Your Child's Religion Is My Business Too

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,879
14,428
113
Low Earth Orbit
Charter Preamble states:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

It doesn't say which or whose God so essentially denying a child the opportunity to learn about God from all points of view is going against what the nation was founded on.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Ok, you are just fear mongering now when you are implying that you would rather have teachers instruct pupils in religion rather then they be recruited by terrorist groups. Seriously, that's just stupid.

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

Bryant Neal Vinas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The assassination of Dr. George Tiller

It's not just fear mongering. It's already happened. Had Bryant Vinas learnt about Islam in school, he would not likely have become such easy prey for Al-Qaeda. Since he was raised Catholic, his parents had taught him nothing Of Islam. As a result, with his knowing so little about his newly adopted religion, he was an easy target to manipulate.

As for Scott Roeder, perhaps objective religious education about the Christian faith could have helped him too. For all we know his parents either taught him fanaticism or simply neglected his religious education.

It' society's obligation to teach children to be able to approach religion with a critical mind. This does not mean trying to decide their religion for them, but rather ensuring they possess the necessary knowledge o be able to make responsible decisions regardless what religion they should adopt in the future.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
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?

I don’t see anything wrong with a course on comparative religion. Indeed, history is intertwined with religion. Like it or not, Christianity has played an important part in forming the present day Canada (and USA). So a course on comparative religion, describing the major world religions in non judgmental terms is not at all out of line.

Charter Preamble states:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

It doesn't say which or whose God so essentially denying a child the opportunity to learn about God from all points of view is going against what the nation was founded on.

I don't think it is essential that we have a course on comparative religion. But there is nothing wrong with it, it doesn't violate the constitution and this is something that could be left to the individual jurisdictions, to have a course o comparative religion or not, as they see fit.

It' society's obligation to teach children to be able to approach religion with a critical mind. This does not mean trying to decide their religion for them, but rather ensuring they possess the necessary knowledge o be able to make responsible decisions regardless what religion they should adopt in the future.

I think society’s obligation is to teach children to approach anything with a critical mind, not only religion. And you don’t need a course on religion itself to teach children how to think critically. On the other hand, such a course doesn’t do any harm. This issue is best left to individual jurisdictions.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I don’t see anything wrong with a course on comparative religion. Indeed, history is intertwined with religion. Like it or not, Christianity has played an important part in forming the present day Canada (and USA). So a course on comparative religion, describing the major world religions in non judgmental terms is not at all out of line.

Isn't that what this thread was originally about?

People seemed to leap to the conclusion that being required to teach about various religions was somehow the same as forcing kids to believe various religions.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
I'm not sure where this 'debating people's religion' and 'I'm right, you're wrong' comes from.

That is where it will eventually lead to.... either by how the class is conducted and how far they wish to expand their course.... or by others purposely bringing it to this end result. You can not teach these religions and their backgrounds to students without explaining their views towards those who don't believe what they believe..... which will lead to "They claim they're right, the rest of us are wrong" lessons.... which then will lead to either the teacher bringing up the questions or students who have an issue with such claims raising the questions that will eventually lead to the end conclusion I already explained.

If the class is taught to explain what various major religions believe in, there is no right or wrong. It is what it is.

Once again, if that is all that this class is going to be, then there is not point in wasting time, resources and tax money/funding on something these students can freely learn about on their own free time in churches and the sort...... and in most cases, excluding the occasional donation, are free.

As you said, which confirms my previous argument.... the course is to explain what various major religions believe in.... there is no right or wrong, it is just what they believe in.... thus once again, the class is just a mere over-glorified Sunday School for the particular religion being discussed that day where the students are dictated what is, and there is little room to explore beyond "What Is" since it "Is" what it "Is".

There is no challenge to the student other then memorization and testing on what one remembers.

If you allow a debate in class over each religion, then you open up a big can of worms and eventually the class will be shut down.

If you don't allow a debate in class over what is being taught and it's just yet another avenue to dictate religious dogma to our children without question.... then once again.... what's the point beyond sending your child off to church to learn the exact same crap?

Unless the child in the public school who's being sent to mandatory religious classes is planning on joining a church or mosque to become a priest or religious leader of a community, there is no logical reason to create this class and force it to be mandatory. A very small fraction of the overall population decides to seek out this type of career anyways, and the amount of these people have continually been dropping more and more as years go by..... so no argument or justification exists there either.

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?

Why do you need an entire class in public school to tell someone this? Besides it being pretty basic common knowledge, all one has to do is ask and most of the time they'll get the right answer. They can walk along the street from school, take a short stop into the local church and ask.

