Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

[TenPenny]

Here's an interesting thought. Many of the people making points on this thread are essentially making the opposite points in the 'fetus feels pain' thread. Me included.

Here, I'm arguing that learing facts is useful; there, I'm arguing that you shouldn't interfere in my life.
Here, some are arguing that the state has no place interfering in our lives; there, they are saying they have a right to tell others what to do.

Interesting.

 

[karrie]

I personally have never said the course sounds unreasonable. It sounds fine to me. It's almost identical to what my kids will learn in school. I have them in Catholic school after all. What bothers me is simply that parents trying to grant their kids a secular upbringing at a young age will be forced to have their kids take a course which perhaps goes beyond reasonable in their minds. That negates 'religious freedom', and becomes forced consumption of religion. It's a perfectly reasonable sounding course so long as parents can opt out of it.

 

[CDNBear]

I personally have never said the course sounds unreasonable. It sounds fine to me. It's almost identical to what my kids will learn in school. I have them in Catholic school after all.

Given they're in Catholic school. I highly doubt that they're getting a completely objective view Karrie.

What bothers me is simply that parents trying to grant their kids a secular upbringing at a young age will be forced to have their kids take a course which perhaps goes beyond reasonable in their minds.

Huh?

That negates 'religious freedom', and becomes forced consumption of religion. It's a perfectly reasonable sounding course so long as parents can opt out of it.

It doesn't negate it, it simply explains and puts into perspective "religious freedom". While removing the "Mine is the only true one". As well as offer the tools to understand what they are observing.

This should be a Federal mandate across the country and in all schools that receive public funds.

 

[JLM]

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. .

I think we have a topic here that could be rightfully argued a dozen different ways. I haven't heard that kids are being precluded from learning religion at home. How many parents are "experts" at religion? I suggest a minority. Should kids be screened from hearing other views about it? I doubt it. Is the religious instruction in schools going to be delivered by a religious "expert" (if there is such a thing)? Personally I wouldn't be averse to my kids getting outside knowledge on the matter, but by the same token I wouldn't want them getting emotional, hysterical, bullsh*t that a lot of Bible thumpers peddle. :smile:

 

[karrie]

Given they're in Catholic school. I highly doubt that they're getting a completely objective view Karrie.

No... but their upbringing surrounding religion never would have been what with having Catholic parents and all. No kid being brought up in a religious home will get a completely objective view. But, what I found was that Catholic school trumped public school by far in educating in an impartial way on other religions.

Huh?

It doesn't negate it, it simply explains and puts into perspective "religious freedom". While removing the "Mine is the only true one". As well as offer the tools to understand what they are observing.

Ah, see, you're still looking at it from the viewpoint of 'deprogramming' the religious. I've been discussing the flip side of the issue... that of parents who are attempting to raise their children without religious thinking being a part of their mental diet in elementary school. And I've seen from some people, such as Durka, that there are atheists who have that feeling regarding this program. To plop those kids down in grade one and start explaining the basis of religions DOES negate an attempt to raise them without that influence, thus that family's religious freedom.

 

[CDNBear]

No... but their upbringing surrounding religion never would have been what with having Catholic parents and all. No kid being brought up in a religious home will get a completely objective view. But, what I found was that Catholic school trumped public school by far in educating in an impartial way on other religions.

Really? Not from my experience. Nor has it been my experience that Catholics, graduating from a Catholic school, come out objective about religion. I don't want to generalize, or stereotype, but it all seems at odds with having a separate school run by Catholics, teaching Catholic values and dogma.

Ah, see, you're still looking at it from the viewpoint of 'deprogramming' the religious.

No, I see the potential to remove the vail of ignorance, that oft follows the dogma of "My religion is the only religion" that happans when you are surrounded by and your sole consumption of, is "x".

