Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
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.

Just because Christianity's involvement in the State has reduced over the years is not absolute proof that our society is removed from Christianity's involvement.... just look at the US or the Conservatives continually trying to push their religious dogma into our laws and way of life, ie: same sex marriages, abortions, etc. All the arguments they try and use to justify their positions in some PC manner are obvious covers for their core beliefs in their religions and thus continually try and push them.

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.
Then why attempt to bring in some religious class into our state funded schools?

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.
Yet you wish to muddy the waters in this by introducing some experimental Mythology class for all our students to take, whether they like it or not?

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.
That sounds wonderful and great, but every single religious system out there has their varying schisms of other beliefs upon more beliefs, and most are very extremist/fundamentalist in their teachings and beliefs.... you can not teach these religions to students without getting into the aspect of how hard core they are in their beliefs that they are indeed the right religions and everybody should follow them.

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.

How?

Very simple.

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.
And right there you just proved myself and others right..... you just expressed a level of bias in claiming your religious view is better then another, and even if it is true, the action still remains the same since you are de-evaluating one religion over another based on your own subjective point of view.

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?
No.

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.

Up until the child hits 18, and if the parents did not attempt to seek some sort of help in straightening out their child, I agree..... but by the age of 18, by law, they are adults.... but they're still their parent's child.

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.....

Added:

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.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Up until the child hits 18, and if the parents did not attempt to seek some sort of help in straightening out their child, I agree..... but by the age of 18, by law, they are adults.... but they're still their parent's child.
Exactly, so anything they teach that child should be considered culpability.

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.
But many aren't, homophobia (For lack of a better term) is rampant in many religious circles. That doesn't go away when that child reaches 18.

..... not you, not the government, not the Snorkles or the Power Rangers..... their parents.
Again, I agree, so their parents should be held responsible for all criminal and financial liabilities, even past 18.

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.....
Well, in Toronto we have a family preaching death to Canada, and still allowed to keep their kids. While out west we have a family that taught their daughter that whites were superior and they lost her to CAS.

So where is the threshold?
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The statement: 'It takes a village to raise a child' is every bit as idiotic as 'Islam is a religion of peace'.

No doubt to you it would appear idiotic because Hillary said it. If Limbaugh (or Plain ) had said it, you would have praised him to high Heaven, and proclaimed it to be the Gospel truth.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
It may have been an African proverb, but I first heard it from Hillary and I give her the credit, at least for making Americans familiar with it.

I was familiar with it long ago. It's been a commonly-quoted proverb among Canadian social movements for at least well over a decade if not much longer.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
I don't quite get what you're trying to say here.
.

When the state decides it knows better than parents, and has more business in their religious education than they do, we end up with things such as residential schools as readily as we end up with secular education.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
I see quite a bit of irony here. On the one hand the community is supposed to raise the child, but IF the teacher or neighbour so much as lays a hand on dear sweet little angelic Johnny there is Hell to pay. Which way is it going to be folks? :lol::lol:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I see quite a bit of irony here. On the one hand the community is supposed to raise the child, but IF the teacher or neighbour so much as lays a hand on dear sweet little angelic Johnny there is Hell to pay. Which way is it going to be folks? :lol::lol:

You bring up a good point. If the village is responsible for the child, then that has to go all the way. If I see my neighbour's kid starving, I have an obligation to feed him. But if I see him cussing and swearing at some other local kid, I have every right to give him a peace of my mind.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
You bring up a good point. If the village is responsible for the child, then that has to go all the way. If I see my neighbour's kid starving, I have an obligation to feed him. But if I see him cussing and swearing at some other local kid, I have every right to give him a peace of my mind.

