Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

[AnnaG]

You say the mythology aspect of religion ought to be left out until they are older and less impressionable yet you send your own children to religious schools where they will get the mythology aspect of religion?

Please clarify what you mean because for now, I don't see how that makes sense.

However I do understand your point that parents who believe in a purely secular way of life should have the right to opt out of a course which deals with religion. But I don't agree with you.

The way I understand it, the course is clearly not designed to influence children into following one religion or another. It is simply designed to inform them, get them thinking, and opening them up to difference.

That's the theory anyway. In practise, sometimes it doesn't quite go that way. Fortunately, as Karrie said, we have choices. The way I see it, we have religious schools, home-schooling, private schools, and public schools, and a combination of the above. I think that should be enough to satisfy whatever a parent wishes. lol
IMO, teaching a kid a variety of religions is not the same as teaching a kid one religion. The variety would be comparative whereas the single teaching would be indoctrinating. My opinion.

 

[CDNBear]

That's the theory anyway. In practise, sometimes it doesn't quite go that way. Fortunately, as Karrie said, we have choices. The way I see it, we have religious schools, home-schooling, private schools, and public schools, and a combination of the above. I think that should be enough to satisfy whatever a parent wishes. lol

But does it satisfy the needs of a multicultural society?

 

[AnnaG]

But does it satisfy the needs of a multicultural society?

I edited more into my lil speech.
But, yes, I think so. Anyone moving to Canada from a different culture would be aware that there's a variety here. Anyone living here should know that, unless they've been living in a cave. Sometimes people don't accept what society has to offer. I don't think many have died from it, though. lol

 

[s_lone]

The difference s_lone is choice. I live in a country where I am free to choose regarding religion. I value that, highly. And I think other parents ought to as well. I value that I can send my child to a Catholic school, but I will defend tooth and nail your right to get your child a secular education as well.

Thank you for clarifying.

I respect your position and forgive me if some of what I say may lead you to think otherwise. I myself received a strictly catholic education when I was young and I cherish my Christian background because I do believe it has contributed to the development of my moral judgement. When religion focuses on positive stuff like, love, acceptance, tolerance etc. I'm all for it. The negative stuff I received from catholicism, I gladly rejected it when I had the maturity to do so.

I think where we disagree is in our understanding of what a secular education is. I don't see comparative religion as being contrary to the essence of secularism. And I believe an education is more rich if it manages to include education concerning the phenomenon of religion in general. In other words, one can speak and reflect about religion in a secular way.

But I understand how you could view a secular education as having nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I just don't go by that. And I feel safe in saying that a strong majority of people in Quebec who are not religious and who believe in secular education are very comfortable with what the course offers to their children.

 

[CDNBear]

I edited more into my lil speech.

I see that, thanx for the heads up.

But, yes, I think so. Anyone moving to Canada from a different culture would be aware that there's a variety here.

Or should be, and they should care about that to. Unfortunately, some don't.

Anyone living here should know that, unless they've been living in a cave.

I'm still getting told I'm going to hell, because I have not embraced "God".

Sometimes people don't accept what society has to offer. I don't think many have died from it, though. lol

I may be a hunter, a Trooper and an all around asshole, but the death of one innocent, is to much.

 

[AnnaG]

I see that, thanx for the heads up.

Or should be, and they should care about that to. Unfortunately, some don't.

There's bound to be a few who slip through cracks. Not much that is guided by politics is completely comprehensive.

I'm still getting told I'm going to hell, because I have not embraced "God".

Yeah. I'm a thoroughly evil person, too. lol

I may be a hunter, a Trooper and an all around asshole, but the death of one innocent, is to much.

I agree. Trouble is, that people take their religions entirely way too seriously, though. That's bound to cause difficulties and grief.

 

[CDNBear]

There's bound to be a few who slip through cracks. Not much that is guided by politics is completely comprehensive.

What cracks? There is a family in Scarborough that openly condemns Canada and has called for Jihad, because we are the devil. Yet a couple teach their daughter that being white and superior, have their child removed from the home. The cracks seem selective.

