News

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory has touched off a furor with his controversial proposal to give public funds to faith-based schools.

A Strategic Counsel poll for The Globe and Mail, published earlier this week, suggests more than 70 per cent of voters oppose the policy.

"The fact is, people are really objecting to it," said Tim Woolstencroft of Strategic Counsel.

"They just don't want religion to be mixed with school funding."

The poll found that 71 per cent of those surveyed said they totally oppose having the province fund Jewish, Muslim and other religious schools.

Those opposed include voters of all political stripes as well as 69 per cent of those described as visible minorities. Only 26 per cent of those polled support the policy.

But Mr. Tory says he has no intention of backing down. He told reporters he believes that most Ontarians will eventually come to understand that funding for faith-based schools is a matter of fairness and of principle.

"Are we to the point now where nobody in public life any more can take a position of leadership on a matter or principle?" he asked on an Ottawa radio show.

"I wouldn't have come into public life if I thought it wasn't possible, indeed necessary, for people to take a position on something they thought was right."

Each of the three main Ontario party leaders have kept the issue in the limelight during the Oct. 10 election campaign.

But what has been somewhat lost in the sound and fury on the campaign trail is the issue of whether — or which — religions actually want public funding for faith-based schools.

So, to shed some light on that subject, globeandmail.com has invited a panel from the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Evangelical, Jewish and Muslim faiths to debate the issue and to take questions from our readers.

We have asked the panel to write short essays — most of which are now published — on the question of what their creeds say in general about the education of children, and what position their faith has taken on the question of public funding. Those short essays can be read at the bottom of this page and on subsequent pages.

In addition, the panel members have all agreed to answer questions from our readers. Those answers will be posted online no later than 2 p.m. EDT tomorrow (Friday).

Check back at that time to read their answers.

The members of our panel are:

Michael W. Higgins is President of St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B., and Past President of St. Jerome's University in the University of Waterloo.

Dr. Higgins is a broadcaster, author and co-author of numerous books and CBC Ideas series, including Heretic Blood, The Muted Voice, Power and Peril and Stalking the Holy.

Jennifer A. Harris is an Anglican Christian. She is assistant professor of Christianity and Culture at the University of Toronto.

Her teaching interests include Christianity and contemporary popular culture, sacred space, and the Bible in medieval society.

Lorna Dueck, an Evangelical Christian journalist, writes a monthly column for The Globe and Mail.

She also hosts Listen Up TV , a weekly newsmagazine on spiritual perspectives in current events, seen Sundays on Global TV, and Thursdays on CTS, Salt and Light TV and Christian Channel.

Rabbi Ed Elkin has been the spiritual leader of the First Narayever Congregation in downtown Toronto since 2000.

Born in New York, he graduated from Princeton University and has worked or studied in Canada, the U.S. and Israel.

Sheema Khan also writes a monthly column for The Globe. She has a Masters degree in physics and a Ph.D. in chemical physics from Harvard. She has worked in R&D, is an inventor and has worked at law firms in intellectual property law.

Ms. Khan also served as chair of the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-CAN) from 2000-2005.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Before we begin publishing the mini-essays and going into the question-and-answer mode, let me explain a bit more about the focus of this online debate and discussion. Several readers, including Sean W. from Toronto and Bill Wilson from Taiwan — I guess the issue has wide appeal outside Ontario — have asked the legitimate question of why there are no atheists or non-religious people on this panel.

The answer is fairly simple: We have published many articles on this issue and we have published thousands of reader comments on it from all sides of the political and religious spectrum. We will continue to do that. For those of you who wish to read those articles and those comments, please visit our Ontario Election 2007 Page

The focus of this debate and discussion is on what the religious communities themselves think about Mr. Tory's proposal.

So let's get started with the short essays on the question of what their creeds say in general about the education of children, and what position their faith has taken on the question of public funding.

Dr. Michael Higgins: The Roman Catholic Church has a long history of commitment to educating the young in the faith, recognizing — irrespective the structures and institutions available to ensure that ministry — that parents remain the primary educators of their children.

The Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms the principle that parents have an inherent right to choose an education for their children based on their faith.

Many Roman Catholics choose to educate their children through specifically Catholic agencies — publicly funded schools, private academies, partially funded parochial schools, etc.

But many other Catholics elect to have their children educated in the public school system, providing for their faith formation via parish and catechetical programmes.

In other words, there is legitimate debate among Catholics about the ideal way to educate their children.

Many Catholics, parents and educators, choose the public system as their preferred vehicle for instruction opting for religious education by other routes.

Catholic schooling, however, remains a vital and indispensable component of the Catholic tradition and bears witness to the high value the church attaches to the effective transmission of an integrated and holistic value and belief system to the young. But it is not an article de fide.

Ideally, Catholic education operates on the principle of social responsibility, fully recognizing the importance of a genuinely multicultural environment and committed to the enrichment and not the impoverishment of the larger community by resisting the easy homogenization of values that many see, wrongly, as progress.

If what we treasure in Canada is the depth and perduring richness that comes from authentic diversity, why would we oppose public support for those institutions that underscore the gift that is the Canadian mosaic?

Catholic schools are not a threat to social integration, public school hegemony or a redoubt of privilege and exceptionalism.

Jennifer A. Harris: All children are precious in the Christian tradition and their education has been of paramount concern to Canadian Anglicans for centuries.

The creation of a public system of education in Ontario was not, however, the work of Anglican educators, but of Egerton Ryerson, a Methodist.

His vision for a secular system did not favour one religion over any other, yet did not preclude religious values from the public curriculum. No education system is value-neutral, even the public one.

I applaud Mr. Ryerson's vision. And I suspect that most Anglicans would agree.

Of course, there are those who send their children to private schools as a matter of choice and tradition.

But, as polls suggest, the existing public system is greatly preferred over the public funding of faith-based schools.

I believe that Mr. Tory's proposed plan undermines Mr. Ryerson's vision in two ways: It will rob the public system, while providing no real benefit to those seeking to educate their children in a truly faith-based system.

As I see it, the proposed plan will deplete the existing publicly funded system. As any teacher (or child) will tell you, publicly funded schools in Ontario need more money. The proposed funds could be better spent enriching the existing schools.

At the same time, the proposal will dilute the faith-based education its supporters so eagerly desire to promote.

Graduates of the Catholic system tell us that their education is not fundamentally different from that of the public system, with the exception of smaller class sizes, uniforms, and religion classes.

Thus, the provincial standards that will keep faith-based schools from veering from accepted public views on education will reduce the schools to shells of their former selves.

Instead of altering the existing system fundamentally, let us simply make room in public schools, as Mr. Ryerson did, for the diversity of religious views that exists in the province. And while we are at it, let's get class sizes down. Oh, and introduce uniforms too.

Lorna Dueck: Educating our children about God is a cornerstone of our responsibility as parents.

Jesus taught that children should not be stopped from spiritual discovery, and that all things of God belonged to them. (Matthew 19:13).

The Bible directs parents to take what is central to our Christian identity and "repeat them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are away on a journey, when you are lying down and when you are getting up again." (Deuteronomy 6:6.7, NLT).

The result would be that "the peace of our children will be great" (Isaiah 54:13).

In other words, they'd have a robust enough worldview that they could address the hard questions of life in satisfying ways. (Why am I here? Who is God? What does God require of me? etc.)

The goal of such education is to give children an understanding of responsibility, to both God and people, an education that results in character formation that includes love, gratefulness, duty and service to the betterment of humankind.

Faith education cannot be outsourced to schools, but is to be managed by parents.

But since parents are the owners of Canada's public education system, it's not surprising that they want fairness and Charter Rights applied in public funding when it comes to faith education.

They want input that the journey of school will include teaching about God.

Our Evangelical community statement is that we have "endorsed the principle of providing public funding for faith-based expression in education for almost two decades."