I don't think anybody is stopping you from doing that. If you lay a hand on him, of course that would be a different matter.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
No one is telling you or forcing you to listen.
Surely you know that's not true. I've had some very aggressive evangelists at my door--not just JWs--and in social situations trying to force their beliefs on me. They believe they're absolutely correct and have a lock on the truth, and think that gives them both the right and the duty to try to force it on me. They cannot succeed because in this society I have rights and freedoms that preclude that, but if those people ever come into real political power I could lose them. That's why they're dangerous, and why I resist religious belief at every turn. You tend to perceive it as bashing religion in the threads where these things are discussed; it's not, it's just insisting on my right to disagree, my right to challenge the claims of others, and my right to demand solid evidence for those claims. Religious belief doesn't automatically deserve respect, it doesn't get a free ride, it has to justify itself with reason and evidence just as any other ideas do. If it can't--and I've never seen any evidence or argument that suggests it can, they all eventually back into inexplicable mystery--it deserves to be rejected as a useful explanation of anything.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
When the state decides it knows better than parents, and has more business in their religious education than they do, we end up with things such as residential schools as readily as we end up with secular education.
Now I gotchya, and I agree. But that's not where I would take it.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
The statement: 'It takes a village to raise a child' is every bit as idiotic as 'Islam is a religion of peace'.
I tend to agree. If all the contact a kid has with the village is negative and the kid turns out ok anyway, then the parents were probably the biggest factor. That's really evident when kids manage to escape joining their neighborhood gangs and turn out to be good kids as a result.

I was familiar with it long ago. It's been a commonly-quoted proverb among Canadian social movements for at least well over a decade if not much longer.
lol I can imagine the mess references and footnotes would be in if everyone attributed quotes to whomever they heard the quotes from last. Typical Porker idiocy.

When the state decides it knows better than parents, and has more business in their religious education than they do, we end up with things such as residential schools as readily as we end up with secular education.
Pretty much.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
No. We can't agree on that. 'Society at large' is too transient to dictate what my child should be taught, or subject to.


Do you think Creationists should be allowed to remove their child from science class so they won't be exposed to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Do you think parents should be allowed to remove their child from a sex ed. class because of their religious convictions?

Do you think extremist separatists in Quebec should be allowed to remove their children from English class because they refuse to see their child exposed to ''English cultural imperialism''?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure you would answer NO to at least one of these questions. And the reason why is that to a certain extent, you agree that there should be at least some sort of minimum standard of education which all children deserve to receive, despite what their parents think.

Of course your child is ''yours''. But ''you'' are a part of society and can't do every single thing you want when you feel like it because if everybody did that, we'd live in anarchy. Most of us choose to abide by the laws of the country because we feel it is beneficial to us all. The same logic applies to the basic curriculum taught to children in classes. Some things are viewed as simply being necessary for the development of the child in society and are thus obligatory.

Of course that doesn't mean we can't disagree with laws or that you can't disagree with the school curriculum. Our society IS flexible after all and it is constantly changing because of democratic shifts and social debates like the one we are having now. We all have the power to engage the institutions.

Society at large used to be largely Christian, and visited horrors upon children of a variety of backgrounds. Society at large is currently secular. Given immigration trends, society may end up largely Islamic. I don't think the way my children are raised should be subject to the make-up of 'society at large', I think there should be freedoms in place to guarantee the freedom (so to speak) of their education and upbringing.

If our state ever regresses from a secular one to a religious one because of immigration, it will be because we will have been incapable of successfully imposing some set of universal and secular values which include freedom of religion. The way I see it, secularism should be non-negotiable when it comes to arriving immigrants. I think most immigrants understand that very well and cherish the freedom of religion they have here.

I totally agree there should be freedoms in place to guarantee that you have some degree of freedom in the way you educate your child. But this is not incompatible with the idea that their should also be some things that are not tolerated, such as beating your child, and other things that are mandatory, such as sending your child to school or at least making sure he or she has at least some form of basic education.

The child belongs to them a hell of a lot more then they belong to you. They are the ones who hold legal responsibility over the child's welfare, the child carries their DNA, not yours and certainly not the governments, thus in most cases, whatever happens to the child usually falls back on the parents of that child.... therefore they have every damn right to determine their religious beliefs, their type of education, where they will be educated, the medical procedures they may undergo..... etc.

The child is THEIR child.... they created the child, but just because the child is not actually "Property" that doesn't mean the child doesn't still belong to them as THEIR OWN child.



No it is not. It is none of my business what school you take your child to, it is none of my business if you home school your child and it's none of my business what classes/courses your child takes, be that in elementary, high school or a post secondary education... it is none of my business so long as what occurs to the child in question stays within the confines of the law.... just as it is none of your business in the same regard.

See my above post. I want to directly tackle some of your points Praxius but don't want to repeat myself too much.

Just because Christianity's involvement in the State has reduced over the years is not absolute proof that our society is removed from Christianity's involvement.... just look at the US or the Conservatives continually trying to push their religious dogma into our laws and way of life, ie: same sex marriages, abortions, etc. All the arguments they try and use to justify their positions in some PC manner are obvious covers for their core beliefs in their religions and thus continually try and push them.

