclusion that you’re OK with only some kids getting what you think is a necessary education (because you think it would be insupportable for separate school kids to lose this element, but you don’t seem to have a problem with public school kids not getting it.)

Additionally, I may have been reacting to what I see as an implicit premise of yours (which may not be there at all–damn lack of body language and nuance!) that it’s somehow automatically in the remit of a religious organization to teach right/wrong and responsibility.

Whether you meant it or not, I vehemently reject that proposition–and that’s where my “boogeyman” rhetorical shorthand comes in. Religious morality, at least as far as the various monotheistic religions go, is always based on doing what’s right in order to get a reward from, or avoid a punishment from, the divine being. Do the stuff God says is right and go to Heaven, do the stuff God says is wrong, go to hell. Do what’s right, or the boogeyman will send you to the bad place.

(As an aside, I’m not sure how you made it through 14 years of Catholic school without ever being afraid of Hell, unless you just didn’t believe the basic tenets of the religion. If I thought that certain actions would result in my eternal and unending torments, I’d be too terrified to move at all. )

My position would be that we absolutely need to teach responsibility, that actions have consequences, and that there are ways of determining what right and wrong are. And further, that religious instruction is exactly the wrong way to do it. You can’t teach that your decisions and actions have consequences AND teach that everything is part of God’s plan. You can’t teach someone how to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong if you tell them the answers are all written down. You certainly can’t teach them to understand, empathize with, and respect others if you are also teaching them that only people who believe in a particular myth system are right and good, and everyone else is not.

Finally there is this:

The attitudes you cite and write about are not what the majority of Catholics believe or stand for, in the same way that the majority of muslims are not terrorists.

I actually go in cycles about this. Sometimes I think that if people want to have a nice, quiet religion, and believe some stuff without bothering me about it, or trying to force it down other people’s throats, then that’s OK with me. I mean, I’ll be suspicious of those people, since they’re either choosing to be anti-rational, or else (worse) they’ve never even thought about it enough to realize that they’re making that choice, but whatever. Some people choose to have mullets, and I’m kind of suspicious of their faculties as well, but it doesn’t stop me from treating them like people.

Lately though, I can’t ignore it so much, since someone extremist person is always trying to force the issue on something (vis these books, and especially the US Catholic groups organizing the movie boycott, but also the thousand other examples that hop immediately to mind). And while the bulk of the group may not agree with the extremists, the relationship lends them credibility. Most Americans don’t agree with what Bush is doing, but I would argue that every American is responsible for it unless they are actively doing something to stop it, since he’s acting in their name, on their behalf, representing them. I see the relationship between religious extremists and the body of the religious group as being similar.

And frankly, after the whole gay marriage debate, and Sunday shopping debates in Nova Scotia, and so on ad nauseum, I’m pretty sick and tired of most moderately religious people too.

One other thing that is only tangentially related that I would love to talk about over a beer is what you think it actually means to “be a Catholic”. I know a lot of people who self-identify as Catholic, but who reject a whole lot of the basic tenets of the religion. Can you be Catholic if you don’t believe that the wine literally turns into Christ’s blood? Can you be Catholic and support gay marriage? Can you be Catholic and use birth control? Can you be Catholic and be pro-choice? Can you be Catholic and think you can get into Heaven without confessing? Can you be Catholic and not believe in Hell? In an afterlife generally? Can you be Catholic and not believe in the existence of a literal God? There’s a very interesting discussion to be had about what it means to self-identify with a religion but to not actually believe central dogma of that religion. There’s an air of hypocrisy, obviously, but there’s also the question of the role of religion as community versus religion as doctrine.

That would also lead into a discussion about whether or not religions and formal Churches can evolve. To me the idea seems risible; albeit no moreso than religions themselves–if you believe that your religion contains the “word of God” it seems hard to justify the idea that the rules might change over time–since God is all-powerful he wouldn’t change his mind, since he would never have been wrong in the first place. If you believe that the Pope speaking ex cathedra has inherited the mantle of St. Peter and is this infallible, it’s hard to reconcile that with the possibility of evolution, since he can’t make a mistake either.

The daVinci Code won’t be banned because it probably never made it into the school libraries - it wasn’t a good enough book. There has been a lot of backlash against it though.

Chris, I don’t know where you got the idea that I think only the Catholic school CAN teach the things I mention. My point was that the public schools DON’T and make no effort to do so. Yes, people can be just as mean coming from either system, but I would prefer a system where we at least try to teach kids the consequences of their actions. If the public schools actually tried to do this, I would be all for a single public school system. The point is they don’t, and so I can’t support not funding a separate school system.
You know, your comments make you out to be as extremist as some of the people you lambaste on a regular basis. I don’t mean it as an insult, but I want to point out that only listening to the extremists in any group is going to put you off. The attitudes you cite and write about are not what the majority of Catholics believe or stand for, in the same way that the majority of muslims are not terrorists.
I mean come on: “the big boogeyman”? I attended Catholic school from kindergarden to OAC and never once (that I remember) someone say anything that made me even a little afraid of God.

Oh, and I while I see what you’re doing, your comparison to the Da Vinci Code makes me cringe, since The Golden Compass is a very well-written book, while Brown’s book is… well, as Stephen Fry said, “complete loose stool-water” and “arse gravy of the worst kind.”

While I have not read the Da Vinci Code, I did catch the movie. I don’t remember it well, but does this book not suggest that the entire Catholic Church is a giagantic conspiracy? If I am remembering correctly, it makes me wonder how it is possible that this book remains on shelves while Pullman’s books are not. I think I will make a call to the Halton District school board to complain. The board appears to be following the policy that if someone complains, they pull the book until they have time to review it.

Now, however, with this banning of the book - and it’s not just the work of a few religious zealots because the system is in place within the board to support the zealots when they get fired up (and I suspect it’s not really zealots who have asked for the ban, it’s most likely ignorant parents who think that they need to hide the real world from their kids in order to get them to believe in Catholicism) - I have to say I have finally been driven to anger at the separate school board of Ontario and embarrassment that I’m a product of it.

Of course these incidents on their own aren’t enough to support the notion that the separate school board has to go. They are just another illustration of why we should not have public funding for religious institutions–a complaint about a book on the grounds that it’s atheist or anti-religious wouldn’t be a grounds for action in any secular institution. The results of such a complaint in a religious institution are… well, see above.

I made the argument in the other post about why it’s ridiculous to have public funding at all for any religious institution, much less for only one religion’s institutions. This is just a slight addendum to that.

As to your final paragraph, it seems to imply that it’s important for all children to learn “right from wrong”, “how to live a life where they could contribute to society” “life skills based on respect for their fellow human beings”. I’m all for all kids being taught that. I reject, emphatically, the notion that in order to do this we have to introduce a giant boogeyman in the sky. I’m also dubious of your implicit contention that the Catholic school board accomplishes these goals, while the public one does not–I’ve known lots of people who came up in both systems, and anecdotally I’ve seen no evidence that either group did better in terms of the things you cite. You also seem to have an implicit premise that it’s OK for only the children in the separate school board to learn these important things, since you seem to be saying that only the Catholic boards teach them, and you’re ok with the current system. That seems odd to me.

If public schools taught children right from wrong and how to live a life where they could contribute to society, and taught life skills based on respect for their fellow human beings, I would be all for getting rid of funding for the Catholic school board. However, I do not see this in Ontario.