But there is not agreement among the millions of us on this.

Actually, there is quite heated debate — with some Evangelicals feeling they can do adequate faith education without addressing it at school and other Evangelicals feeling too much information and time is absorbed at school to leave faith out of that segment of a child's life.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Education of the young has always been an extraordinarily important value in Judaism.

While much education happens in the home, of course, schools have always been a central medium for the transmission of Jewish language, culture, history, values, and faith to the next generation.

Most synagogues sponsor afternoon/Sunday schools for this purpose.

But there are also many Jewish day schools where parents send their children for a more intensive Jewish educational experience.

These days schools are either sponsored by one of the movements of Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox), or they are independent "community" schools. Currently, there are 13,000 students attending Jewish day schools in Ontario. There are many more families who would like such an education for their children but cannot afford it.

Because the Jewish community is not organized as a hierarchy with one line of authority, there is rarely an issue about which there is complete consensus. The question of funding for faith-based schools is no exception.

By and large, the organized Jewish community has lined up behind the proposal to fund faith-based schools, and they have rested this support primarily on the issue of fairness.

Ontario is the only place in the western democratic world that funds one faith's schools to the exclusion of all others.

There are historical reasons why the educational system developed in Ontario the way it did.

But regardless of the past, it is clear that in the present, this system is terribly unfair to non-Catholic religious parents who want their children educated in their own faith.

All three parties at Queens Park favour maintaining the arrangement whereby Catholic schools are fully funded, and there is zero chance that this will change.

So, to be inclusive in the wonderfully multicultural Ontario we have become, the schools of other faiths must be treated the same way as Catholic schools are.

There is no reason to believe, proponents say, that kids who attend public Jewish schools, for example, would be any less tolerant or less integrated in society than kids who currently attend regular or Catholic public schools, or kids who attend publicly funded arts-based schools or alternative schools for that matter.

Jewish public schools would be similarly accountable for their adherence to the Ontario curriculum, teacher training, and standardized testing.

However, there are definitely individuals within the Jewish community who ardently oppose public funding for faith-based schools.

They do so primarily out of concern about the wellbeing of the public school system, a philosophy that says that school is an important venue for Jewish kids to mix with kids of other religions and cultures, as well as concern that the government may end up funding schools that preach extremist messages of hate.

Most Jews who do oppose funding would agree that the current system of funding Catholic schools to the exclusion of others is unfair. However, they feel it is unwise to compound the original "mistake," even if there is no political will to fix it.

Sheema Khan: In Islam, parents are responsible for providing their children with the proper framework to build a Muslim identity.

At the heart of this endeavour is an emphasis on knowledge of both the spiritual and the worldly.

Spiritual knowledge serves as the foundation for an Islamic education and begins with the monotheistic creed that there is no other god [in Arabic, "ilah"] except the One God [in Arabic, "Allah"].

The study of nature is encouraged since the natural world contains many signs of an all-encompassing, merciful Creator.

In addition, children are taught the second half of the creed, namely, that "Muhammad is the messenger of God," which provides direction on character development. Some of the more important character traits are humility, respect, modesty and compassion.

In addition, children are taught the basic five pillars of the faith, eg., the monotheistic creed, daily prayer (which inculcates remembrance of God), fasting during the month of Ramadan (children are not required to fast until they reach the age of puberty), the importance of charity, and the pilgrimage to Mecca (required for adults).

Like those of other religious groups, a portion of Canadian Muslim parents wish to place their children in educational environments that imbibe religious values in harmony with their Canadian identity. These schools also provide children with a strong sense of identity, community, along with civic engagement.

These are qualities that are important to many Muslim parents, who worry their children will lose their sense of identity if they are a minority.

In addition, these schools provide an environment conducive to daily prayer. During Ramadan, the schedule is eased for students who are fasting. A modicum of modesty (in dress and behaviour) is expected on the part of all students.

