Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 15, 16, 17  Next  

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 17
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Swan Song





Joined: 19 Jul 2007
Posts: 133
Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7Reputation: 26.7
votes: 1

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Religious funding is not an issue that even ranks for me, if Tory can pitch me some targeted tax cuts I will be right there first in line on election day voting for Tim Peterson.


Don't worry, he will promise you that, but las with all of his other promises, he will have his fingers crossed behind his back. His policies are incoherent. and his candidates cover a lot of territory all over the political map. If he were to win, he would not be able to govern. The best case scenario is for John to hold McGuinty to a minority, but lose in DVW so we can get put the C back in the PC Party.[/list]
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7436
Reputation: 297.4
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swan Song wrote:
Quote:
Religious funding is not an issue that even ranks for me, if Tory can pitch me some targeted tax cuts I will be right there first in line on election day voting for Tim Peterson.


Don't worry, he will promise you that, but las with all of his other promises, he will have his fingers crossed behind his back. His policies are incoherent. and his candidates cover a lot of territory all over the political map. If he were to win, he would not be able to govern. The best case scenario is for John to hold McGuinty to a minority, but lose in DVW so we can get put the C back in the PC Party.[/list]


After McGuinty and his sub >10% promise kept record, I don't see how Tory could be all that much worse.

After your comment I actually took the time to thumb through the "Plan for Ontario" and I wondering which policies you find incoherent?

http://www.johntory.ca/documents/Plan_for_Ontario's_Future_060907.pdf#cover

Generally speaking the mandatory minimums for gun violence and toughening up the youth justice act seem to be very viable,

The concept of actually placing the onus on the MPAC to justify an increase in my property tax, capping the increase in property tax at 5% a year seem reasonable.

Eliminating the health care premium also seems fairly possible after reviewing the last Ontario Budget.

The Fiscal Accountability for every ministry seems to be the item that interests me the most that I think would require a while to implement, but having a quarterly report made public into the spending habits of each department would be something I would be interested in.

The Conservatives also seem to be the only ones who are not considering "expanding highways" to be a derogatory term which again is very viable because our current stance of "Mass Transit in 2018" does little for me and my commute today.

I think rather then "incoherent" I would use the term "Meat and Potatoes" there is nothing flashy within the platform although many functional promises.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
torian wrote:

If it is not feasible, it might not be done.


You don't actually believe that, do you?

Quote:
As for pandering, given the relatively small number of people using FB schools (something like 53,000) compared to the amount that use Catholic and public schools, I hardly think Tory is doing this for the votes. He may just be doing it on principle. It is NOT fair to fund one faith and not all (this is coming from a non-religious person). And I have trouble with takng away a right once granted (can you imagine at one point in the future taking away SSM because poligamists now want the same right to marry more than one person?


I don't see Catholic Schools being funded as a right...
There is no right to get the funding, it has just been extended to them previously. The answer is simple; cut all government funding for FBS. Why should the state be paying for any sort of religious education; particularly when religions already receive massive special tax breaks.


Like it or not, Chrisitanity was a big part of Canada's history and we (Christians) were promised that our beliefs and the Catholic schoolboards would be PROTECTED by LAW. Now I'm all for immigration and celebration of other cultures, but let's get one thing straight: Once you start opening the doors a crack, the floods begin to rage. More and more demands! And more and more rights will be taken away from people who BUILT this country.

Have we not learned our lesson on how poorly planned, short-sighted and naive policy can hurt our country????? JUST LOOK AT THE DAMN CHARTER and how it has been abused!!!

Now you suggest we take AWAY and RENEG on a PROMISE given to Christians who helped to BUILD this great country just because our country is gracious enough to open the doors to immigrants of different religious beliefs and are not only tolerent of them, but celebrate them?

........hmmmm

My grandparents came here from Poland to make a better life and to escape during WW2. Did they come here with DEMANDS?? Hell no. They came here with HOPE and a DESIRE to contribute to Canada. And if that meant INTEGRATING in some way, they were willing to do so, as a proud new Canadian.

These days, more and more immigrants come here knowing how to "work the system" to their favor and come with demands to conform to THEM and THEIR beliefs.....

Excuse me?????? I don't think so.