Going into a church to seek out these answers isn't like walking into an automotive manufacturing company and asking them how an engine is built.

Who does the Pope lead?

The Roman Catholic Church.

Why doesn't he lead other Christian churches?

Because they all practice different things and believe in slightly different things.

Why is that?

Because God said so.

Done.

Eventually all lessons in religion will lead to one final answer "Because God Said So."

If someone is that interested in the differences between each religion, they can either go to a church and ask, or they can Google it.... or they can read up on the latest news from around the world.... or they can wait until a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness makes a house call to answer all their questions.

Besides what they already teach about certain religions and mythologies in History class, nothing else is needed.

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's wrong is it's practically useless information that most won't even use in their everyday lives, if ever in their life.

They don't celebrate birthdays because it makes them more important then Jesus?

Wow... whoopty do for them.... if there is no exercise for the students to ask questions why or to challenge the reasoning behind this belief..... it's pointless dictation of a religion the student probably isn't, nor ever will be a part of.

I'm sure there might be one or two students interested in this type of class.... but 96% of every other student wouldn't give a damn, nor would I blame them.

Without debating the beliefs and challenging the class on those beliefs, the students are just going to get an explanation like:

"JW's don't celebrate birthdays, as they feel it tries to make the individual more important than Jesus."

^ It is what it is as you say, therefore there's nothing else to say.... so when the class is over and the students are walking to their next class, they're not going to gain anymore tolerance then what they previously had..... they're going to think JW's are frick'n nutz and backwards for not celebrating birthdays.

Then eventually the class will be seen as unproductive and pointless, and be canceled.

If debating and challenging the beliefs is permitted, then what will happen is the religion in question will be picked apart and trashed to absolute crap.... then religious people will complain that their religions are being taught in an unfair manner that makes them appear to be primitive, backwards nut jobs..... then they'll argue that a priest or creationist etc. should teach the class, not a certified, educated teacher...... then those not religious will see this as a further encroachment into our public schools and teaching their children their various religious beliefs.

And if that didn't happen, then other religious people will complain that a person from a particular other religion was teaching the class and would pose a conflict of interest by perhaps promoting their own religion more over then the others, etc. etc......

My ex girlfriend's University prof in her Philosophy class was Christian and made it clear to everybody on the very first day that he was, by claiming that anybody in his class who doesn't believe in Jesus and the Bible should get up and leave his class now because they won't pass. This is one of the many reasons I have great disdain towards the concept of mixing religion into our public schools. The University was privately run, therefore there's not much room for argument against that wanker professor who had his own bias from the get go..... but when it comes to publically funded schools, everybody has a legit right to speak their minds, for or against such an idea.... and I am against.

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.

What is wrong is that none of it is needed or required knowledge in the first place. None of it has any bearing on one's individual life, none of it is needed to be known for getting a job (unless you want to be a priest) Giving basic facts about religions isn't needed and all one needs to know towards "basic facts" can already be found in the History Text Books of senior high school students.

Having a class solely on religion is about as useful and practical as having a class on Bronco Riding.

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.

Who ever said that?

Not I.

Right from the get go in my first post in this thread, I stated very clearly that if I want to teach my own children about one or more religions, or if they wish to learn about one or more religions on their own, they are not only free to do so, but already have plenty of available avenues to seek to get that information, ie: churches, mosques, religious people randomly knocking on your door, etc.

The only people who claim "there are no other religions, there are no people in the world who have different beliefs." are other religious people who feel their way is the only way, and anybody who thinks differently from them are evil sinners who deserve to suffer in hell for all eternity...... That's basically all one needs to know about religion, as everything else simply falls into place after the fact.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
What's wrong is it's practically useless information that most won't even use in their everyday lives, if ever in their life.

So, you're in favour of eliminating History classes, too? The exact same thing you've said above would most certainly apply to history.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
Bryant Neal Vinas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The assassination of Dr. George Tiller

It's not just fear mongering. It's already happened. Had Bryant Vinas learnt about Islam in school, he would not likely have become such easy prey for Al-Qaeda. Since he was raised Catholic, his parents had taught him nothing Of Islam. As a result, with his knowing so little about his newly adopted religion, he was an easy target to manipulate.

As for Scott Roeder, perhaps objective religious education about the Christian faith could have helped him too. For all we know his parents either taught him fanaticism or simply neglected his religious education.

It' society's obligation to teach children to be able to approach religion with a critical mind. This does not mean trying to decide their religion for them, but rather ensuring they possess the necessary knowledge o be able to make responsible decisions regardless what religion they should adopt in the future.