Census figures suggest that approximately 6% of Muslim children between the ages of 6-17 attend private religious schools in Ontario. Some Muslim groups have lobbied with other religious groups (eg Jewish and Christian) to have the Ontario government extend funding to all faith-based schools.

But, given that the Muslim community is anything but monolithic, some do not agree with this stance.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks very much to our panel for their thoughts on this important issue. Let's move now to the questions from our readers and their answers.

Steven Tassie, Bracebridge, Ont.: In an age when peoples, cultures, and faiths are becoming increasingly less tolerant and more polarized, wouldn't the prudent course of action be to provide schools where we can all come together and celebrate our similarities, rather than isolating our children and highlighting our differences?

If the public school system had a class informing students about all faiths, our children would have a better understanding and more tolerance of one another. What do you think?

Jennifer Harris: I agree wholeheartedly with Steven on the need for better education about diversity in the publicly funded system. At present, there is a course on world religions offered in Grade 11, but that is too little, too late.

I do not, however, accept two assumptions in this question: (1) that everything is getting less tolerant and polarized and (2) that education about diversity will lead to tolerance.

One can note many examples of increasing tolerance in our society, even in the face of difference. The media trade on conflict, so this is what we hear about every day. But, I am convinced that these conflicts are generally blown out of proportion.

As for the second issue, I believe in the importance of education. But I reject the common assumption that prejudice or intolerance is derived from ignorance.

We have to be careful when we assume this for a number of reasons: (a) it belittles those with whom we disagree by asserting that they are simply ignorant and (b) because it places too heavy a burden on formal education and denies the value of the informal in shaping social attitudes.

Lorna Dueck: Yes, this is my preferred way forward.

I agree that isolation of faith results in division amongst societal relationships. I'd like to see an advisory council on faith education established for each local public school and qualified volunteers from those faith communities be assigned to teach the curriculum.

I think this new step for public schooling could be lifted out of the burden of the public purse and owned by the faith groups in Canada who feel they care about the education of children.

When Quebec transitioned away from Catholic schooling, the need to address faith education was filled by positions called "religious animators," people who understood faith and made it accessible to students, but who were not staff members.

Wouldn't it be nice to give teachers another study session and turn the religious component over to a qualified religious teacher?

I don't think they'd be very hard to find. In my tradition, all Pastors are qualified with university degrees, many at the master's and doctoral levels, and are most capable teachers.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I'd like to respond based on my own personal experience.

I went through the public school system all the way, in a very diverse community with many different ethnic groups and religions represented in the school.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the different groups within the school tended to stick with their own kind. At times, there was outright hostility, although much more often there were simply different solitudes.

Certainly, there was very little "celebration of similarities." We sat in the same classes together, but that fact did not carry over to lots of mutual understanding and tolerance.

Maybe other schools are different, but this was my experience.

The place where I learned values of liberalism and tolerance was in the home, and that's where I teach those values to my own kids.

Sheema Khan: Hi, Steve. You bring up some very good points regarding the type of goals we would hope to achieve in our educational institutions.

In response to the first question, I would argue that our schools (public and private) are, for the most part, trying to achieve a balance between respecting differences and celebrating our common humanity.

In fact, at many Muslim schools, we often find a wide range of cultures and socio-economic backgrounds. These schools do not operate in isolation at all. Most — if not all — adopt the basic Ontario curriculum, have field trips and guest lecturers — all in an effort to learn about the world around them.

We sometimes forget that the student population at our public schools reflects the socio-economic class of the local neighbourhood. Unless the neighbourhood is diverse (in terms of ethnicity, race, faith, etc), students will most probably interact with "their own kind."

In response to your second question, I second your suggestion. The more we know about each other, about our history, about ourselves, the better off we will be.

However, we must not forget that each individual must first address the question: "Who am I?." This is a lifelong question.

As parents, we try to provide our children with a secure sense of identity, so that they will have the confidence and humility to embrace the natural diversity of our human family.