Yeah. I'm a thoroughly evil person, too. lol

"gawd" forbid, pun intended. lol.

I agree. Trouble is, that people take their religions entirely way too seriously, though. That's bound to cause difficulties and grief.

I don't know about that. I take my spirituality seriously, but respect the fact that many people don't view life as I do, nor do they view the world as I do. My best friend is a devout Christian, he feels the same way.

We will all see things in a way that is interpreted by our perspectives. It's in how we treat people of different beliefs that we should examine, regularly. I think this course goes a long way to give children of all faiths, or lack thereof, the ability to do so.

 

[AnnaG]

What cracks? ----- The cracks seem selective.

I have no doubt that sometimes they are. But I said: " Anyone moving to Canada from a different culture would be aware that there's a variety here. " to which, you replied: "Or should be, and they should care about that to. Unfortunately, some don't." and I further replied: "There's bound to be a few who slip through cracks. Not much that is guided by politics is completely comprehensive." IOW, I can easily see that an immigrant may not be aware of religions other than their own and Christianity being available in Canuckville and remaining ignorant of that for qwuite sometime without some enlightening interference from the gov't.

"gawd" forbid, pun intended. lol.

Evil to one god may not be evil to another. lol I don't really care about gods nor their followers opinions of agnostics. lol

I don't know about that. I take my spirituality seriously, but respect the fact that many people don't view life as I do, nor do they view the world as I do. My best friend is a devout Christian, he feels the same way.

I said, "too seriously" I think. Anyone willing to freely kill or maim because of their belief in their faith is nuts, IMO.
It's a personal opinion thing.

We will all see things in a way that is interpreted by our perspectives. It's in how we treat people of different beliefs that we should examine, regularly. I think this course goes a long way to give children of all faiths, or lack thereof, the ability to do so.

Sounds fine by me.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

That may be, but that is one fo the hazards o having freedom of religion in the constitution. Freedom does not come cheap, there is a price to pay. There is always the possibility that some will abuse any given freedom.

When it comes to freedom of religion, there is always a possibility that some will preach hate in the name of religion (hate against blacks, hate against gays etc.).

Thus when it comes to gays, Fundamentalist and some Catholic churches will preach that gays are evil and perverts (forget about the crap ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’, the way it works out in practice is, ‘hate the sin, hate the sinner even more’).

In addition, Fundamentalist schools will teach Creationism in their schools. Some Islamic Madraasas will preach intolerance against non Muslims. These all are hazards of freedom of religion and one must live with it.

As long as they are not funded by public money, they have the right to teach these things.

What I'm seeing here is that in the end, I have a bunch of non-religious people arguing with me that their kids ought to be taught religious thinking in grade school, while I'm trying to point out that the mythology aspect of religion ought to be left out until they are older and less impressionable. This has got to be the most back-asswards argtument I've ever had on here. I'll never understand people. lol.

You have got it all wrong. First, nobody is arguing that religious thinking should be taught in grade school, at least I am not. I support having an optional course on comparative religion in secondary school.

Again, nobody is talking of teaching mythology aspects of any religion in schools, that is the job of the religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.). In comparative religion courses, the non mythological, historical aspects of religions should be covered.

 

[AnnaG]

You have got it all wrong. First, nobody is arguing that religious thinking should be taught in grade school, at least I am not. I support having an optional course on comparative religion in secondary school.

Again, nobody is talking of teaching mythology aspects of any religion in schools, that is the job of the religious institutions (churches, mosques etc.). In comparative religion courses, the non mythological, historical aspects of religions should be covered.

I don't know of any CR courses that teach without having the mythological aspects included and I really doubt you could find one.

 

[karrie]

But I understand how you could view a secular education as having nothing whatsoever to do with religion. I just don't go by that. And I feel safe in saying that a strong majority of people in Quebec who are not religious and who believe in secular education are very comfortable with what the course offers to their children.