I've been discussing the flip side of the issue... that of parents who are attempting to raise their children without religious thinking being a part of their mental diet in elementary school. And I've seen from some people, such as Durka, that there are atheists who have that feeling regarding this program. To plop those kids down in grade one and start explaining the basis of religions DOES negate an attempt to raise them without that influence, thus that family's religious freedom.

If you want to completely shelter your child from the outside world, you do your child a great disservice. If you're an atheist or what have you, this course is no more detrimental to your child, then brushing their teeth.

I would apply the same scrutiny and scorn to an atheist that wants their child sheltered from that fact that they will have to co-exist with religious types, as I would upon a religious family, trying to impede the progress of teaching their child that there are other religions out there.

This course, from what I've read, is about pointing and examining basic formats of specified religions. In an attempt to remove the cloak of the unknown. Applied with the curriculum of having to understand and know how these religions have had an affect on society and so on. Only means that the graduate of this program will be better equipped to function in a multicultural society.

 

[talloola]

what's a level appropriate to comprehension?

See, these are the questions I'm asking, and all I'm getting is a bunch of defensive bull**** about how I'm trying to decide what everyone else's kids learn.

All I have said is that in the name of secularism the government ought to respect that fact that some parents don't want their grade one kids taught about the idea of all powerful beings. That making these courses mandatory infringes on the rights of parents avoiding that influence... so I guess in the end we're in agreement... at an appropriate age, teach secular kids about a deity.... now... what's the appropriate age, and who decides it?

i've allready stated that I would never agree to a grade one student having to learn religion, not at all,
and not any primary grades at all.
When I went to grade one at a catholic school, catechism was a subject taught in a very serious way, and
that was fine, we all took it seriously, and learned just as we did other subjects, but that was a
catholic school, that is their preogative, but it ends there as well.

jr/sr grades only, and I also said I don't think it would work their very well, every teacher would have
to be totally unbiassed.
If I was qualified I could teach it that way, because I have no interest in any of them, but an interest
in understanding them, and that is the only way it could be taught, but don't think that would happen.

I entered this thread very late, didn't read any links, not going to, i'm off to the garden.

 

[Machjo]

No... but their upbringing surrounding religion never would have been what with having Catholic parents and all. No kid being brought up in a religious home will get a completely objective view. But, what I found was that Catholic school trumped public school by far in educating in an impartial way on other religions.



Ah, see, you're still looking at it from the viewpoint of 'deprogramming' the religious. I've been discussing the flip side of the issue... that of parents who are attempting to raise their children without religious thinking being a part of their mental diet in elementary school. And I've seen from some people, such as Durka, that there are atheists who have that feeling regarding this program. To plop those kids down in grade one and start explaining the basis of religions DOES negate an attempt to raise them without that influence, thus that family's religious freedom.

If you're the atheist leader of China, and you're organizing an international conference, it would likely be beneficial from a diplomatic standpoint to know a little about various religious dos and don'ts, especially with regards to food and other habits.

Or if you don't know anything about it, you might want someone on the conference team to be familiar with various religions and cultures so as ot potentially avoid grave offense.

If you're an atheist businessman doing business with other countries, again, a knowledge of different religions might be useful. Looking at it that way, such courses influence one's religion the same way maths class influences one's numbers. It merely helps them to better understand the world they live in. Are you suggesting that if an international business school were teaching you about various religions, or a political science course doing the same, that you'd object because it might 'influence' you? Seeing that we now live in a pluralistic society, it's pretty hard not to encounter people of different faiths even in our own neighbourhood.

i've allready stated that I would never agree to a grade one student having to learn religion, not at all,
and not any primary grades at all.
When I went to grade one at a catholic school, catechism was a subject taught in a very serious way, and
that was fine, we all took it seriously, and learned just as we did other subjects, but that was a
catholic school, that is their preogative, but it ends there as well.

jr/sr grades only, and I also said I don't think it would work their very well, every teacher would have
to be totally unbiassed.
If I was qualified I could teach it that way, because I have no interest in any of them, but an interest
in understanding them, and that is the only way it could be taught, but don't think that would happen.