As an aside, Quebec is about to introduce an innovative component about spirituality/religion into its curriculum. Students from Grades 1—11 will learn, hands on, about the different spiritual traditions in our world, and be encouraged to explore and develop their own spirituality.

While most of our public schools focus on intellectual, emotional and physical development, Quebec seems to be the first to include the spiritual development of children. Let's see how it proceeds.

Charles Raymond, Windsor, Ont.: I personally agree with Mr. Tory that funding all religious schools represents the only fair solution to the current situation in Ontario.

However, I do object to funding any religious schools on the basis of separation of church and state.

If Ontario could eliminate the funding of Catholic schools, would this solution be acceptable to all your panel members as a way of restoring fairness in the treatment of all religious groups?

Lorna Dueck: Fairness would be to put religious expression back into public schools.

Provincial human rights codes and the Charter of Rights protect the expression of sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity and religion. But religion is discriminated against in public education.

On the basis of the state protecting human rights, the expression of religious belief should be allowed in public education.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: This solution would certainly be much fairer than the current system.

However, two thoughts on this idea: First, defunding the Catholic schools is not on the table now or for the forseeable future. Second, other than the fairness issue which this proposal seeks to address, is society so disadvantaged because Catholic schools are funded? I haven't seen evidence that it is.

About 600,000 students are currently in the Catholic system in the province. This system has been in place since before Confederation and I don't know that it's necessarily producing graduates who are less tolerant or who contribute less to the wider society than graduates of the regular public schools.

Quebec provides partial funding for faith-based schools, as do all the provinces to the west of Ontario to one degree or another.

The evidence suggests that it seems to work.

Sheema Khan: Hello, Charles. Thank you for bringing up the issue of separation of church and state.

This is a complex issue that has different shades of meaning depending on where you live. It is by no means a uniform concept in Western liberal democracies.

France, which is archly secular, provides funding for faith-based schools. Many U.S. States provide vouchers to ease the financial burden of those who choose religious schools.

And here in Canada, where education is within the provincial domain, five provinces (B.C., Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec) provide either partial or full funding for religious schools.

The key in these provinces is that religious schools are brought into the public system by adhering to provincial educational standards and requirements. Without such oversight, schools can pretty much operate as they wish. Is this what we want?

While I am a strong proponent of public education, I believe that we can be really inclusive by brining faith-based schools into the public system.

Eliminating funding to all groups (including the Catholic population) will simply result in faith-based schools operating outside of public oversight and accountability. These schools will not vanish. They have been operating for years without government funds and will continue to do so.

It also sends a not-so-subtle message to the minority that they are second-class when it comes to the educational choices of their children.

For all the hue and cry here in Ontario about impending religious ghettoes (if religious schools are funded), we need only look West and East to see that other provinces are doing just fine.

Jennifer Harris: I am not opposed to this idea. I accept the historical and constitutional argument for Catholic schools.

At the same time, the recent move in Newfoundland to eliminate sectarian education demonstrates that this can be done in a cooperative way that benefits all students in the province.

Patrick Clare, Toronto: It is apparently the most conservative religious people who seek public funding to inculcate their opinions in children. Not surprisingly, these are the believers whose sacred writings disparage gay people with the greatest vigour and contempt.

Why should the taxes of hundreds of thousands of gay people be used to pay the salaries of teachers who will enthusiastically vilify and abuse them? Why should the taxes of the families and friends of gay people — and the most tolerant Ontario residents — be devoted to such teachings on homosexuality?

Rabbi Ed Elkin: Actually, in my own community, I'm not sure that it's the most conservative elements who are pushing for funding.

The schools in the Jewish system cover a broad range of opinions, from the Orthodox all the way to the Reform, with a wide variety of opinions about homosexuality (and other issues) represented.

One way of looking at this proposal is to remember that tens of thousands of kids will be attending faith-based schools in this province — no matter what happens regarding government funding.

Right now, the government has little or no say as to what goes on in faith-based schools. However, if a school were to come under the public umbrella, it would be accountable to the ministry in terms of curriculum and teacher training.

