Re: Your Child's Religion Is My Business TooJun 24th, 2010
But society at large has no religion. I think we can safely say that we have moved beyond the era where the state is directly tied to Christianity and with that in mind, I consider our state officially secular. At the very least this is crystal clear in Quebec, where Christianity took a very steep downwards fall since the 60's.
Bush's "Holy Crusade" against the evil doers, the State's continual fight to include creationism in schools, even in our own country, there's the continual fight on restricting even more, or outright shutting down sexual education, fighting abortion coverage and even now this whole argument of introducing classes on religion.
And don't give me that crap about legitimate arguments of this and that for all of the above, because deep down beyond all the BS arguments that hold no grounds, are their core beliefs relating directly to religious beliefs.
Because somehow God said so.
Certain aspects of religious influence have been dropping over the years, but it still remains and should continue to fall.
And while I'm sure that many religious folks would love to see Quebec, or Canada officially embrace their religion, it seems evident to me that nearly everyone will prefer a secular state to a state which officially embraces a religion that is not one's own.
Let me be more clear. What I'm saying is that secularism is the best compromise for everyone. It's the only system we developed that has the merit to give everyone freedom of religion and have no bias for or against any religion in particular.
The view that everyone should have the right to freely practise one's religion so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else is to me clearly better than the view that ''my religion is the best religion and everyone should follow it.'' In such a system, more social peace can be brought to larger and more diverse groups of people.
Not all religions or their divisional sects of said religion are like this, but enough of them are, and if you're going to include all religions into this class, then you have to include them too..... which once again, as mentioned by many in here already, will open up one big can of worms.
Say you start teaching this course, you tell the students that this class is to be balanced and no one religious belief being taught is absolutely correct over another and this is just to look into each religion for educational purposes.
Already you not only insulted certain religious beliefs and their followers, but you already told the students a big contradiction and biased view towards their religious views in which they think are the right views above all others...... you flat out just told all the class that they're wrong..... at least in the eyes of those followers of said religion.
And then tell me where this will eventually lead?
You can not create a religious class that doesn't show bias, no matter how hard you try, because there are so many diverse religions and almost an infinite amount of ways one can believe a religion, that you can not possibly cover all of them, nor can you successfully tip toe through eggshells through the whole process without offending one group or another.
In a sense, you could call secular humanism a new religion and if you did, I'd be proud to consider myself religious and would state that my religion is better than let's say, Roman Catholicism because my religion is inclusive of all religions while the other is not.
But I don't think it would be honest to call secular humanism a religion. It's a philosophy in which moral choices are made out of common sense rather than out of belief in an unprovable metaphysical state of affairs.
Can we agree that you have the right to teach your child whatever religion you want so long as society at large has the right to teach your child the value of secular humanism?
Once again, the moment you take legal responsibility and guardianship over my children and opt to look after, raise and pay the expenses of raising my child, will be the moment I may accept you have a right to interfere in the up-bringing of my child.
Until that day, you don't. My wife and I hold those responsibilities and rights, not you or anybody else, therefore we will decide what our children are taught and how and if you don't like it, you can have your own children and exercise your rights and responsibilities on your own kid..... or adopt one.
I'm not even a parent yet, but even I can see this "Weekend Parent" mentality at play, where someone doesn't have their own child, never went through all the hardship, emotions and joys of having and raising their own child..... but think they have the experience and knowhow to tell others how to raise their own children because they think they know best.
I'm not even going to go that far because I have no right. So long as the law is being upheld and so long as children are raised within the law and human rights, I have no place to finger point or dictate to others how they should raise their children....... because when I do have my own, I'll be damned if I'll tolerate others doing that to me.
IMO people like that are itching for a punch in the head with a knuckle twist.
Fair enough. With that in mind, all parents should be held criminally and financially liable for the children, even past the age of 18.
The plain simple fact remains, that parents hold legal rights over their own children.... even if the child is an adult and not married, if they suffer a serious accident and can not communicate, who is their next of kin? In most cases, their parents.... not some random guy off the street who feels it's their right to raise this kid/adult they never met before.
So long as the parents abide by existing laws and human rights in their respective countries, they have every right to determine how their child is raised...... not you, not the government, not the Snorkles or the Power Rangers..... their parents.
The moment the parents infringe upon existing laws, human rights or the general safety/security of the child to the point of warranting the child being taken from their parents, you might have a valid argument to get involved.... but until then.....
You know the funny thing I see in this topic is how since I support the NDP, many people in here are quick to finger point my way or the party's way that they and I are evil commie socialist....... yet at the same time, many of those same people come in here and preach support for much more hard-line approaches where our children are somehow property of the State/Society where the parents are generally meaningless in their equations.
Talk about double standards and hypocrisy.