But that is for pre-university students, right? How do children that still believe in Santa Clause benefit from these religion tolerance courses?
Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
But that is for pre-university students, right? How do children that still believe in Santa Clause benefit from these religion tolerance courses?
No-one forces kids to go to any school and everyone pays for the privilege of kids' schooling. Even regardless of whether they have kids or not.
I only see a problem if the kids aren't also taught that the course is only based on opinion, not fact. Also, I'd object if the gov't tried something like what happened in the States about teaching ID in science classes.
lol If the gov't had decided to go unsecular, our kids would have been totally educated at home or in a secular private school.
Keep in mind that this course is given from grade 1 to 6 in elementary school. Then from secondary 1 to 5 in high school (the equivalent of grade 7 to 12 in the ROC I think). I doubt, the issue of religious tolerance is straightforwardly tackled in grade 1!
As far as the gov't is concerned, the important thing is that the kid be educated enough to become a functioning element of use to society (IOW, able to contribute taxes). If some society in some region wants such-and-such, then the gov't is fine with it as long as that society is able to teach the kids to be productive.
really? Do you think the children from Loyola school will not be productive members of society? Because the government is appealing the decision the Superior Court came to here.
Ok, I should have said, as a general rule, the gov't's main concern is whether kids turn out to be productive MoS.
The one aspect of this that everyone seems to be avoiding is that funding for Catholic schools is guaranteed in the Constitution, as a nod to Trudeau's vision of Quebec culture. Now to me, that leads to several thoughts including:
- if its good for Roman Catholicism, how can we justify withholding funding other religious schools, because would that not be religious discrimination?
and more importantly in the case of this course in Quebec
- how much control are we empowered to exercise over the electives schools offer so long as they teach the required provincial curriculum in the core study areas?
To be honest, I don't want my son brought up being taught someone else's religious dogma, so I doubt I will send him to a Catholic school, but the only way I see that a provincial gov't could go against this section of the Constitution is if they invoke the notwithstanding clause... which isn't unheard of, especially in Quebec, but it would be ironic considering why the funding for Catholic education was enshrined to begin with...
- if its good for Roman Catholicism, how can we justify withholding funding other religious schools, because would that not be religious discrimination?
and more importantly in the case of this course in Quebec
- how much control are we empowered to exercise over the electives schools offer so long as they teach the required provincial curriculum in the core study areas?
To be honest, I don't want my son brought up being taught someone else's religious dogma, so I doubt I will send him to a Catholic school, but the only way I see that a provincial gov't could go against this section of the Constitution is if they invoke the notwithstanding clause... which isn't unheard of, especially in Quebec, but it would be ironic considering why the funding for Catholic education was enshrined to begin with...
Actually it long pre-dates Trudeau, it's in the original 1867 constitution, section 93, which specified among other things that all denominational schools that existed at the union continue to exist and no province could make laws prejudicial to them. It was an essential step in getting the mostly Catholic French speakers of Lower Canada and the mostly Protestant English speakers of Upper Canada to agree to the union. Other religions weren't at issue. In this more secular age, I think it's largely outmoded and should be abandoned. There are public and separate (i.e. Catholic) school systems here in Saskatchewan, both funded by taxpayers, quite unrelated to language issues, and I don't think there should be. But it's pretty firmly entrenched, no sane politician would take it on.
From what I've been reading about Quebec education as this article came up, Catholic schools appear to be private, not the public or separate schools found in other provinces. Which is part of why these courses have garnered much support... because it was an end to traditional religion classes in public schools.
If parents choose to place their children in a religious school, then the state has no business attempting to force those children to undergo training in any religion. That is the parents choice, not the governments.
If students, above the mandatory age for schooling wish to take coursework on world religions, then that is their right. But no government has the right to attempt to force anyone, of any age, to take any coursework in any religious field, regardless of what the government may choose to call that training.
Civics training may well be the responsibility of the public schools, but NOT if that training attempts to "define" what the religious beliefs and/or practices of various religious sects. Who decides what is in the curricula? Do Catholics decide on any teaching about Catholicism? Do Hindu's approve any teaching about Hinduism? Or does the state decide that it will present what IT believes are the core/essential teachings of each and every religious group that exists somewhere in the country?
When government attempts to do this, it begins that slide down a slippery slope. Someone in government is making decisions about what will, and what will not, be presented about various religious beliefs. That almost leads to one of two extremes: either favoritism of some and denigration of others; or such a vanilla P/C approach that the teaching is meaningless.
