Odd Infinitum: May 2011

Right now, I am holding a ball. It is a rather interesting ball. Some may even call it a magic ball.

If you were to be able to see me right now, you might say, "you are not holding a ball, your hands are empty". That is because this is an invisible ball, and you cannot see it with your bare eyes.

You may reach into my hands, feel nothing but air, and ask me, "if you are indeed holding an invisible ball, why can't I feel it? Why is my hand going right through it?"
You being unfamiliar with the ball, I'd have to explain to you that this ball cannot be felt due to the strange properties of its atoms.

This ball also cannot be detected by radar, because radio waves go right through it rather than bouncing off. It cannot be detected by infrared, X-ray, ultraviolet, gamma or microwave detecting devices for similar reasons. No known wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum has interacted with this ball in a way that anyone on Earth can observe with current technology.

The unknown substance or substances that the ball is made of do not seem to react with any other known substance.

My magic ball is odourless. Even as I bounce it against my wall, it is soundless. It has no discernible taste.

It is highly compressible and can become a point mass if placed in an area of limited space.

Nonetheless, the ball exists. While I cannot prove it, I am sure of it. If you beg to differ on the subject of the existence of my magic ball, that is perfectly fine, but remember, unless you find a way to disprove the existence of my magic ball, my belief that the ball exists is just as valid as your belief that it doesn't and both of our beliefs have the same level of plausibility.

If you develop a new method of detection and still cannot detect my ball, then it is possible that your invention is simply not advanced enough for the task.

I will spend the next few hours playing with my magic ball.

Now, most reasonable people would tell me that my claims of a magic undetectable ball are ludicrous and would not believe them. Even if they could not disprove the existence of the ball because of my numerous ad hoc qualifications, the onus would not be on them to disprove my ball, but rather on me to prove it because I am the one who made the claim.

As Bertrand Russell illustrated with his hypothetical teapot, the burden of proof lies on whoever is making the new positive claim and not whoever is refuting it, because any claim could shield itself from repudiation by being careful to add enough ad hoc hypotheses.

If not for this, if I were to maintain that leprechauns indeed do exist, I could come up with countless reasons why we have not seen evidence of them. Leprechauns are much smarter than humans and can avoid detection. Leprechauns simply do not want to be found by us, so we will never find them. To this date, there hasn't been conclusive evidence that leprechauns do not exist.

Using enough ad hoc hypothesis would render my leprechaun claim unfalsifiable and unverifiable. In terms of reasoning and logic, unsupported unfalsifiable or unverifiable claims are generally not considered valid or scientific because they are impossible to test or observe.

When asked by theists why I do not hold their beliefs in a deity, I usually respond that there is simply not enough proof of the existence of any sort of god to convince me. Too many times, they will respond with "Well, you don't have any proof that there is no god, so your position isn't any more justified than mine."

But claims of the existence of a deity are impossible to disprove. There is no onus on me to disprove them in order to justify my position. It is on the theists to provide evidence for their position, which they are yet to do.

If I tell them that I cannot see god, they say, "well, of course not, he doesn't have a physical body!" If I tell them that my prayers go unanswered, they will respond, "that's because God has a reason for not answering your prayers right away!" An ad hoc hypothesis for every argument.

If belief in a deity is considered just as valid as non-belief, then belief in my magic ball is as valid as non-belief.

Like many developed Western nations, one of Canada’s core political values is religious freedom. However, the extent of Canada’s religious freedom and equality is vague, as Section Two of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while allowing freedom of conscience and religious practice, does not explicitly state that the church must be separated from the state in the same manor that the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution does.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Fundamental Freedoms)

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

   The omission of such a clause has allowed since 1620 the public funding of the Roman Separate Catholic School District in Canada.
                Historically, the way the separate school system worked was this way: in provinces that had a Catholic majority, people of the Protestant faith had the right to set up a separate school district. In provinces of a Protestant majority, Catholics could set up a publicly funded separate school system. No other faiths have this right.

                Why are these two religions the only ones with the right to establish separate schools in Canada? The answer lies in the European colonization of Canada. The early settlers were predominantly Christian. The Seven Years War (1756-1753) ended with the British Army and Navy’s victory over the French army at Battle of the Plains of Abraham (1759), leading to the Treaty of Paris (1763). As the British feared a French insurrection, they granted the French settlers a set of special rights in order to appease them. One such right is the ability to establish separate Catholic schools, the preferred Christian denomination of the French, despite the predominant denomination of the victorious British being Protestantism.

                Protestant schools had been replaced by the secular public school system since the 1960s. This leaves the Roman Catholic School system as the only publicly funded faith school system still active in Canada.

                During the 1990s, many provinces abolished publicly funded faith schools. Today, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario are the only provinces that continue the practice.

Why publicly funded faith schools should be abolished:

Equal Rights- In a nation that affirms equal rights and freedom of conscience, it is socially and morally unjust to allow public funding for some religious institutions and not others.

While the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees free exercise of religion but stops short of promising disestablishment, it is impossible to have true freedom of exercise without disestablishment. No group can truly be considered free when they lack the rights of another group.

In 1996 (Adler v. Ontario), Susie Adler took up the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, demanding that Ontario recognize Jewish Canadians’ right to receive a publicly funded faith school board and have equal legal rights to Roman Catholics. The Court ruled against her. This only re-cemented that the Canadian government does not value cultural equality,

The Roman Catholic School System is also legally allowed to openly discriminate against non-Catholics. Non-Catholics students must receive special permission to enroll in a Catholic school. Teachers and instructors must be practicing Catholics in order to teach in the Catholic School District and must present a faith letter signed by a Parish Priest, a “Declaration of Faith and the Practice of the Ministry of Teaching in a Catholic School” (also signed by a Parish Priest), and a certificate of Baptism into the Catholic Church in order to be eligible for the job. This is clearly in violation of Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, “Everyone has the right to equality before the law and to equal protection of the law without discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age or sex.”

Multiculturalism- As the purpose of the Roman Separate Catholic School System is to separate students of Catholic faith from others, attendees of Catholic schools do not learn to cooperate and interact with people of other cultures the same way attendees of public schools do. As students tend to meet most of their friends through school, a student who attends a Catholic school is less likely to befriend people of other religions than a student who attends a secular school is. This is adverse to Canada’s official policy of multiculturalism. Young people accustomed to the homogenous environment of a Catholic school will have greater difficulties integrating into Canada’s cultural mosaic.

Year Seven Religious Material

Indoctrination- Students who attend a Catholic school are instructed to worship in the Catholic faith in their curriculum. Taxpayer money is being allocated to an organization that teaches students a mixture of fact and dogma. Activities such as prayer and mass are compulsory. Students who do not complete the religion course are forbidden from attending their own graduation ceremony. Information taught in the religion courses is often biased, incomplete, and without objectivity

Students who attend Catholic schools are at risk of not enjoying the same wealth of health education secular students enjoy. For example, the sex education is presented from an “abstinence only” standpoint, completely ignoring safe sex precautions. Contraceptives such as condoms are only mentioned in the context of their failure or incompatibility with Catholic teachings. Studies show that young people who are not informed about safe sex are at higher risk of contracting STIs and conceiving at a young age.

Excerpt from a Religion 20 Instruction Book

                The Calgary Catholic School Board opted out of vaccinating fifth grade students with the HPV vaccine, fearing that it would “encourage promiscuity”, despite the fact that sexual intercourse is not the only channel of contracting HPV. As a result, less than 20% of female Catholic School students received the vaccine, while over 70% of female secular school students were vaccinated. This may be due to the high cost of the vaccine, which amounts to $150 dollars if not received through the school. Bishop Frederick Henry stated that the Calgary Catholic School Board’s decision was meant to put the decision in the hands of parents rather than the school. However, in secular schools, the vaccine still required parental consent to be administered.

                Students who attend Catholic Schools are also discouraged from expressing views contrary to those of the Catholic Church’s. In 2011, seven students were suspended from their Catholic school in Thunder Bay, Ontario, after wearing “pro-choice” shirts and pins during a school-organized “pro-life” event.

                Unnecessary expenditure- The two-school system costs more to sustain than a one-school system would. Resources are thinned out in order to support two parallel systems. A common sight in cities such as Calgary is two schools located within a short proximity of each other. The funding of separate staff, resources and facilities creates an unnecessary lag on the education system and makes it less efficient.

Why has the separate school system been allowed to continue?

                While the matter has been taken up to the Supreme Court of Canada many times, the Supreme Court cannot abolish the system because the right to separate schools is enshrined in the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867 and is reaffirmed in Section Twenty-Nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada still has not moved away from the archaic model of religious education established by the early pioneers.

What is being done to solve the issue?

                The United Nations Human Rights Committee has twice found Canada in violation of human rights protocols for its permission of separate faith schools and has urged Canada to "eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario."

                The One School System Network, a coalition of teachers, civil rights activists, and secularist and religious groups have rallied to put an end to the public funding of separate religious schools.

                Former education minister of Alberta David King is a prominent voice in advocating the end of public funding to faith schools in Alberta. You can sign his petition at http://www.separateschooleducation.ca/petition.php.

What is the best way to solve this issue?

                In order to promote complete religious equality, either all faith schools must be publicly funded or none of them can be. As it would be infeasible and economically disastrous to create a separate school board for each faith, privatizing all faith schools is the ideal decision.

                Parents should have the right to educate their children in their faiths, but this should not be done through public funding. Parents have the responsibility to handle such matters by themselves.
                Canada needs to affirm the separation of church and state by adding a disestablishment clause to the Charter. This will put to rest further issues of religious inequality once and for all.