Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
To what extent can a society at large impose a secular view of religion to all children?

This is a very complex question which can be understood better with the following example.

In Quebec's school system, religion classes have been replaced by a course called Ethics and Religious Culture. The course deals with ethical and moral questions at large while surveying the main religions of the world without any form of religious bias.

A catholic school in Montreal just challenged the required course in courts and seems to have won its case under the ground that it is a private Catholic school.

Read here for the full story.

CBC News - Montreal - Loyola wins ethics course exemption

Personally, I fully support the new Ethics and Religious Culture course which has the advantage of making children reflect on a variety of ethical issues while gaining objective knowledge on the variety of religious view points which are likely to be found in our society.

While I understand how parents want their children to grow up according to their own religious view point, it is of my opinion that this religious legacy should be practised in the privacy of family life, not within the choice of a religiously influenced mode of school education which defies the education curriculum of society at large.

I understand many of you will think very differently and am looking forward to discover your point of view.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Personally, I think the integrated study of world religions ought to be a universal and compulsory part of the curriculum so as to promote coexistence between religious communities. It also provides a counterbalance to whatever parents teach their children in the home. Without this, there is no counterbalance. In school children are taught critical thinking skills with regards to maths, science, et.c and to a lesser extent language. But religion, not at all. As a result, John says to Bill 1+1+=3, Bill can argue logically to prove that 1+1=2 thus ending the argument. Of course John could try to be funny by arguing that 1+1can also equal 11 if we ignore the value of the number but focus on it shape physical transcription alone, and he would be right and Bill would have to concede. So while it could still allow for various view points it does force all sides, even when they don't agree, to at least dfine their terms in a critical manner.

We have ths with science too. But with religion, few would be capable since they've usually not been taught to view religion very critically, leading to pointless debates based on prejudice. The integrated study of the world's religions would solve this problem at least to a degree.
 

Johnnny

Frontiersman
Jun 8, 2007
9,388
124
63
Third rock from the Sun
As a result, John says to Bill 1+1+=3, Bill can argue logically to prove that 1+1=2 thus ending the argument. Of course John could try to be funny by arguing that 1+1can also equal 11 if we ignore the value of the number but focus on it shape physical transcription alone, and he would be right and Bill would have to concede.

whoa whoa whoa slow down
1+1+0 = 110 not 3
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Religions are just philosophies. If one keeps that in mind, one can easily remain secular. As soon as one adheres to a particular religious philosophy, one starts losing objectivity. It's a big thing to base one's main philosophy on a big "if".
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Personally, I think the integrated study of world religions ought to be a universal and compulsory part of the curriculum so as to promote coexistence between religious communities.

No one should be made to study anything religious. If a parents send the child to a religious school, obviously they are going to receive religious instruction. In the public school system, religion has no place. Your whole statement assumes that everyone is religious.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
...1+1 can also equal 11...
1+1 could equal an infinite number of things depending on what 1 means and what + means, even if their meanings are restricted to just numbers and arithmetic operations. The default around here is that 1 means ten to the zeroth power, but it could be any other number. Two, eight, and sixteen, are common in computer work for instance. But I digress.

I think a publicly funded school system has no business teaching a particular religion as the true one, but religion's too important to be left to parents and churches. It should teach them all, or at least a good cross section of them, on a comparative sociological, historical, and cultural basis. Privately funded schools can do whatever they want, within the limits of the province's educational standards; they can promote a particular religion if they want, but they should also provide the comparative stuff and they shouldn't be permitted to teach junk like intelligent design if they expect to be accredited as legitimate educational institutions.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
No one should be made to study anything religious. If a parents send the child to a religious school, obviously they are going to receive religious instruction. In the public school system, religion has no place. Your whole statement assumes that everyone is religious.

If a child is being taught the KKKs ideology at home and being told that that is what the Christian faith is about, would you not want the school system to teach him that that is not the case?

If a child is being taught at home that 'Jews killed Jesus', would you not want the school to teach that child that the Jewish faith prohibits murder?

If a child, Muslim or not, is taught that it is the duty of Muslims to kill non-believers, would you not want the school to teach him what Islam really teaches on the subject?

The purpose here would not be to convert him to this or that religion, but rather simply teach him what the religion is so as to break down prejudices, nothing more.

Or would you rather not give that child a critical perspective on what is being taught in the home?
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Machjo, What does anything that you just said have to do with this?

Public School Boards are not parents, they are there to teach, not instill religious values or correct parents ignorance.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I got comparative religion when I was in Catholic school. I think it's an important thing to teach in a religious school.

But part of the reason to send your kids to public school for some people, is to remain secular. Frankly, if I were an atheist sending my kids to public school, I might be angry that they then turn around and teach my kids religion in a manner.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Machjo, What does anything that you just said have to do with this?

Public School Boards are not parents, they are there to teach, not instill religious values or correct parents ignorance.

They would not be instilling any particular religious value. They would be teaching about the world religions and what they really teach rather teach and then let the children decide. I'd feel safer that way than have someone manipulated by the KKK or Al-Qaeda because he doesn't know his own religion. This would not be about teaching one particular religion but rather promote critical thinking with regards to religion.

To put it simply, I'd have no issue with my child becoming Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. etc. etc.

