Impossible people and Private Healthcare

There are moments that just let you know you’re not going to have a good day. Usually these moments involve impossible people.

A good example is gum in the hands of a mean spirited, disrespectful, self-indulgent boy. There are people who just can’t stop. They can’t honour the feelings of others, they won’t follow rules, and they mock anyone who tries to steer them right. They are bullies of a particular sort and teachers dread them. Here’s a perfect scenario to explain these “impossible people”:

Girl comes to teacher and says “Ms B, Johnny put gum in my hair”.

“What?!” teacher exclaims and marches over to Johnny. “Johnny, did you put gum in Sally’s hair?”

“No” he declares.

“Johnny, she said you did” queries Mrs B.

“I didn’t, I don’t even have gum” he says after a hard a deliberate swallow.

“Um, Johnny, you owe Sally an apology. That is disrespectful and it will take her a great deal of time to get it out, if she even can.”

“So?” says a now defiant Johnny.

“Johnny, make a choice. Apologize or pack up your things and go to the office”

“You can’t make me, I didn’t do it …… Eloise did it. Ask her.” Sneers Johnny.

“No she didn’t!” shouts a tearful Sally.

“Yeah she did, ya dumb b*tch!” spits Johnny.

“Whoa! John! Language!” Squeals Mrs B.

“It’s not my fault!! She made me! She’s lying! Sally always lies to get me in trouble. But you can’t make me go to the office! And besides, Eloise did it!!” shouts Johnny.

…….

This, in case you have failed to recognize it, is an impossible situation. Johnny did it but no one actually saw. It wouldn’t matter if they did because Johnny’s Mother threatens legal action every time her son is sent to the office, and accuses the school constantly of lying about her son. (Because clearly Schools enjoy punching the Kindergarteners in the Bathroom and flushing their milk cards down the toilet just to “set up Johnny because they don’t like him” to use his Mother's words.) Meanwhile she lets Johnny stay up as late as he wants, gives him every piece of electronic gadgetry available, insists he needs to play Angry Birds in Math (because he’s too smart for Math and is bored ….. illustrated clearly by his solid D grade), and packs him Coke and a Snickers every day for lunch. (But yes, the problem is, clearly, the school.) Furthermore, Johnny has discovered Eloise. Johnny cruelly poking fun at and blaming Eloise for everything has become his new obsession. Eloise’s biological mom smoked crack her whole pregnancy and Eloise wears a helmet. Her response to everything, ever, is “Yes. Yes please. Weeeeeee.” Her Foster Mother, Roxanne, is a loving, frankly saint of a woman, who is devastated by Johnny’s constant scapegoating of Eloise. Johnny’s Mother has already called Roxanne a “stupid cow” twice, once at the Christmas concert (so clearly things are going well). This situation is impossible because of impossible people. Why do we accommodate them?

Children like Johnny feel completely entitled to do what they want. Always. Rules aren’t for them. Some outgrow it I’m sure (or at least I hope), but many don’t and they become those impossible people who refuse to follow even the most logical rules of society on principal. They are the “I’m a better driver when I’m drunk”, “If you’re only going to do 55 in a 50 zone then you deserve my Escalade up your rear bumper”, “And then that stupid Cop tried to tell me I couldn’t park in the Crosswalk” kind of folk. They seem to have no sense of fairness, and what’s worse is that they regard those who strive for equality and justice as weak. Where do you begin explaining such a concept to someone who has no goodness in them?

And so in walks ‘for profit’ Health care. There is no smooth or unbiased segue into this topic for me. 


By 1966 Canada had installed a clear program of Universal Healthcare to all the Provinces. And since then, governed by some set of rules or another, Canadians have had pretty good Universal Healthcare. It covers approximately 2/3 of what Canadians “spend” on Healthcare. The system is, at its purest level, a system of ensuring essential and basic Health services are delivered equitably. No one with more power or money can get better or timelier care than someone without. Simple. Good. And, I always thought, very Canadian. Enter the bullies. The impossible people. The ‘I won’t follow your rules’, ‘I can do what I please’, Healthcare marketeers. And rules weren’t meant for them. "There is money to be made and if you all are too stupid and weak-minded to see that then it’s your loss. They won’t let a little thing like ethics or justice get in their way. Ideals are for losers." …….. How do you talk to people like that? Where do you begin? How do we make this situation anything other than impossible.