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.
Bush is gone right? And I doubt that Obama is trying to introduce creationism in schools. A healthy democracy tends to balance itself out in the long run. I'm not saying the US don't have problems. But the fact that they voted for Obama instead of McCain is a sign of hope don't you think?

I am as opposed as you are to mixing up religion and the state. That is why I don't think the state should give parents absolute freedom in the way they educate their child. If they had complete freedom, some extremist religious folks in Canada would start their own religious schools where they would brainwash their kids into becoming new extremist religious folks.

Because all children are required to go to school at some point in their lives, they are exposed to the mandatory school curriculum chosen by the state, which represents population at large.

Freedom yes. But responsibility and obligations too.



Certain aspects of religious influence have been dropping over the years, but it still remains and should continue to fall.

Then why attempt to bring in some religious class into our state funded schools?

Yet you wish to muddy the waters in this by introducing some experimental Mythology class for all our students to take, whether they like it or not?

That sounds wonderful and great, but every single religious system out there has their varying schisms of other beliefs upon more beliefs, and most are very extremist/fundamentalist in their teachings and beliefs.... you can not teach these religions to students without getting into the aspect of how hard core they are in their beliefs that they are indeed the right religions and everybody should follow them.

So long as some people have some sort of religion, it will have an influence on society through the democratic process. With that in mind, and with the fact that we are constantly exposed to religion because of immigration, I personally think a course which tackles ethics and educates on the most common religions can be a very good way to cultivate the spirit of tolerance and freedom of thought we have here.


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.

How?

Very simple.

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.

And right there you just proved myself and others right..... you just expressed a level of bias in claiming your religious view is better then another, and even if it is true, the action still remains the same since you are de-evaluating one religion over another based on your own subjective point of view.

Of course you can't cover all single religions and all single ways of practising religion. That doesn't mean there are no wide scale tendencies.

The fact that you can't teach all scientific information to children doesn't mean you should stop teaching them science! In the case of the course mentioned in the OP, the most common religions and their most common manifestations are discussed in an attempt to inform the child/teenager.

For someone who believes in freedom so much, you sure are quick to condemn Quebec's choice to add this course to the school curriculum. A strong majority of people here agree with this course and the way it is taught. You think we should not have this collective freedom?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Do you think Creationists should be allowed to remove their child from science class so they won't be exposed to Darwin's theory of evolution?

Do you think parents should be allowed to remove their child from a sex ed. class because of their religious convictions?

Do you think extremist separatists in Quebec should be allowed to remove their children from English class because they refuse to see their child exposed to ''English cultural imperialism''?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure you would answer NO to at least one of these questions. And the reason why is that to a certain extent, you agree that there should be at least some sort of minimum standard of education which all children deserve to receive, despite what their parents think.

lol... so if I agree with you on some things, I must meet you on every view? No, sorry, not that simple.

To a certain degree I do agree that society deserves to say what reality is. But comparative religion is NOT reality... it's theology. It's not concrete, it's open to interpretation.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
To a certain degree I do agree that society deserves to say what reality is. But comparative religion is NOT reality... it's theology. It's not concrete, it's open to interpretation.
I don't understand that. Various religions exist, they have different and often conflicting claims about the nature of the world, the role of a deity or deities in it, how people are supposed to behave, and what the future will be like. That's part of reality, and theology is the inquiry into that aspect of it. Teaching comparative religion is not teaching a particular belief, it's simply teaching about the various religions that exist and what their claims and tenets are, and that's as concrete as anything else in subjects like history and sociology and so on is. It's something people who claim to be educated ought to know about. It doesn't mean they should believe in any of them or that the schools will push a particular one as better than others, but people ought to know about them. Religion has a profound influence on history and culture and you'll never make sense of things if you don't know anything about the religions that have helped shape them. You can't, for instance, make any sense of the internecine strife in Northern Ireland if you don't know anything about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and their roles in Irish society, you can't make sense of events in the Middle East if you know nothing about the differing claims of Judaism and Islam and Christianity, and in particular you'll never grasp why Jerusalem is so important to all three... The world won't make sense if you know nothing about comparative religion. That doesn't of course mean it'll make sense if you do know about comparative religion, it doesn't explain everything and humans are famously irrational, but it'll improve your chances of understanding things. So the schools should teach it.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
My opposition Dex has been fairly simply from the standpoint that religious thinking is taught. We're talking grade one here.