Nope, I'm not saying nothing whatsoever. What I'm saying is that there are secular people who feel that discussing mythological ideas with young kids turns them into mythological thinkers. The social classes my kids get at this age talk about religion in the context of what religion is present, and the cultural impact that religion has, rather than the mythologies behind it. That seems like the logical way to go, the mythologies aren't really very important at elementary age anyway imo.

I don't know of any CR courses that teach without having the mythological aspects included and I really doubt you could find one.

lol... yup

I wonder how objective that religion class is, lol.

I haven't mocked your choices.

*snerk*

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't know of any CR courses that teach without having the mythological aspects included and I really doubt you could find one.

Then there should be one, teaching mythological aspects is the job of churches. Thus, in school they could say that Christians regard Jesus as Messiah, but it would be totally wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah, that is the job for the Churches.

It would be OK to tell kids what Christians or Muslims believe, that is part of comparative religion. What schools must not do is describe mythological aspects (turning water into wine, parting the Red Sea etc.) as if they were facts, that is the job of churches.

 

[s_lone]

Nope, I'm not saying nothing whatsoever. What I'm saying is that there are secular people who feel that discussing mythological ideas with young kids turns them into mythological thinkers. The social classes my kids get at this age talk about religion in the context of what religion is present, and the cultural impact that religion has, rather than the mythologies behind it. That seems like the logical way to go, the mythologies aren't really very important at elementary age anyway imo.

Then I really don't know what the big fuss is about because the elementary program of the Quebec course doesn't seem to go much into the mythological aspect. What you describe about the social classes your kids get is pretty much what Quebec kids get so what's wrong with it?

I doubt we'll get to discuss this in 20 years, but I'll be very surprised if the current generation of children in Quebec end up being mythological thinkers.

Then there should be one, teaching mythological aspects is the job of churches. Thus, in school they could say that Christians regard Jesus as Messiah, but it would be totally wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah, that is the job for the Churches.

It would be OK to tell kids what Christians or Muslims believe, that is part of comparative religion. What schools must not do is describe mythological aspects (turning water into wine, parting the Red Sea etc.) as if they were facts, that is the job of churches.

And that is precisely NOT what the Quebec course does. It does NOT teach the religious mythologies as facts.

 

[AnnaG]

Then there should be one, teaching mythological aspects is the job of churches. Thus, in school they could say that Christians regard Jesus as Messiah, but it would be totally wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah, that is the job for the Churches.

It would be OK to tell kids what Christians or Muslims believe, that is part of comparative religion. What schools must not do is describe mythological aspects (turning water into wine, parting the Red Sea etc.) as if they were facts, that is the job of churches.

:roll: "Mythology: myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person " Princeton U. Press dictionary
Teaching CR courses without including mythological aspects would be like teaching auto-mechanics without engine theory.
If you want to study religion without the mythology, you'd need a specific course about a particular aspect of the religions. Comparative religion courses teach the differences and similarities of religions, the mythological stories included.
But CR courses do NOT teach the mythologies as fact anyway.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Then I really don't know what the big fuss is about because the elementary program of the Quebec course doesn't seem to go much into the mythological aspect. What you describe about the social classes your kids get is pretty much what Quebec kids get so what's wrong with it?

I doubt we'll get to discuss this in 20 years, but I'll be very surprised if the current generation of children in Quebec end up being mythological thinkers.



And that is precisely NOT what the Quebec course does. It does NOT teach the religious mythologies as facts.

My understanding is that the school in question is a private school, does not receive any government funding. If that indeed is the case, then government has no business to tell the school anything.

All a government can do is lay down basic curriculum which must be taught in private schools. As long as private schools teach that, they can do pretty much anything they want.

So the question here really is, was the private school teaching what was included in the government course? If it was, then it is none of government's business if the school is teaching something in addition to that (like Catholic perspective).