In 2009 2 reputable polls were conducted showing strong preference for the Canadian Universal model of Healthcare or the American model of Healthcare at 82% and 92% respectively. “Strong preference”. In 2011 one of the same research pollsters reported that 53% of Canadians favoured and Mixed model of Public and Private Healthcare. Oh but in 2010, just 10% thought “finding out of pocket” solutions to fixing healthcare was agood option (as opposed to “finding efficiencies”, and “investing more health dollars”.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5680

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4910

I don’t think the polls are congruous enough to make them meaningful. More importantly polls don’t interact, or talk about consequences. A poll does not teach, inform, explain, and I do not believe they reflect anything of importance at all. A poll does not analyse the outcome of opinions merely tries to capture them, but the questions are increasingly wildly leading and only allow for quantitative answers with no room for grey area or debate or “BUT what ifs?” ….. just press 5 if you strongly agree, press 4 if you somewhat agree. But the polls are affecting us …… we are letting them. 

Our leaders are taking action based on polls that don’t seem to accurately reflect what we actually feel, and we are not speaking up. We are so painfully Apathetic that I don’t think we could articulate an thoughtful informed opinion if our lives depended on it ……. And they just might. 


In India this week http://www.indiawest.com/news/5690-5-day-old-baby-dies-after-being-taken-off-life-support-over-rs-200-fee.html

A premature infant girl was removed from her incubator and allowed to die because her impoverished parents could not afford the corresponding 200 rupee (less than $4) electricity charge. The North  American For Profit Healthcare system  proudly insists they are not like that. They are superior in morality because that would not happen. Except sometimes it does. Sometimes timely care (or care at all)  is denied because patients can’t pay.

http://www.wcl.american.edu/journal/lawrev/52/zito.pdf

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/preventive_care.html

Homeless people are often loaded into ambulances or worse taxis and dumped at other Hospitals because they weren’t welcome at the first. People have died. “Oh! but not a little premature baby, we would never do that” …….. No, probably not. They just send a bill. And her big brothers have to drop out of their out of their school because Mom and Dad can’t afford the charter fees, and they stop eating meat or milk or fresh vegetables, and then the car payments slip, and then the house. By the time they have moved in with her grandparents, her Mom and Dad’s marriage is over. ……. But the HMO and Hospital didn’t take her off life support....

No. Canadian Healthcare is not perfect. But it won’t improve if we let the people with money and influence opt out. There is truth in that statement. I know you see it. We need to take a stand. Apathy is the new cancer, and it’s eating us alive. It is said we won’t know what we had until it’s gone. Truer words could not be spoken. We need to have this conversation now, and take a stand on what we want for Canada. It is important.

I found a great quote the other day. "The death of Democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." ~ Robert Hutchins

Democracy only works if the people are informed. Who informs them? How do we turn people back on and engage them? Will we realize that once it’s gone, we can never get it back ……. We haven’t so far. Not with control and ownership over our utilities, forests, natural resources, water, …… is our Healthcare for sale too? This is a biggie. Do we just roll over and give it away?

We have become so grossly apathetic I am now almost embarrassed to call myself Canadian. Over 100 000 Canadians died in the World Wars for something. An ideal, really. They stood for what was right. Now you can’t rally Canadians to stand for anything. What a pathetic legacy; what a sad time. What will it take? Were those soldiers strong and decent and moral to care, or were they foolish and weak to give themselves to an ideal or a moral stance?

Do we really just let the Impossible people win?

My 2005 open letter to Canadians on the same sex marriage debate.

I wrote this piece in the Spring of 2005 .... sent it to everyone of my Political representatives ..... never got a response. Funny how we just can't seem to move past this ........... still opposition here and the US is embroiled in it. When do we STOP being so willing to throw away perfectly great people? 

Dear Fellow Canadians,

 For months now I have read with fascination the various opinions and arguments on the same sex marriage debate.  Obviously this is an issue that has gripped Canadians and challenged their very core beliefs.  This debate has played out in a non-violent, relatively respectful manner.  BUT enough is enough.  This country, this world, has ‘far bigger fish to fry’, as my paternal grandmother used to say. 

I can’t imagine what she would have thought of all this, the world of her day was governed by set morals and social conventions and that was that.  Looking back at her time (she was born in 1905) it seems a narrow, oppressive time.  After all, in her lifetime she saw Chinese Canadians, First Nation peoples, and ‘oh yeah’, WOMEN get the vote.