I entered this thread very late, didn't read any links, not going to, i'm off to the garden.

Here's another way of looking at it. I was raised Catholic too, and went to Catholic school until I'd moved to BC. Is it right for the education system to exploit me as a captive audience for their own purposes or am I not a human being? As such, any school ought to have an obligation to teach a child about world religions so as to give him real choice, real freedom.

Sure I walked away from the Catholic faith later, but I would certainly have liked to have a wider perspective at an earlier age.

 

[karrie]

you're talking about adults machjo. I've never said teens and adults shouldn't take comparative religion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Quite so. Teach comparative religion at high school level (I don't think kids have enough understanding at grade one to appreciate differences between religions).

And keep it optional.

 

[CDNBear]

you're talking about adults machjo. I've never said teens and adults shouldn't take comparative religion.

Since that's an elective course, I think it's safe to say that the only one enrolling will those with an already balanced view of religion.

This course is more in tune with giving children the skills to get along in a multicultural society, before the dogma is set in stone, within their minds.

 

[Machjo]

you're talking about adults machjo. I've never said teens and adults shouldn't take comparative religion.

No, I was talking about children. I'd gone to catholic school starting in kindergarten. I still remember, albeit vaguely, the Catechism classes until I'd left for BC at around the age of 9. I also remember enough to know that the catechism classes were by no means objective. They were clearly aimed at promotion of the Faith.

As a child, where was my right to an objective course in religions? Certainly if a parent has a 'right' to indoctrinate his child, then he also has an obligation to actually educate him about religion.

 

[s_lone]

Many seem to have an issue with religion being discussed at the elementary level. So here is what the children are expected to know when they finish grade 6. Keep in mind that all this is done progressively. I have a hard time seeing how one could not wish his or her child to be able to have this kind of knowledge and capacity of thinking by the age of 12-13.



By the end of Cycle Three, students are able to describe forms of expression of the main religious traditions by emphasizing their places of origin, founding figures and their demographic impact in the world. Through examples, they can illustrate the norms and values that guide community life that are promoted by these traditions. They can describe in their own words the significance of food- and clothing-related practices that belong to various traditions. They can recognize the variety of ways in which time is represented in certain religions. They can associate exemplary individuals with their works. They can recognize cultural contributions made by religious traditions in the social and cultural environment from here and elsewhere in the world. They can reflect ontheir learning and assess the effectiveness of their process.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here's an interesting thought. Many of the people making points on this thread are essentially making the opposite points in the 'fetus feels pain' thread. Me included.

Here, I'm arguing that learing facts is useful; there, I'm arguing that you shouldn't interfere in my life.
Here, some are arguing that the state has no place interfering in our lives; there, they are saying they have a right to tell others what to do.

Interesting.

Interesting, but hardly surprising. Conservatives support government intervention in peoples’ live in some areas; liberals prefer it in some other areas.

 

[CDNBear]

Many seem to have an issue with religion being discussed at the elementary level. So here is what the children are expected to know when they finish grade 6. Keep in mind that all this is done progressively.



By the end of Cycle Three, students are able to describe forms of expression of the main religious traditions by emphasizing their places of origin, founding figures and their demographic impact in the world. Through examples, they can illustrate the norms and values that guide community life that are promoted by these traditions. They can describe in their own words the significance of food- and clothing-related practices that belong to various traditions. They can recognize the variety of ways in which time is represented in certain religions. They can associate exemplary individuals with their works. They can recognize cultural contributions made by religious traditions in the social and cultural environment from here and elsewhere in the world. They can reflect ontheir learning and assess the effectiveness of their process.

Yep, that's what it says. I read that and though instantly that this is a reasonable and rational idea.

There is no bad influences in this program. Simply put, it's about understanding differences, so can can function and grow in a very multicultural society.