 

[karrie]

Then I really don't know what the big fuss is about because the elementary program of the Quebec course doesn't seem to go much into the mythological aspect. What you describe about the social classes your kids get is pretty much what Quebec kids get so what's wrong with it?

I doubt we'll get to discuss this in 20 years, but I'll be very surprised if the current generation of children in Quebec end up being mythological thinkers.



And that is precisely NOT what the Quebec course does. It does NOT teach the religious mythologies as facts.

I got the impression from Cycle 3 of the elementary level curriculum you posted. Largely from the statement that students would be able, by the end of said Cycle, 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. ..." It's all quite vaguely worded, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you teach those things without teaching the base mythologies.

 

[s_lone]

I got the impression from Cycle 3 of the elementary level curriculum you posted. Largely from the statement that students would be able, by the end of said Cycle, 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. ..." It's all quite vaguely worded, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you teach those things without teaching the base mythologies.

At this point I think we can only agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion and I don't think there is much more I can tell you to convince you that this course is a good thing and especially not a bad thing. I think it's crystal clear that the course does not aim at making the children believe in anything at all but is rather focused on broadening their knowledge and on heightening their capacity to critically reflect upon the whole reality of religion.

I fail to see how this course could lead a child into being a mythological thinker and I especially fail to see how you could see that as a problem, considering that your own children are taught the mythology of Christianity. Furthermore, the course is clearly adapted to the different age levels. The cycle 3 objectives you mentioned are for cycle 3, not for cycle 1.

I think you have a case when you defend the freedom to choose what is right for your child. But I think this is very easily challenged by the argument that our society drastically needs some form of cohesion and that there has to be at least some standards of education to which all children must be exposed to. These standards of education are precisely what we disagree upon. And that is a healthy thing because civil disagreements like these force us to improve whatever we already have.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I got the impression from Cycle 3 of the elementary level curriculum you posted. Largely from the statement that students would be able, by the end of said Cycle, 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. ..." It's all quite vaguely worded, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around how you teach those things without teaching the base mythologies.

That is easy; let me have a go at Christianity.

Place of origin: Middle East (forget about Garden of Eden).


Founding Figure – Jesus Christ. While there probably lived a man named Christ
(scholars disagree on this), Christians regard him as the Messiah.

Demographic impact on the world – Here they could describe all the good done by Christians (charity work, feeding the hungry, education the poor etc.) as well as evil done by Christians (Crusades, forced conversions, Inquisition, Medieval witch hunts, Salem Witch trials etc.).

Now, where is the need to discus mythology?

 

[gerryh]

That is easy; let me have a go at Christianity.

Place of origin: Middle East (forget about Garden of Eden).


Founding Figure – Jesus Christ. While there probably lived a man named Christ
(scholars disagree on this), Christians regard him as the Messiah.



Now, where is the need to discus mythology?

both comments in red are why I would be against my elementary aged kids being in this course, and I will lay odds that those types of comments will be used. Both comments fly directly into the face of basic Christian tenents.

 

[karrie]

At this point I think we can only agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion and I don't think there is much more I can tell you to convince you that this course is a good thing and especially not a bad thing. I think it's crystal clear that the course does not aim at making the children believe in anything at all but is rather focused on broadening their knowledge and on heightening their capacity to critically reflect upon the whole reality of religion.

I fail to see how this course could lead a child into being a mythological thinker and I especially fail to see how you could see that as a problem, considering that your own children are taught the mythology of Christianity. Furthermore, the course is clearly adapted to the different age levels. The cycle 3 objectives you mentioned are for cycle 3, not for cycle 1.

I think you have a case when you defend the freedom to choose what is right for your child. But I think this is very easily challenged by the argument that our society drastically needs some form of cohesion and that there has to be at least some standards of education to which all children must be exposed to. These standards of education are precisely what we disagree upon. And that is a healthy thing because civil disagreements like these force us to improve whatever we already have.

I have said quite clearly at multiple points that the course seems fine to me as I see fit to raise my kids, but that I don't like the idea of others being forced to put their kids in it if they oppose.