I remember a story about my Grandmother that is rather relevant.  She was an accomplished cake maker, and she baked a beautiful wedding cake for a couple in Nanaimo sometime in the 60s.  She did it despite much harsh criticism from neighbours and townsfolk.  You see, it was an interracial couple: one white, and one Chinese.  Many disagreed with their marriage celebration, luckily the law did not.  After the wedding they bought my grandmother a modern kitchen scale as a Thank-you.  It remains in my mother’s kitchen to this day, a tangible reminder of doing the right thing, even if it means going against the morals and conventions of the day.  By today’s standards we think, how can that be?  It wasn’t THAT long ago!  But I’m sure this same scenario played out in countless towns and communities across Canada in the 60s.  Historians caution us not to judge past cultures by our modern one, but let’s face it: we do.  How then, will the Canadians of the future judge us and this debate over same sex marriage?

I am, happily, in a very traditional heterosexual marriage.  I have even chosen to put my career on hold while I stay home to raise my 1, soon to be 2 children.  Allowing same sex couples to legally marry does nothing to my marriage.  It does not improve, nor diminish its status.  We chose to marry rather than live common-law, we choose to have a joint bank account, we chose to raise children, I chose to take his name, and I choose to clean the bathrooms, because he chooses to do the laundry and the dishes.  WE define our marriage, not the government.  We simply chose to include a legal marriage in our relationship.  So I feel the redefinition of marriage to include same sex partnerships can’t “impoverish” marriage, people do that, not laws.  If we truly want to nourish marriages and families, we can shore up our eroding social services, and expand and advance the rights of children.

The arguments against same sex marriage set forth by religious groups are passionate and well intentioned.  These groups are, of course, entitled to their opinions.  It has already been stated that no religious body will be forced to perform same sex marriages, so to be frank; it is really of no consequence whether or not they endorse them.  They can choose to participate or not, but they must realize that their arguments are being used to validate the sentiments of those who have much hate in their hearts.  This debate has many sides, but there is no room for bigotry and hate in this, or in the laws of this country.

It seems to me that many Canadians who oppose this, really only object to the word marriage being applied to same sex couples.  They really aren’t against homosexual unions or rights.  It might seem a fair compromise to propose a new word, but extend all the other rights and responsibilities of marriage, just not call it marriage.  After all it’s just a word, right?

Women did not get the vote until 1918, and despite some limited opportunities Canadians of Chinese, Japanese, East Indian, and First Nation heritage were not given the vote until 1960, and could not exercise that right until the 1963 election.  Now, let’s pretend the right and responsibility of the vote was granted, but not the word.  I can not imagine my husband going to ‘vote’, while I went to exercise my ‘equal choice’.  Can you imagine the election results divided into ‘votes’ versus ‘equal choices’?  Imagine the politician’s post election comments.  Different but equal IS NOT EQUAL!  I would ask that all those who are really just opposed to the word marriage being redefined to “let it go”.  I believe that no reasonable person really believes that this change of definition opens the door to incestual marriage, polygamy, or people marrying their pets.  It’s time to do the right thing.

The government may need to push this through before the Canadian people feel ready.  This will ensure that human rights continue to advance in this country.  Let us not forget that certain foreign interests are spending like crazy to exert their political will in this country and it makes it difficult to decide this issue for ourselves as Canadians.  If the bill fails, how will it look in the future?  If the bill passes and this issue is used to force an election, a real possibility with this minority government, then history will record that our 21st Prime Minister was ousted over the same sex marriage debate!  What will that say about us in our time?  How will history judge us?

Little boxes.

Brilliant. I love the creativity of this song. I love the creativity of this video. I love the creativity of this band. And then I feel sad because the message of this song is not lost on me. And then the blurry, vague line between living within the rules and norms that keep us all safe, and simply bowing to conformity overwhelms me. And then I feel sad that we have collectively lost the drive to create and express ourselves in divinely personal ways and that the only way left to define ourselves seems to be this wheel of mindless consumption. And then I feel angry that so many of the people around me can't see human success beyond brand names and dollar signs ..................... and then I eat some chocolate and drink a glass of wine and that feeling goes away ................ a little. ;)

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.walkofftheearth.com%2Fvideo%2Flittle-boxes&h=eAQFVfmbVAQEotIvbhkKXV6l5VXKb6qZDQ415-UcH5opEjw

Hey neighbour ..... won't you be?

