Alberta private school to appeal human rights prayer decision

[Seth1968]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/69...ayer-decision/

A private secular school that's being forced to accommodate a flavor of sky daddy. WTF?

Why would you even enroll your kids there if you're a religious nut? Oh wait, that Muslim thing some of us have been talking about? It's happening.

Further to that, let's say my religion is Satanism. I want that school to provide a room for our rituals.

[benz_890]

So what's wrong with allowing the kids to pray, it literally takes 5 min and is done silently so they are not bothering anyone?

[austic]

The school argued in its original appeal in Court of Queen's Bench that the boys' parents were told Webber Academy was non-denominational and there was no space in the school for praying.
"We just have a separation of the practice of prayer from the education here," Webber said.

So basically you can sign you kids up to a school that does not allow religion and then complain when your kids cant practice said religion?

I see this the same as someone sending their kids to catholic school then complaining there is too much Catholicism involved.



I agree with the school that they should be able to operate as they choose considering they are private and you can choose to send you kids there if it matches you personal beliefs...if not there is tons of other choices.

[gretz]

Originally posted by benz_890
So what's wrong with allowing the kids to pray, it literally takes 5 min and is done silently so they are not bothering anyone?

My religion states I should be able to smoke a hoolie when I want to... Just takes 5 minutes... I'll try not to cough. Not bothering anyone has nothing to do with me caring whether it inconveniences anyone for any reason or not.

[01RedDX]

.

[blownz]

Religion and school should be completely separate IF it is publicly funded. I don't even like the Catholic/Public system we have now. If the government funds it, it religion should be out. People have Sunday's or the rest of their time to practice religion. For 5-6 hours a day Monday to Friday our kids should be taught.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by austic
The school argued in its original appeal in Court of Queen's Bench that the boys' parents were told Webber Academy was non-denominational and there was no space in the school for praying.
"We just have a separation of the practice of prayer from the education here," Webber said.

So basically you can sign you kids up to a school that does not allow religion and then complain when your kids cant practice said religion?

I see this the same as someone sending their kids to catholic school then complaining there is too much Catholicism involved.



I agree with the school that they should be able to operate as they choose considering they are private and you can choose to send you kids there if it matches you personal beliefs...if not there is tons of other choices.

Yup. If you have to pray, don't send kids to Webber.

I think this will keep school's integrity. If you have to pray, go to one that prays.

It's like someone want coke and goes to restaurant that serves Pepsi and throw a hissy fit.

[turbotrip]

Originally posted by 01RedDX


When they first enrolled the kids they asked if they could pray for a few minutes when required, and were given permission but the school later reversed their decision. So the kids would go outside or hide in a corner but the school still said they would not be allowed back. That is why they complained, they aren't 'forcing' anything because their request caused no undue hardship to the school. The school did not abide by the law, which actually requires them to accommodate reasonable religious requests. The families are the ones who are adversely affected, which is why the tribunal ruled in their favour. Good luck with this appeal, they're going to need it.

[g-m]

There should be no time, allowance, or tolerance for prayer in a public or stated secular school IMO.

[ragu]

Originally posted by Seth1968
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/69...ayer-decision/

A private secular school that's being forced to accommodate a flavor of sky daddy. WTF?

Why would you even enroll your kids there if you're a religious nut? Oh wait, that Muslim thing some of us have been talking about? It's happening.

Further to that, let's say my religion is Satanism. I want that school to provide a room for our rituals.

In that case you should say that your religion is satanism and practice your beliefs without them impacting me.

If a school is private it doesn't mean it can climb fall back a century and introduce whites only toilets. There is a reason there are various improvements in regards to human equality and religious freedom - it's so when political climate turns to shit, folks like you can't force everyone to be like you. Live and let live man.

[gretz]

Turbo and red, where should we draw the line? I'm assuming more than 2 Muslims attend here. If they are the only 2, it's for a reason... If there are more than 2, guess what starts happening? "And since they are all praying, it wouldn't be fair for me not to practice my beliefs"...

[kertejud2]

Webber would still get public money through the controversial per student allocation to the argument that they're exempt from the laws of the land that say reasonable accommodation must be made for people's religious beliefs and practices because they're private just doesn't hold water even if you ignore the idea that private entities are exempt from that in the first place.

[sputnik]

I find it ridiculous that private schools get public money in Alberta.

[ExtraSlow]

Huh, I had no idea that the concept of the money following the student was so controversial or unpopular.

My kid is in the "regular" program at a regular public school these days, but if they ever end up somewhere else, I would have no problem with the funding following them.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Huh, I had no idea that the concept of the money following the student was so controversial or unpopular.

My kid is in the "regular" program at a regular public school these days, but if they ever end up somewhere else, I would have no problem with the funding following them.

I'm baffled why you wouldn't think using public money to subsidize private institutions competing with already underfunded public institutions would be anything other than controversial.

Of course you wouldn't have a problem with the funding following them, it means you don't have to pay as much.

[ExtraSlow]

I'm apparently baffling. I've been called worse.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, and to be honest, i don't even really know how the system works today. But I always assumed the goal was the educate students using public funding. If that's the case, it seems simple that the money follows the students.

If the goal is to fund "public institutions", then it makes sense to send all the money to the institution, and who cares where the kids go.

[ickyflex]

Originally posted by ExtraSlow
I'm apparently baffling. I've been called worse.

I'm certainly no expert on the subject, and to be honest, i don't even really know how the system works today. But I always assumed the goal was the educate students using public funding. If that's the case, it seems simple that the money follows the students.

If the goal is to fund "public institutions", then it makes sense to send all the money to the institution, and who cares where the kids go.

You are talking to the guy who thinks the bike lanes were a great idea. Don't bother.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by kertejud2


I'm baffled why you wouldn't think using public money to subsidize private institutions competing with already underfunded public institutions would be anything other than controversial.

Of course you wouldn't have a problem with the funding following them, it means you don't have to pay as much.

I think the misconception is that by removing funding from catholic and private schools, the public system will be better off by receiving the funding that used to go to the private ones. That assumption would only hold true if the number of students in the public system stayed the same after the funding was pulled from the private sector, and given to the public.

However, if subsidies were pulled from the non-public systems, the vast majority of students would be forced into the public system due to financial costs much like other provinces. The way the setup is now, makes it affordable enough for private dollars to enter the education system and relieve some of the costs to the public, all while respecting parental choices.

[sputnik]

If private schools weren't taking money from the public purse perhaps they would be able to have more say as to what goes on in their school.

Unfortunately due to the public funding side of private schools in Alberta, issues like this hit the media with much more volume because everyone who pays taxes now has "their" money in the issue.

Manitoba hasn't funded private schools since 1890 (in fact a law forbids it) and you never hear about stuff like this because it doesn't concern the public.

[Feruk]

They should expel the students and be done with it. Send a nice warning for the next person to contemplate complaining. Don't like the rules? Go elsewhere. Don't like it when rules change? Go elsewhere.