I personally love what Kennedy's famous speech said: "Ask not what your Country can do for you, ask what you can do for your Country".

...but I suppose I'm extending myself a little beyond the original topic...(yet related).
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biggie wrote:
I don't see Catholic Schools being funded as a right...
There is no right to get the funding, it has just been extended to them previously. The answer is simple; cut all government funding for FBS. Why should the state be paying for any sort of religious education; particularly when religions already receive massive special tax breaks.

In several provinces, including BC, there are only two systems: public and private. The private schools (including faith based schools) are partially funded on a per student basis but those parents who choose to opt out of the public system pay for their choice. The Supreme Court of Canada supports that funding formula. There is no constitutional guarantee for funding of Catholic school boards.

Since the province has a mandate to ensure quality of education, they review the curriculum of private schools and hold provincial exams. The teacher's union (BCTF) absolutely despise both the funding of private schools and the provincial exams. That tells me both are good ideas.

-Mac
evilfrosty101





Joined: 08 Mar 2007
Posts: 2
Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7Reputation: 6.7

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As time goes by more and more people are going to demand a fair system. Immigration is increasing and we need it to support a growing economy. Thus it is going to happen anyways. We can go two ways, fund all religious schools or none at all. I want 0 funding of any religious schools, I believe that would be the best option instead of funding many different religious schools. That is as far as I want to go, just to make it fair.

The Ontario government continues to grow, municipalities are small governments and are increasing taxes or at least trying too; to fund the increasing amount of government programs.
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
biggie wrote:
I don't see Catholic Schools being funded as a right...
There is no right to get the funding, it has just been extended to them previously. The answer is simple; cut all government funding for FBS. Why should the state be paying for any sort of religious education; particularly when religions already receive massive special tax breaks.

In several provinces, including BC, there are only two systems: public and private. The private schools (including faith based schools) are partially funded on a per student basis but those parents who choose to opt out of the public system pay for their choice. The Supreme Court of Canada supports that funding formula. There is no constitutional guarantee for funding of Catholic school boards.

Since the province has a mandate to ensure quality of education, they review the curriculum of private schools and hold provincial exams. The teacher's union (BCTF) absolutely despise both the funding of private schools and the provincial exams. That tells me both are good ideas.

-Mac


Mac. You are partially wrong. ONTARIO and QUEBEC are protected under the BNA act which specifically protects Catholic-funded schools. There will be a HUGE fallout both in Ontario and Quebec if this so-called "promise" isn't kept.


Last edited by TorontoCon on Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I went on about religious a few weeks back on my blog (http://sfrank85.btblogs.ca/200.....s-schools/). I am in favour of religious schools to be funded. I think that John Tory does not go far enough however in his funding of religious schools. The curriculum in Ontario is poor at best. I find it unfair that people who want to sent their children to religious schools can’t. These people pay their fair share of taxes, yet have to settle on the public system because of the already high taxes they pay in this province.

It really is insulting to hear people talk about how these children who go to religious schools will turn out to be bigots. As I look at it, we have a societal problem in our school, and liberalism is the root cause of this because it teaches kids not to respect authority, and this is a creation of the public school system. Also the catholic school system in Ontario has also become very secular and even anti-Catholic in some opinions.

I can not, and will not vote for McGuinty, because he is a lying cheat, who sends his kids to private catholic schools because he can afford it, but will not allow middle class or even low income parents to send their children to religious schools.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also have to question your sanity if you are to pick McGuinty over Tory. Both are social liberals, but looking at Tory’s track record in business, and looking at McGuinty’s broken promises, Tory is the obvious choice. Plus, a large number of his caucus is from the Common Sense Revolution days, and I am sure that he will not alienate them from the picture. You would rather elect a person who lied to us all on TV then elect a person who turned the CFL into what it is today, and turn Rogers into one of the biggest and most successful corporations in Canada?
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LOL. Well I'm not really a CFL fan....

In the end it will likely wind up a Liberal minority. At least Tory's education policy won't get passed and the Liberals will be held more accountable.

I'm OK with that. As a matter of fact, as long as the Tories keep their stance on education, I'll continue to vote against them, no matter who's at the helm.

