|
By Jim Coggins
“Canada: We have a problem. Citizens of this country are being torn apart over
some long-cherished Canadian values: Multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance.
The problem is the values that many Canadians enthusiastically promoted in the
1970s are being employed to finance schools that critics believe are not
particularly multicultural, diverse or tolerant.” – Douglas Todd
In two columns last October, Vancouver Sun religion columnist Douglas Todd exposed Canada’s “nasty little divisive secret”: that taxpayers are funding religious schools.
Todd pointed out that religious schools in B.C. receive 50 percent of the
operational funding that public schools receive and that when tax breaks are
considered, that funding could be as high as 66 percent.
He noted “a majority of Canadians oppose the public funding of religious schools,” citing an Angus Reid survey saying 51 percent of Canadians oppose public
funding of Christian schools and about 70 percent oppose public funding of
Muslim, Hindu, Jewish or Sikh schools.
The opposition is greatest in British Columbia, perhaps because of the funding
of the “controversial Mormon polygamist school” in Bountiful.
In his articles Todd referred to a September 20 sermon by Rev. Steven Epperson
of the Unitarian Church of Vancouver that stated, in Todd’s words, “some promoting religious schools are twisting ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ to advance fear, raise money and demonize other Canadians.”
Todd also cited the most recent study of Canadian teenagers by sociologist Reg
Bibby, The Emerging Millennials, to demonstrate that “teens attending independent religious schools are learning different values than
other teenagers.”
For example, only 29 percent of students attending non-Christian religious
schools would choose to live in Canada (compared to a national average of 54
percent).
Only 12 percent of students at Christian independent schools approve of
homosexuality (compared to a national average of 44 percent), and even fewer
Christian school students approve of abortion.
On the other hand, such students are more likely to value hard work and honesty
and care about world poverty.
Todd’s arguments are “nonsense of the highest order,” contended Fred Herfst, executive director of the Federation of Independent
School Associations.
He suggested the argument amounts to the idea that “religion leads to intolerance.”
Continue article >>
|
The opposite may be true. A recent study of 400 public and Church of England
secondary schools by University of York professor David Jesson showed that
secondary schools with a religious foundation contribute substantially more to
the promotion of community cohesion (by 11 percent) and the provision of
equality of opportunity for students (by nine percent) than public schools.
Herfst was unaware of the British study, but knows of North American studies
that show similar things. He also cited abundant anecdotal evidence that
graduates of Christian schools have “contributed fabulously to the well-being of our society as a whole.”
He suggested Todd’s complaints were similar to those made against Trinity Western University’s teacher training program a few years ago. A court case found no evidence of
the graduates being intolerant.
Herfst suggested Epperson’s sermon was of more concern than Todd’s columns, noting that it attacked “anyone who is faith-based” (particularly “fundamentalists”) and included a “rant” against Prime Minister Stephen Harper that would not be found in sermons in
Christian churches, which generally try to keep politics out of the church.
Herfst suggested that it was ridiculous to accuse British Columbia’s independent schools of intolerance when FISA itself is made up of Jews,
Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Sikhs and atheists all working together.
“It isn’t the belief you hold, but the approach you take to people who don’t hold that belief,” Herfst said.
“Disagreement does not necessarily lead to intolerance.”
February 2010
|
After having read your article on religious schools, I was left wondering if Mr Herfst actually read my sermon. First, I did not single out the "faith-based" in my remarks; rather, I objected to public funding of private schools--religious and secular. I believe that the diversion of public funds to support private schools erodes public education and does not advance the "common good" of our society. Second, I did not "rant" against Mr. Harper; I was drawing critical attention to remarks he made in 2003 where he demonized "the modern Left" for what he mistakenly called its "rejection" and "rebellion against all forms of social norms and moral tradition." In this brazen and incorrect statement, it was Mr. Harper who was politicizing the realm of morals and norms, and doing it by trafficking in highly intolerant language. (see his published remarks to the "Civitas" meeting in Toronto, April 25, 2003)
The next time you quote someone attacking me in print, I would appreciate it if you would check whether his/her remarks are accurate, and perhaps inquire, before you go to print, whether I would want to respond. Is that still part of journalistic ethics/procedure?
Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Steven Epperson
Unitarian Church of Vancouver