I try to live my life focused on the positive and I remind myself daily how very lucky I am to live in such a safe and engaged community. But here’s the thing: something always seems to ‘pop up’ that makes me ‘pop off’. Now, I’m no conformist but I don’t view rule following as weakness. Following the rules is how I keep myself, and you, safe at the same time. I don’t get up every day promising to make the world better for anyone, but I can at least not make it worse. That, for the most part, is within my power.

At the risk of being wearily sentimental, I think of Mr. Rogers and his song about neighbours and neighbourhood, when I think about the ideal community. “It’s a beautiful day in this neighbourhood. A beautiful day for a neighbour.” A group of people invested in each other’s safety and happiness. But then I go outside. The people of my community seem to get behind the wheel, and shut their neighbours off. As soon as I leave the house I see the drivers of our community break the rules about speed, about driver distraction, about safety and courtesy. I ask myself what is it that causes them to disengage from the people around them?

When I grew up, in the very neighbourhood I live in now, I trusted my neighbours to look out for me. I would head out on my orange bike with the banana seat and believed my neighbours would follow the rules that would keep me safe. Flash forward to today and I know I don’t trust my neighbours; I don’t trust them to put my child’s safety ahead of their time or convenience or impulse. I find myself grumbling that it is because they are selfish or that some deep character flaw causes them to risk our safety and their own. While I strive to be an optimist, I am far too often pessimistic. I forget that they are my neighbours and suffer the same stresses and trials as I do. That the rules of the road have simply not become meaningful to them because they have not engaged with their neighbours.

Fred Rogers, in addition to being “Mr. Rogers” was a beautiful writer and speaker. He believed deeply in the capacity for goodness in human beings. He said “how sad it is that we give up on people who are just like us”. So I choose not to give up. This Spring I would like to remind you to slow down, take care, and remember that roads are not built for cars but for people. I have decided to believe we can do it. So what is the least you can do for a neighbour? “Won’t you please, won’t you please? Please won’t you be my neighbour?”

Happy Spring,

Lita

Just for fun:

http://pbskids.org/rogers/songLyricsWontYouBeMyNeighbor.html

Where is this candidate? **caution I swear in this one**

I wrote this during the latest Provincial election for my own amusement. Perhaps it will amuse others.

My platform.

I am announcing my run for office. Which office? It matters not.

If I am elected I will invoke the following:

Candidates running for all parties must pass a basic math competency exam. You can NOT bribe the voters by promising to lower personal taxes AND suck up to corporations by promising to lower corporate taxes AND promise to make the cost of living cheaper and paying dividends and get away with it. That is bad math; and since there is no money fairy clearly those candidates are lying or are really bad at math. Passing the math competency will allow us to prove the former.

Every future candidate will be given a campaign assistant, a used minivan, 40 hours of television or radio (for the entire 6 week campaign), and a $1000 Tims card. That’s it. No more buying votes, greased wheels, or influence peddling. Prove yourself, by yourself, that way you owe nothing to anyone when you actually win.

Any member of my party who is a fuckwit is out. If you speed in a school zone, yell at the waiter because your Perrier was flat, in fact even order Perrier, park in the premiers stall and then berate and threaten the job of the security guard who tries to get you to move your sorry ass, text while driving, take a kickback, say (EVER) “don’t you know who I am?” then YOU are a fuckwit and you are OUT! This list is not exhaustive and can be expanded upon request.

I will take the point of view that, in almost all cases, what is good for all of us is what is good for each of us. YOU are not special; neither am I, but we are all important. That is why the needs of us as a society together will take priority.

I will strengthen rights and their corresponding responsibilities. Our justice system will weigh whether or not you have lived up to your responsibilities, if not, you will lose your rights. Many will call me “a communist”; they can shove their ‘freedom fries’ right up their ass.

I promise to LISTEN to the issues before making a decision. I can’t tell you at this moment what each of my decisions will be because I don’t know the complexities of the actual ISSUES yet. Therefore I will not blow sunshine up your ass by pretending to know now. You will need to decide if you believe in the content of my character and the passion of my heart and vote for me only if you believe I WILL always try to make the best decision possible.

I will promise to remember that I am a PUBLIC SERVANT! I work for you. I will act like that, but you must remember that running for office does not mean that I find public ridicule, personal attacks, or defamation acceptable. I am a human being with feelings and we already know what the ‘unfeeling’ political pros can accomplish for themselves when they have no sensitivity or conscience.