I would have an issue with him holding prejudices against various world religions though, seeing that that is often a source of war in the world.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
Machjo, What does anything that you just said have to do with this?

Public School Boards are not parents, they are there to teach, not instill religious values or correct parents ignorance.

But as Dexter Sinister pointed out, isn't religion too important culturally, socially and historically to be ignored by schools? Isn't it the school's duty to give children the knowledge and critical thinking tools to be able to intelligently position themselves towards religions as they grow up to be active citizens in our society?

I got comparative religion when I was in Catholic school. I think it's an important thing to teach in a religious school.

But part of the reason to send your kids to public school for some people, is to remain secular. Frankly, if I were an atheist sending my kids to public school, I might be angry that they then turn around and teach my kids religion in a manner.

But isn't there a clear difference between teaching a religion and teaching someone about a religion?
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
But as Dexter Sinister pointed out, isn't religion too important culturally, socially and historically to be ignored by schools? Isn't it the school's duty to give children the knowledge and critical thinking tools to be able to intelligently position themselves towards religions as they grow up to be active citizens in our society?

Bingo. I'm sure most reasonable parents could grant their children freedom of religion, but with freedom comes responsibility, and they must be taught to approach religion with a critical mind.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
I got comparative religion when I was in Catholic school. I think it's an important thing to teach in a religious school.

But part of the reason to send your kids to public school for some people, is to remain secular. Frankly, if I were an atheist sending my kids to public school, I might be angry that they then turn around and teach my kids religion in a manner.

Exactly what I am saying, there is an expectation for religious instruction in a religious school but in the public system it does not belong.

They would not be instilling any particular religious value. They would be teaching about the world religions and what they really teach rather teach and then let the children decide. I'd feel safer that way than have someone manipulated by the KKK or Al-Qaeda because he doesn't know his own religion. This would not be about teaching one particular religion but rather promote critical thinking with regards to religion.

To put it simply, I'd have no issue with my child becoming Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. etc. etc.

I would have an issue with him holding prejudices against various world religions though, seeing that that is often a source of war in the world.

Ok, you are just fear mongering now when you are implying that you would rather have teachers instruct pupils in religion rather then they be recruited by terrorist groups. Seriously, that's just stupid.

I don't care what religion anyone chooses for them self, my point is the public school system need not be a part of instruction in religion.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
But isn't there a clear difference between teaching a religion and teaching someone about a religion?

Even in machjo's description, he talks about teaching them about all the religions 'and then letting them decide'. So I question if there is really.

Besides, the kind of people Machjo is worried about can negate such classes simply by telling their children the teachers are wrong. IMO science, history, and social studies should be teaching children critical thought. They should then be able to apply that skill to what they learn and hear of religion in the course of their education, from their family, from the news, etc. I think the truly critical thinkers, the truly curious, will find the information. The rest will just be spoon fed the curriculum, which won't address the root issue Machjo wishes it would.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Bingo. I'm sure most reasonable parents could grant their children freedom of religion, but with freedom comes responsibility, and they must be taught to approach religion with a critical mind.

Most children inherit the religion of their parents.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
But as Dexter Sinister pointed out, isn't religion too important culturally, socially and historically to be ignored by schools? Isn't it the school's duty to give children the knowledge and critical thinking tools to be able to intelligently position themselves towards religions as they grow up to be active citizens in our society?



But isn't there a clear difference between teaching a religion and teaching someone about a religion?
Personally I started out learning a religion, but now I just learn about them. So, I think there's quite a difference in teaching, too.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
But as Dexter Sinister pointed out, isn't religion too important culturally, socially and historically to be ignored by schools? Isn't it the school's duty to give children the knowledge and critical thinking tools to be able to intelligently position themselves towards religions as they grow up to be active citizens in our society?



But isn't there a clear difference between teaching a religion and teaching someone about a religion?

Religion in a historical context is one thing. The public school system has one duty, to teach the government mandated curriculum, not to adopt some quasi parenting role, trying to guide students religious journey. Last time I checked, the public school system is secular and it should remain so.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
42
Montreal
Even in machjo's description, he talks about teaching them about all the religions 'and then letting them decide'. So I question if there is really.

Besides, the kind of people Machjo is worried about can negate such classes simply by telling their children the teachers are wrong. IMO science, history, and social studies should be teaching children critical thought. They should then be able to apply that skill to what they learn and hear of religion in the course of their education, from their family, from the news, etc. I think the truly critical thinkers, the truly curious, will find the information. The rest will just be spoon fed the curriculum, which won't address the root issue Machjo wishes it would.

From what I understand, religion should be part of a social studies curriculum. Which is the way it is approached in the course I mentioned in the OP.

Religion in a historical context is one thing. The public school system has one duty, to teach the government mandated curriculum, not to adopt some quasi parenting role, trying to guide students religious journey. Last time I checked, the public school system is secular and it should remain so.

I really don't think the objective of the course is to guide the child's religious journey. The objective is to inform the child in regards to the different religious viewpoints one is bound to be confronted with in society.

And when it comes to the ethical aspect of the course. I don't see anything wrong with children being asked to reflect upon such things in the context of a school class. Philosophy at large usually includes ethics and it's part of the curriculum in CEGEP (the 2 year pre-university program exclusive to Quebec). I don't see what ill could be brought by extending this ethical reflection to the younger ones.