>Without some level of socialism you do not have a country.
You've conflated "socialism" with "government". While I understand how socialists would dearly love to score a propaganda coup by co-opting all government functions under the socialist umbrella, that sleight-of-mind will only work on the hard of thinking. "Socialism" is the name for a subset of government functions which is, to a close approximation, welfare (public social spending).
"Freedom" is the excuse for all shovelling of money, generally to provide economic freedom and sometimes to shelter people from consequences of exercising freedom. For example, the socialist argument for income supplements is to provide individual economic freedom.
Religious people seeking publicly-funded denominational school systems have not asked for special treatment; they have asked to be treated the same as everyone else and to have the educations of their children publicly funded. Right to education, freedom of choice, freedom of association, and freedom of belief. The lazy and greedy people are by definition the ones arguing to defund the Catholic schools in Ontario: greedy because they don't want to spend that money on those children; lazy because they aren't willing to make the public spending adjustments necessary to fund all children irrespective of schooling choice.
But I might be wrong about the fear of individual freedom and responsibility. For all their diversionary noise about freedom and diversity, progressives are so scared sh!tless that some people actually will choose to exercise, practice, and promulgate different beliefs that they act to manoeuvre everyone into one system (which they currently judge, with reason, that they control) in contradiction to our own Charter, a UN statement of principles, and basic human decency and common sense. Hypocrites to a man.