And of course, I'll remain loyal to the Federal Conservatives. In Ontario, there doesn't seem to REALLY be a clear line between Provincial parties anways... It's a joke really...


Last edited by TorontoCon on Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
Mac. You are partially wrong. ONTARIO and QUEBEC are protected under the BNA act which specifically protects Catholic-funded schools. There will be a HUGE fallout both in Ontario and Quebec if this so-called "promise" isn't kept.

The BNA Act was superseded by the Constitution Act in 1867 and the "promise" you're referring to is Section 93 of that Act which reads:

Quote:
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:--

(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:

(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:

(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:

(4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section.

93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec.

The Constitution Act of 1982 superseded the Constitution Act of 1867 which empowered Ottawa to enact the Canada Act, repatriating our Constitution.

In other words, the existence of faith based schools, both Protestant and Catholic, is recognized in the former Act and, according to that Act, governments cannot prevent them from existing. To my knowledge, there is no "promise" of funding in the new Constitution and there doesn't appear to be a promise of funding in the previous Acts. So how am I partially wrong?

-Mac
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:07 pm    Post subject: TorontoCon's comments Reply with quote

I think you are over-estimating the work of faith in the creation of this nation ; The people who began this country did so not for their religion, but for their respective empires.

I will have you recall that in fact one religion did not found this nation, several did. But moving beyond this very simple fact, our country has since changed and adopted a more church-separated role of the state.

To me, it would seem as if funding these schools will result in the state interfering with their religious teachings. All the while, my tax dollars will be going to pay for other people's religious "indoctrination".

And yes, I AM proposing reneging on that offer of funding... YES I think it is fair, and NO i don't see why my money should be going to pay for someone else's personal religious choice!

You can cram the founding of this country where the sun don't shine, because that is irrelevant in the here and now. This is not the country it was in 1867. And for that I am extremely happy.

If you want to consider how this country should be based on how it was created over a century ago, then you must also feel that we should basically be slaves to the queen and great britain. You must feel that we should not have our own military, we should share the flag of the british empire and that we should be bound to do their bidding when so called upon.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with those things. I don't agree that we have to be pandering to the religious (of any denomination). I don't think that there is a place for government funded religious institutions, and I don't see this as a "christian-only" nation.

As far as I am concerned our "christianity" as a nation ends at the point where we respect the religion, we celebrate its holidays and recognize many of its traditions. There is no freedom of religion if only one is sponsored by the state.

Let those who want to send their kids to these religious institutions pay for it..
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I respect your opinion but thankfully in our democracy, I can vote against it.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
I respect your opinion but thankfully in our democracy, I can vote against it.


likewise 8)
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice to see people acting like adults. Strangely, I don't miss a certain over-the-top socialist who used to infect this forum.

-Mac
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
All the while, my tax dollars will be going to pay for other people's religious "indoctrination".

And yes, I AM proposing reneging on that offer of funding... YES I think it is fair, and NO i don't see why my money should be going to pay for someone else's personal religious choice!


What about the taxes that the people who send their kids to religious schools pay to the government?

When the Public and Separate school boards were created one was for Catholics and ones was for Protestants. They used to read bible passages and say prayers in Public school as well as in Separate. The Public board has removed God from the classroom and the has been taken over by the products of our leftwing university system.

Ontarians pay alot to educate their children. Some of it comes from general taxes(income tax, sales tax). Alot comes from property tax. About 40% of the property tax bill is education tax. Religious people benefit from an educated populace and need to support the public board in some way. But a tax voucher equal to the amount they pay to education on their property tax to help with the cost of sending their child to a religious school is a fairer way of handling this than full funding.

That way no one can say their taxes are paying for the religious to send their Kids to religious school. It would be the parents own taxes that are doing it.

And I agree with you biggie.

Quote:
To me, it would seem as if funding these schools will result in the state interfering with their religious teachings.


In a perfect world there would be one school board. Dalton doesn't have the guts to do the right thing and get rid of Catholic schools, but his rant about religious schools being bad for society is pure hypocrisy and aimed at getting votes from the progressives in the PC party.

How come there is no outrage that he won't rescind the health tax now that there is a surplus. I guess that thing is here to stay!
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Page 2 of 17

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 15, 16, 17  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


I hope John Tory loses.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB