|
Interesting article, but the contributions and comments are even more interesting.
If I may put in my two cents worth:
I'm from Australia where I think the privately run Catholic schools do receive some government funding (simply because education in any means or form is a public good). Please correct me if I am wrong about that fact.
Having said that I don't think there's much criterion to be accepted into a catholic school other than to have been baptised. Now, don't automatically assume that baptism has much value. I am myself a Christian so baptism has a LOT of value and meaning to me, but I know many people who are in (or have been in) catholic schools (and been baptised) who don't place any value in baptism or in the religious aspect of the Catholic schools.
In fact, many Chinese parents (I am myself a Chinese so please let me diss my own race) are quite, ahem, tight with money so they allow their kids to be "baptised" (even though they are from Buddhist background) just so that they can send their children to a "cheaper" school (Catholic schools have very good education but are less pricey than private schools). My own parents wanted to do that with me (years before I became a Christian).
What's my point? I think it's OK to use public money to meet the needs of a particular race/culture, that's not necessarily discrimination. However, I would like to see the "ban" lifted so that, if a non asian muslim wants to live there and be a "minority", he should be allowed to. ALthough honestly, I don't think that will happen anyway. But for the sake of avoiding any resentment, it'll be advisable to lift the ban.
The example I gave illiustrates the point; the Catholic schools only required people to "participate" in their religious eduaction but there is NO requirement that they had to believe or that they would be practicing Catholic outside the school.
OK, so it's not the most foolproof argument, but it's just my 2 cents.
|