That's why I much prefer the American policy on this. The government has no business teaching any religious beliefs. That is left up to the Churches and the families.
Children can be taught in all schools that one must respect the right and beliefs of others, without actually attempting to expose them to whatever those beliefs may be. Once that line is crossed, the government ends up favoring some beliefs and discouraging others.
No government will ever dictate to me, to my children or my grandchildren what their beliefs should be.
If students, above the mandatory age for schooling wish to take coursework on world religions, then that is their right. But no government has the right to attempt to force anyone, of any age, to take any coursework in any religious field, regardless of what the government may choose to call that training.
Civics training may well be the responsibility of the public schools, but NOT if that training attempts to "define" what the religious beliefs and/or practices of various religious sects. Who decides what is in the curricula? Do Catholics decide on any teaching about Catholicism? Do Hindu's approve any teaching about Hinduism? Or does the state decide that it will present what IT believes are the core/essential teachings of each and every religious group that exists somewhere in the country?
When government attempts to do this, it begins that slide down a slippery slope. Someone in government is making decisions about what will, and what will not, be presented about various religious beliefs. That almost leads to one of two extremes: either favoritism of some and denigration of others; or such a vanilla P/C approach that the teaching is meaningless.
That's why I much prefer the American policy on this. The government has no business teaching any religious beliefs. That is left up to the Churches and the families.
Children can be taught in all schools that one must respect the right and beliefs of others, without actually attempting to expose them to whatever those beliefs may be. Once that line is crossed, the government ends up favoring some beliefs and discouraging others.
No government will ever dictate to me, to my children or my grandchildren what their beliefs should be.
If the school is privately funded and not supported by the government, I don't see what right the government has to intervene. Government must make sure that the core curriculum is taught in private schools, so that students in private schools are not at a disadvantage. Courses in math, sciences etc.
Other than that, it is up to the private school what they want to teach. For instance, government must see to it that private schools teach evolution. But if a Fundamentalist school wants to teach Creationism in addition to that, it is none of government's business.
I agree with the court decision.
I agree with this too BUT Catholic schools are enshrined in the Canadian constitution and it would require an ammendment to remove it. There are numerous other issues that we've debated on these forums that would require constitutional change as well to address to the satisfaction of some (whether we're talking language laws, senate reform, abolition of the Monarchy, etc) but this is down the ladder a ways in terms of the battles that people want to fight. I'm of the opinion that Canada may never ammend its constitution because of the vast regional divisions that only seem to widen as the years go on.
No, because there is simply no need... as Karie just pointed out, the argument of having these classes is to teach our children tolerance and understanding, in an unbiased, balanced matter, of religious groups that hold no respect for them and think anybody who doesn't worship their god exactly as they do, they are either infidels or simply just going to rot in hell for all eternity.
As I said, it is not us and our children who need courses to learn about them, it is they who should be getting the courses about us so they can learn some tolerance of their own.
And once again, if I want to teach my children about religion, or even if my children wish to seek out religion on their own, there are churches and other avenues easily available for them to seek.
Considering Politics is something every citizen should be taught, since we're all supposed to vote anyways and our schools are funded via the government, via us through taxes, that makes sense.
As for Sexuality, it is part of the human reproductive process and a bit of an important thing to be taught at some stage, religious or not.... unless you believe we should all live in a A-Sexual society.
Religion is not needed, nor required for living one's live. Religion does not hold the book on morality and kindness to others, or else at least half of the atrocities committed over the centuries in the name of various religions would never have occurred..... which was usually rooted in ignorance and fear of those different from themselves.
As I said, in regards to teaching history, I have no issue teaching students about religion in that aspect, but to try and brainwash students into thinking Religions are in someway valid and do not contradict everything else being taught to the students (Biology, Chemistry, Science, Physics, History, Evolution, etc.) I have issue with.
If one wants to look at it in a different way, if religions want to be added to the regular school teachings across the country, then perhaps they should stop giving sex ed and the teaching of evolution/science such hard times in school and agree those things are valid for teaching too.
It's pretty hypocritical for a group to argue and fight against valid things being taught to our students in a public school, but then at the same time, turn around and try and argue that their baseless dogma of oppression is somehow more valid.
It reeks of what religions have done forever.... which is continually try and pry its way into everybody's lives as if they're somehow justified in doing so, and then trashing any and all things different from them as being wrong.... because God told them so... it's the whole reason why separation of church & state was invented in the first place.