Public servants and public institutions will strictly adhere to an egalitarian practice. You may certainly believe that your race, or gender, or sexuality is superior to another’s in your home or place of worship, but at work you WILL treat everyone as equal to you. Your rights are NOT infringed by someone else’s “being”. If you don’t like it then don’t BE it, but don’t think you get to be in anyone else’s way of being it. No; not on public dollars. Not on my watch.

I promise you WILL pay taxes, and so will the companies you work for. I promise to spend that money as ethically, effectively, and prudently as possible. I promise that the jobs I help create will be good ‘living wage’ jobs. I promise I will treat the workers in my jurisdiction as valuable and worthy. I will require businesses that operate within my jurisdiction to do the same. I will make people power valuable.

I will properly fund scientific research so we can once again become a leader in true medical advancement, not just pills that make millions of dollars by giving you a 6 hour erection. Research in all disciplines will be merit based not product based; in other words: actual science. Plus all those research foundations will stop calling me at home on a Tuesday night at 9:30 pm. It's win - win.

I will make the education of children paramount. All children will attend public school where through a variety of, mostly inclusive, methods the playing field will be leveled. Period. Creativity will be necessary to give each child what he or she needs to become a capable, engaged, happy citizen. We will not always succeed. Parents who expect their children be given special treatment at the expense of others will be sent to “don’t be a fuckwit parent’ school. Sorry, that’s just the way it is.

I will regulate products and industry. Producers and corporations who continually break rules which put consumers or workers in danger will not be allowed to operate in my jurisdiction. If there is melamine in the crackers you make, or someone drowns in your tailings pond, then you FAIL. I will not be a dumbass when utilities promise that deregulation will mean “choice” and “competitive pricing”. Gas prices jumping 3 days before a long weekend will be a felony. (No price collusion MY ASS.) Governments make rules about how companies and corporations can operate because PEOPLE COME FIRST.

Lastly, I promise to actually think about issues before making a decision. I know I said this already but it bears repeating. I will not be able to monitor every area of government so I promise to put smart, capable people who I trust on each portfolio. They may NOT even be members of my party. I will not appoint giggling hyenas who will leave office just to become lobbyists for the companies who we rewarded contracts to. I promise to punch any cabinet minister who ends up a paid figure head for a company he or she awarded contracts to while in office …….. in the throat ……….. very hard.

Good night.

Life with Boys

This was written on October 13th, 2011. My boys are growing up and I don't want these little moments lost ...... 

Sometimes as a parent, there is a "miss" in our teaching. The new world demands that children know the facts about their bodies, and all the proper names. It's to promote safety and ownership. I have dutifully taught them. 

Yesterday morning Pearson came in for his morning cuddle and asked "Mommy, why do you always have a 'peegina'?" 

"Ummmmm" I fluster, "You mean Vagina?" 

"Girls have Vaginas and boys have Penises. We've talked about it, haven't we?" I inquire.

"Yes, but I like it when you wear pants." he replies.

Pause.

"I would still have a Vagina under my pants sweetie" I say

"Why would you wear pants under a 'pAgina'?" he queries.

Realization dawns upon me ......"Oh geez, are you asking about my NIGHTIE? A dress that a lady wears to bed is a nightie ........ a top and pants is pajamas - just like for boys! It's the same word. And a dress a lady wears is a nightie."

"Oh, well I like when you wear paJAMAS better." he says and snuggles in. 

......

....

Seriously, ...... I will call my nightie a pAgina forever now!

And from earlier in the year:

Window into parenting 2 boys ...

Me "Boys, you know the bad man who stole the little boy in BC, well he returned the little boy but the police haven't arrested him yet. Do you remember what Mom said about strangers and school?"

Pearson "that they're bad."

Me "Sort of; I said that you must never get in a car with someone you don't know, or leave anywhere with a grownup you don't feel safe with"

Jasper "What if they make us?"

me "You must kick, and flail, and make as much noise as possible."

Pearson "and we can kick him in the wiener!"

J "Yeah, and punch him in the crotch!"

P "Yah, kick him in the crotch"

Me (now losing control of the conversation) "Do whatever you need to to get away and then run to the closest 'safe stranger' and yell and yell."

P "then I'll punch him in the butt!"

J "I'll kick him in the butt"

Me (conversation seriously skidding off road) "Yes but, if you run around punching and kicking then you are moving towards the bad man and not away from. Please just RUN AWAY and get help."

........... (10 full minutes of insane giggling and re enactments of their techniques.)