Legislation could be worded so that schools which "enthusiastically vilify and abuse" identifiable groups such as homosexuals or others would simply not be eligible to come under the public system.

Some schools would presumably not want to make this "bargain" and would therefore decline public funding to remain independent, as they are under the current system.

My own kids have attended three different Jewish day schools in the city, and I am familiar with several more through the course of my work. They have all stressed the value of tolerance, both for its own sake, and out of the realization that it is in our interest as a tiny minority that Canadian society be as tolerant of difference as it possibly can be.

Not everybody shares this view of course, but lots of folks do and lots of schools do as well.

Sheema Khan: Hello, Patrick. Thank you for your question.

Once again, the argument is that public funding of religious schools will be bring them within the purview of public accountability, transparency and standards.

Teachers will be accredited and required to adhere by the provincial of conduct, where no group is allowed to be vilified or abused.

Interestingly enough, some religious schools do not want public funding, because they do not want to be told what to teach by the Ontario government.

There are parents of students within both the public and religious school systems who do not agree with homosexuality, and who will pass on their views to their children.

At some point, children will mature into adults and will have to make up their own minds on the issue.

The point is, that in our diverse society, we cannot let differences serve as a pretext for discrimination.

Jennifer Harris: I believe that public money should never be used to foster discrimination against gay people, or other minority groups.

At the same time, I accept that communities (religious or otherwise) should be permitted to discriminate according to their principles — for example, in membership or hiring.

It is not in the public interest to demand uniformity in all voluntary association but those that "must" discriminate should not at the same time be supported from the public purse in the form of tax benefits or direct funding.

Lorna Dueck: I think a voluntary advisory council on faith education for each school would capably handle this issue.

It would be expected that homosexuality education would continue to be part of the curriculum as it is now.

Phil King, Ottawa: A few questions I believe are on many minds:

How can you convince people that this type of homogenous atmosphere is a good primer to working and living is a diverse multicultural country like Canada?

Why does it not suffice to have select optional classes on particular religions in a public school setting taught by religious experts?

What is the justification for redundant overhead — i.e.. increased cost to taxpayers?

How do I know that these schools won't follow up science class with a religious creationism class deriding the very things they just learned in science class, with both funded by the taxpayer?

Sheema Khan: Hello, Phil. Thanks for your thoughtful questions.

I assume that your first question is based on the premise that religious schools are "homogeneous," while public schools are brimming with diversity.

I would argue that this not always the case. The make-up of a student population at a public school depends upon the make-up of the local neighbourhood.

Meanwhile, religious schools often have students from outside the locality, from diverse socio-economic backgrounds and — in the case of Muslim schools (I can't speak for other faiths) — a rich cultural diversity.

The school curriculum will determine to what extent a student is taught about the diversity of the world around her.

There are already public curricula that teach about different faiths to students. However, for some parents, their choice is to educate their children within a certain religious framework which they believe will serve them best to live in the world.

Why can't we be inclusive of this choice? Other provinces, other countries have with differing degrees of success. Why can't we?

As far as cost is concerned, my understanding of your question is that all students should be put into the public system.

If so, taxpayers will have to pay for the funding of about 53,000 new students [who are now in religious schools and get no funding] who would be put into the public system

Are you willing to pay that amount as a taxpayer? That question may be moot, since it is highly unlikely that all 53,000 will suddenly jump into the public system. They have been without funding for years, and will continue to manage.

With regards to the curriculum, if religious schools are funded, they will have to abide by the Ontario curriculum. If the school wishes to teach additional material, that is its choice.

And if students are exposed to differing views (i.e., creationism vs evolution), why is that a bad thing? They are emerging as critical thinkers, able to weigh evidence and make choices.

Jennifer Harris: I have already expressed my support for integrating religion into the public system.