If I introduce my grade oner to the notion of a god, of a supreme being and heaven, etc... that's my business. if I introduce your grade oner to the notion in the phase of plastic brain connectivity.... that's a complete other.

I am spiritual I believe in a deity. I have no issue with someone talking to my grade one age child about religion. BUT... I've read enough from atheist people to at the same time question their rights in what they expose their children to. Comparative religion as an elective in highschool age kids... as a mandatory course for college age kids... I have no issue with that. As a mandatory course with no parental input from grade one on... that goes a bit beyond to me in some ways/
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
I don't understand that. Various religions exist, they have different and often conflicting claims about the nature of the world, the role of a deity or deities in it, how people are supposed to behave, and what the future will be like. That's part of reality, and theology is the inquiry into that aspect of it. Teaching comparative religion is not teaching a particular belief, it's simply teaching about the various religions that exist and what their claims and tenets are, and that's as concrete as anything else in subjects like history and sociology and so on is. It's something people who claim to be educated ought to know about. It doesn't mean they should believe in any of them or that the schools will push a particular one as better than others, but people ought to know about them. Religion has a profound influence on history and culture and you'll never make sense of things if you don't know anything about the religions that have helped shape them. You can't, for instance, make any sense of the internecine strife in Northern Ireland if you don't know anything about the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism and their roles in Irish society, you can't make sense of events in the Middle East if you know nothing about the differing claims of Judaism and Islam and Christianity, and in particular you'll never grasp why Jerusalem is so important to all three... The world won't make sense if you know nothing about comparative religion. That doesn't of course mean it'll make sense if you do know about comparative religion, it doesn't explain everything and humans are famously irrational, but it'll improve your chances of understanding things. So the schools should teach it.

yes, I agree with your opinion, and I do think people should know about religion, and many other things on
this earth.

So many people today, young and old, do not believe in god, and don't belong to any religion, and also 'don't
know anything about it at all, just think it's all wierd, and they don't seem to have time to even find out
what it's all about.

I am an atheist, but I have a full understanding of what god is suppose to be, and also the different
religions of the world, in general, not in detail, so at least that gives me a good basis for 'how' I choose
to approach that area in life.

If I knew nothing about that subject, how could I know that I don't want to believe any of it.

I have 'one' daughter who is that way,(relgion/god) "I'm not interested in things like that", (politics), "I'm not
interested in any of that", (other cultures) "I'm not interested in what they do",(other countries) "I'm
not interested, don't even think about them". She lives inside of her own interests in life, and it ends
there, but she is happy and satisfied, and has no thoughts about those things in life, so be it.
She is a legal assistant, very intelligent, very efficient, very organized, and happy
to deal with her life only, and those close to her, and the rest of the world can
do the same.


Yes, religion should be available for learning in schools, but I can imagine how the classes would become
arguementative and biased, and some of the teachers would be too, not sure it could work.
Your children's religion certainly could be my business if 'they' decide to try and
push it down my throat, while thinking 'only' they, are right.
 
Last edited:

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
talloola, I quite like you and Dex and the fact that neither of you seem to be able to structure for me why a grade oner in a secular school system needs to be taught about religion, tells me a LOT. If both of you could explain to me why you feel your kids should be forced to endure the Quebec school curriculum as it stands, I would feel quite content that the majority of atheists are happy with their children being taught religion in a secular school system. I tend to take the view that what quebec is doing seems highly inline with what most religious people would like to see.... indoctrination from an early age. But I guess if it passes both your standards, it must be fine.
 

talloola

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 14, 2006
19,576
113
63
Vancouver Island
talloola, I quite like you and Dex and the fact that neither of you seem to be able to structure for me why a grade oner in a secular school system needs to be taught about religion, tells me a LOT. If both of you could explain to me why you feel your kids should be forced to endure the Quebec school curriculum as it stands, I would feel quite content that the majority of atheists are happy with their children being taught religion in a secular school system. I tend to take the view that what quebec is doing seems highly inline with what most religious people would like to see.... indoctrination from an early age. But I guess if it passes both your standards, it must be fine.



I don't think a grade oner should be taught religion, I think it should be taught at the junior high/high
school level. I know nothing about quebec teachings of religion, haven't a clue.
I just agree with Dex, that knowing about religion or anything for that matter is
a good thing.