I should have just stuck with "Say NO, GO, and TELL SOMEONE" Arrrgh.

But you see, Public school is MY church.

There is a disturbing phenomenon in our society right now. A movement afoot that I thought I would never live to see. The intolerant are crying “intolerance” because they can’t be intolerant. The notion is almost comical, yet here we are, and it’s actually not that funny.

Canada’s true history is not noble or pretty or fair, but the society that I have seen rise from the past and strive for greatness deserves respect. We have not achieved full equality yet, but it has always felt to me that on some level we were moving that in direction. We have long viewed our diversity as a difficult, complicated, and very worth the trouble. All the differences between us should make it impossible to coexist and yet we do. We even manage to thrive. How is that possible? Canada was built by a long series of fairly homogenous groups each trying to exert power over one another until, at last, the futility of it all changed us …… and we evolved. I wish I could have witnessed the moment when ideas and ways of being began to be exchanged as commodities but from that point we have begun a slow march towards a true multicultural society. I know there are always those who fight it, but we have begun to live at ease among one another and we have made it beautiful. All the different colours, and languages, and beliefs living together peacefully and (far from a melting pot) we have remained a polarized, messy, mosaic.

I believe in my heart that public school is a main reason. Children are thrown together and asked to manage what their parents can only hope to emulate; an environment of tolerance, respect, and equality. We place them all together, ask that the playing field be leveled as much as possible, and give them all the same chance. We have built curriculums that have the potential to create well rounded citizens who are able to follow their interests and dreams wherever they might lie. Children are given an overview of the choices available to them in a free society and take steps towards their adult selves with the same knowledge base as all their peers. There is a magical utopian quality to that. The school boards walk the razors edge between allowing every child to come replete with their own beliefs, and keeping those beliefs from colliding in destructive discourse, resentment, and conflict. They achieve this largely through keeping the multitude of intransigent religious view points out, particularly if they run counter to an inclusive, peaceful society. Now yes, I concede that there is an overwhelmingly Christian slant to most public schools in Canada. We observe the holidays, make the crafts, and sing the songs but it is more a ‘Christian theme park’ approach and it stops short of much, if any, religious teaching. I, personally, am pretty much an atheist and would love to take it all out or schools or, better yet, teach children about all the major religions in pamphlet style; give them an overview of all the major faiths and then move on.

In my opinion, Public school should be mandatory and must remain secular. There is a greater good that is served by us all learning to get along. Allowing groups to break away and learn in these little unchallenged homogenous groups does not teach the skills required to get along with everyone in the future. If you’ve learned to be together in school then you will have discovered all the ways that you are the same, instead of focusing on all the ways you are different. Let’s call it ‘competency in togetherness’ and it does not need to mean that you give up your beliefs.

An overarching rule of fairness must be in place for this to work. This means you don’t get to come in and constantly tell the other people in public school that you think they are going to your version of hell, or will only be reincarnated as a worm, or won’t get into your version of heaven. There is no practical benefit of that, no sensible place to draw the line about who gets to say, and every chance that children, REAL CHILDREN, will be hurt. The argument that maintaining a standard of non-discriminatory fairness somehow discriminates is ridiculous. It’s time to end this conversation. You don’t believe it ok to be gay, so then don’t be gay. The argument is exactly the same for whatever argument gets thrown in the mix (distasteful to me or not). You don’t believe it’s ok to marry people of another race, so then don’t. You don’t believe it’s ok to follow a faith other than your own, so then don’t. Public School’s job in every case is to say “so then don’t, but in the spirit of fairness to ALL the children that is not open to debate here”.

The best way I can think of to make my point is this: If I got to come into your church and claim that your views went against my strongly held beliefs in science, evolution, and atheism and was offending me, you would simply show me the door. You argue that Public school curriculum is, more or less, mandatory and so then you must be accommodated or given an out. But the “out” is not your own schools; the number of Christians who refer to other Christians as “not real Christians” over conflicting viewpoints illustrates why this would not work. No, the “out” is retreat to a nation state comprised of only people who believe what you do and offers the same privileges and standard of living as here …………. My guess is that is does not exist. My guess is that would not be what you would want. Me neither. I like my big messy mosaic. I like it’s conflict and diversity. I like it’s colours. I like it’s defiance of the odds. We have managed to make something bigger than the sum of our groups; a society of fairness. Public school IS my church. Don’t come into my church and ask me to make it more fair for you by making it less fair for someone else. Public school IS my church.