I think, however, that religion should not be treated as an option, but as part of the core curriculum. I cannot think of a humanistic subject (history, literature, social studies, art, music) where religion has not played an enormous role. We owe it to our students to give them a sense of the importance of religion in the past and the present.

This does not mean instruction in the faith, but can include historical studies of religion and art or literature, and so forth.

From my comments, I hope it is clear that intelligent design belongs in the religion class (or in a sociology class), rather than in the one on biology.

Lorna Dueck: I think Canada is still in a phase where faith is treated in the public with fear, rather than respect.

Some of that has been caused by media and politicians who have used faith as a wedge issue, which is exactly how this important human right got launched into this debate over education.

When the only time we explore faith is as a wedge issue to score polling points during electoral races, we miss other realities about faith — like the reality that on any given weekend, there are more people gathered in places of worship in our country than in movie theatres and sporting venues combined.

They are gathered to be inspired and equipped to live beautiful lives in Canada and the world.

The result of all those lives gathered to worship God and then returning to jobs, schools and places of influence is this type of "homogenous atmosphere" that you refer to as a good primer to working and living.

In church language, we call that atmosphere "love one another" and it is the litmus test of Christianity.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: I suppose that the main justification for the extra overhead that would be incurred is that it's already being incurred for 600,000 Catholic students in the promise, so why shouldn't it be incurred for 13,000 extra students in Jewish schools?

I don't have statistics for other faith-based schools, but their families also deserve whatever funding Catholic families receive.

As for creationism, part of the bargain with this proposal is that schools would have to agree to follow the Ontario curriculum. In science, that includes evolution.

I'm not sure exactly how the Tory proposal is worded, but here's how I see it: If, in a religion class, a particular school wanted to teach Intelligent Design as well, then that's what their parents are choosing for them. But they would have to teach science seriously and if there are provincially mandated standardized tests, the students would have to know the material well enough to write and succeed in those exams, including evolution.

God Free, Kingston, Ont.: Who gets to determine what constitutes a religion/faith? Should Wiccans, Satanists, Pagans, Scientologists or any other group which claims to be a religion be entitled to public money to run their own schools?

Jennifer Harris: This is yet another argument against the Tory proposal.

Anyone can start or join a religion, but this does not mean that they should have access to public funds.

Lorna Dueck: If this discussion in Ontario's election race results in separate schools for every different expression of faith, then we need to follow the example set in Western Canada where public funding is given to religious schools.

The same qualifications for what should determine a "religious group" have to be met — groups that can actually muster the amount of population and expertise to support meeting the provincial standards for qualified education.

If the discussion results in bringing faith into public education, then the small faith groups you refer to should have exposure in the curriculum.

It may be helpful to review the Canadian Census that shows our country is not splintered all over the map on belief. Religions in Canada, a 2003 Statistics Canada report shows those holding no religion are at 16%, Christian 76%, Muslim, 2%, Jewish 1%, Buddhist 1%, Hindu1%, and Sikh, 1%.

Rabbi Ed Elkin: This is an excellent question. I believe that the Tory proposal imagines a commission which would study questions like this and make recommendations, presumably based on experiences from other provinces.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: We hope to post the remaining answers soon.

Dr. Higgins does want to make this comment on a point raised in both the reader questions and the comments on this article.

Michael Higgins: I am struck by the endless repetition of the current mantra that any incursion by religion into the public domain constitues a threat to social harmony and public peace. Keeping faith private — securing it firmly on the periphery of the public arena — is hardly a guarantee of universal concord.

Being a person of faith — religious faith, that is — does not put one at odds with "society." Rather, it can be a principal means by which one defines one's obligations to society.

The widely held perception that when the creed rules, the screed rules is not without merit and foundation, but it lacks discrimination and nuance.

Catholic schools, in my experience, have contributed and continue to contribute to social peace and Canadian ideals of tolerance and mutual respect. The "products" of these schools in Ontario are legion.

Why is their witness so easily discounted? Are they fanatics in disguise? Where is the "proof" that their Catholic education has actually made them enemies of integration?