Religion is the Church..... Public Schools are the State.... keep it that way.
Last edited:
I think you guys need to define who 'us' and 'them' are.
Catholics - where do they fit? Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, which camp(s) are they in?
Protestants?
Jehovahs' Witnesses?
Seventh Day Adventists
Christian Scientists
Baptists
Hindus
Muslims
Taoists
etc etc
I'm not sure who is an 'us' and who is a 'them'.
A full-on class that continues for an entire school year will not remain objective, because eventually it will delve into debating one ideal compared to another, seeking out the differences between each, and in a continually diversifying society, sides are going to start getting picked.
We're not talking about Philosophy, nor are we discussing University Students.... we're talking about high school students.
Different subject, different approach, different end results.
If one wants to be informed on various religions, they can go to a church, or a mosque, or a synagogue.... there's plenty out there.... there are more churches then there are schools in any one town..... there is no need for it in a public school.
Philosophy and Religious courses in Universities and Colleges make sense, just as the same things being taught in Catholic Schools...... because they're all private and the individual student is paying to learn those things. It's a whole different thing when it's coming out of everybody elses pocket via taxes, including those who are not religious or even have a personal hate-on for religions.
What if the government decides that comparative religion is part of the core curriculum?
And where does History fit into this - it's intertwined with religion, and therefore, should we exclude it as well?
No definition is required.... all of the above fit in the argument, since apparently this so-called class is supposed to teach students all of the above. They're all religions and they all have their own aspects of "I'm right and everybody else is wrong because my slightly different God told me so."
It doesn't matter if you personally believe in your own religion in a very open minded, tolerant manner.... you are a small % in a bigger number of people who don't, and the core belief in just about every religion mentioned above is "I'm Right, You're Wrong.... because you are wrong, you are also either a sinner or just plain evil."
I don't care for any one particular religion out there today.... I can respect that other people believe their own beliefs and practice their own faiths as they see fit..... they can do as they please for all I care.... but there is no need for a class to be introduced to tell me all this.
Besides, there's simply no logic in a class described above anyways.
Basically all I have read so far is the defense/argument to allow the class so that people can debate the religions and their ideals in an objective manner without bias.
What's the point?
Religions are based on if someone believes in that religion or not. If someone believes in the religion, then they believe in it, for whatever reasons one can think of.... there is nothing to debate, because faith in a religion is like an individual's opinion.... you can not debate or argue it because it is based on things that are difficult to measure or put a finger on. One can not say one religion is true or false, because it can not be proven beyond one person's logical-scientific view, vs. one's own faith in the religion to be true, since both differing views measure their own forms of truth with different equations.
Because of this, there is nothing really to debate.... since there is nothing to debate, all that would remain is dictating to students each religion & their beliefs... which is just an over-glorified Sunday School class.
Once you start debating based on people's faith and personal opinions, you then start to trample on that person's beliefs/faith and propose challenges to them to defend against, which will only lead to what I already explained above in regards to official complaints to the district from those offended and divisions between students based on their beliefs and religions.
If it doesn't lead to that, then it will lead to one religion or another being talked about more then another, and then that group becoming offended and complaining yet again to the school district.
There is no logical advantage or need to have these classes in public schools and would only create more problems then it would solve.
I'm not sure where this 'debating people's religion' and 'I'm right, you're wrong' comes from.
If the class is taught to explain what various major religions believe in, there is no right or wrong. It is what it is.
The Pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church, but not the Anglican Church or the Greek Orthodox Church. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just is. What is wrong with learning that?
What is wrong with learing that some JW's don't celebrate birthdays, as they feel it tries to make the individual more important than Jesus.
What is wrong with learning facts about what other religions believe? It's not to emphasize one over the other, or make a religion out to be better or worse. It is simply to give basic facts about it.
We can't all run around and tell our children there are no other religions, there are no people in the world who have different beliefs.
If the class is taught to explain what various major religions believe in, there is no right or wrong. It is what it is.
The Pope is head of the Roman Catholic Church, but not the Anglican Church or the Greek Orthodox Church. That doesn't make it right or wrong, it just is. What is wrong with learning that?
What is wrong with learing that some JW's don't celebrate birthdays, as they feel it tries to make the individual more important than Jesus.
What is wrong with learning facts about what other religions believe? It's not to emphasize one over the other, or make a religion out to be better or worse. It is simply to give basic facts about it.
We can't all run around and tell our children there are no other religions, there are no people in the world who have different beliefs.