I'm having difficulty why the proponents of the multicult, have such a terrible time with this idea s_lone?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you're an atheist businessman doing business with other countries, again, a knowledge of different religions might be useful. Looking at it that way, such courses influence one's religion the same way maths class influences one's numbers. It merely helps them to better understand the world they live in.

Most Atheists are very knowledgeable about different religions. Very few people are born into Atheism, most become Atheists because they have studied different religions, find plenty of flaws in all of them and have come to the conclusion that there is no God.

In the process, they become thoroughly familiar with at least the major world religions.

 

[Machjo]

Quite so. Teach comparative religion at high school level (I don't think kids have enough understanding at grade one to appreciate differences between religions).

And keep it optional.

You;d be surprised how early it sets in. I remember reading of a study of US kindergarten students. The researchers had put two boes on separate tables at opposite ends of a room, each with a tape recorded message encouraging the children to select the surprise from its box. Since one of the rules was that the children had to select but one, and all else was the same except that one had an accent normally thought of among adults in that local community as a 'white' accent, and the other a 'black' accent (in some local communities in the US, there is in fact such a distinction owing to voluntary segregation to a certain degree between the two groups), the children had nothing but the accent to go on to decide which box to go to for their surprise gift.

Most went to the 'white' box. When questioned afterwards, the white children in the group said they trusted the 'white' box more (though they didn't necessarily use that terminology of course) because it sounded more approachable to them. Interestingly enough, many of the black kids went ot the 'white' box too. When questioned, they thought the 'black' box sounded friendlier but the 'white' one would likely have a better gift.

Where did they learn all that from?

I'd come across something similar in china years ago with a few kindergarten children. One thought Uyghurs were thieves, though she did not even know what a Uyghur was except in name. Another thought blacks were thieves too, even though he'd never met one. Believe me, you'd be surprised at what kind of stuff children pick up on at a very early age.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

No, I was talking about children. I'd gone to catholic school starting in kindergarten. I still remember, albeit vaguely, the Catechism classes until I'd left for BC at around the age of 9. I also remember enough to know that the catechism classes were by no means objective. They were clearly aimed at promotion of the Faith.

As a child, where was my right to an objective course in religions? Certainly if a parent has a 'right' to indoctrinate his child, then he also has an obligation to actually educate him about religion.

It is perfectly permissible to do so in a private school, the one which does not get any funding from the government.

 

[karrie]

If you're the atheist leader of China, and you're organizing an international conference, it would likely be beneficial from a diplomatic standpoint to know a little about various religious dos and don'ts, especially with regards to food and other habits.

Or if you don't know anything about it, you might want someone on the conference team to be familiar with various religions and cultures so as ot potentially avoid grave offense.

If you're an atheist businessman doing business with other countries, again, a knowledge of different religions might be useful. Looking at it that way, such courses influence one's religion the same way maths class influences one's numbers. It merely helps them to better understand the world they live in. Are you suggesting that if an international business school were teaching you about various religions, or a political science course doing the same, that you'd object because it might 'influence' you? Seeing that we now live in a pluralistic society, it's pretty hard not to encounter people of different faiths even in our own neighbourhood.

No, I was talking about children.

This was your reply to me. It wasn't about children.

 

[Machjo]

Now of course the above deals with race, not religion. My point though was that if they've picked up this stuff on race, we can legitimately ask ourselves what they may have picked p about religion, especially form a systematically biased religion course such as we find in at least some Catholic schools.

It is perfectly permissible to do so in a private school, the one which does not get any funding from the government.

It was a public Catholic school. You know, the separate school system which Ontario still has today.

This was your reply to me. It wasn't about children.

No, I was referring to a previous post about my education as a child.

Here's another way of looking at it. I was raised Catholic too, and went to Catholic school until I'd moved to BC. Is it right for the education system to exploit me as a captive audience for their own purposes or am I not a human being? As such, any school ought to have an obligation to teach a child about world religions so as to give him real choice, real freedom.

Sure I walked away from the Catholic faith later, but I would certainly have liked to have a wider perspective at an earlier age.

This.