What a bunch of BS. You are over simplifying situations like that to an extreme. if you think comparative religion courses would have changed the mindset of someone like that, you are delusional.

It is not societies obligation to teach anyone about religion. Relgion is a personal matter and we don't need a nanny state to assists people with this.

Your nanny state fantasies are sickening.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
"your child's religion is my business too."

The long and short of the matter is, it is NOT. The government has a right to teach children critical thinking. It has ensured it has a right to teach them hard science... math, physics, language... it does not have a right to delve into the issue of religion and dictate their learning in the field. If someone chooses to raise their child believing in Catholicism as the one true religion, no school will be able to undo that no matter how hard they try. And if someone chooses to raise their child without the notion of spirituality imprinted upon them, I fail to see how a school has a right to undo that by introducing them to it in grade school, even if it's done in the spirit of tolerance and 'historical' learning. Leave such things to highschool and college electives, except where it applies for a solid reason in social studies.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
Your child's religion most certainly is not my business.
And if someone chooses to raise their child without the notion of spirituality imprinted upon them, I fail to see how a school has a right to undo that by introducing them to it in grade school, even if it's done in the spirit of tolerance and 'historical' learning.

I fail to see how learning that 'some people believe in religion, and here is what some religions believe' equates to having the notion of spirituality imprinted upon them.

Learning that some towns have Rotary Clubs does not force your kid to become a Rotarian.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC
Impressionable young minds should not be indoctrinated into any religious belief system. It is cruel and unusual punishment. Religion should only be an elective once they reach the age of reason. Anything before that is brainwashing. Most parents think it is their duty to teach their kids their point of view. They are wrong. It is only your duty to see that they are fed and sheltered. Children are born to teach us, not the other way around. Through religious, political and social pressures we have become a society that is out of control, stressed to the max and completely out of touch with the rest of life on this planet. It is time we sat back and observed our children. They instinctively know what is right and wrong. They are constantly in a state of wonder about life. We are, because of our social conditioning, uptight, anal retentive bigots. If there is to ever be peace and understanding in the world, we need to become as children again and see life for all the beauty and wonder that it is.
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
I can just hear the teacher: 'In late December, we have some time off. We call it Christmas. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. It's a great time to stay home and have fun.' Later in the year, we'll have some time off called 'Easter'. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. Have a nice long weekend. Oh, right, we have weekends off, but I don't know why, and I'm not allowed to talk about it. See you on Monday. Why is it called Monday? I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
So, you're in favour of eliminating History classes, too? The exact same thing you've said above would most certainly apply to history.

*Sigh* so you're in favor for not reading what was already said?

The same thing does not apply to history considering history is an important factor in our development as a species, since History will Repeat until we learn from our past Mistakes. Considering History is something that can be recorded and noted as actually happening, compared to religions who claim something happened and to prove it happened, you need to have "Faith".... neither are the same as the other.

I already stated before that I don't have an issue teaching about religions in a historical point of view, much like how history classes will touch base with past mythologies. Since both Religions and Mythologies fit in the same category, applying the same reasoning should also suit just fine.

In other words:

All students need to learn from religions can already be found in history classes and text books. Anything beyond that is an attempt to promote one or all religions as being somehow valid for one's everyday way of life, which they are not.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,467
139
63
Location, Location
What's hard to understand is you distorting the whole concept that teaching ABOUT religions will somehow turn into indoctrinating kids into religions. You keep trying to make that point, and it's utterly foolish.

That's the part that's hard t understand.
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
Your child's religion most certainly is not my business.

I fail to see how learning that 'some people believe in religion, and here is what some religions believe' equates to having the notion of spirituality imprinted upon them.

Learning that some towns have Rotary Clubs does not force your kid to become a Rotarian.

Once again, you are attempting to over simplify the bigger picture of allowing such a foolish class to exist.

You say "what's wrong with...." in a lot of hypotheticals and those questions on their own, all by themselves, would give the impression that there is nothing wrong..... but you continually fail to see, or just simply ignore the known issues that Karrie, I and others in here are pointing out to you, and rather then addressing those issues or admitting those issues are important, you tail off on another tangent of another "What's wrong with...." while not addressing and avoiding the obvious problems continually presented to you.

The class as described and detailed within this thread/topic already presents a number of conflicts that can not easily be resolved.... such as students already taught one way or another, then having to attend a class that tells them something that either contradicts their own beliefs taught to them by their parents, (thus undermining the parents) or will allow open criticism in one fashion or another of their or someone else's beliefs..... be that Christian, Muslim, Atheist, Jewish, whatever.....

It is simply too much hassle & too much bother for something not important to the overall development of the average student..... they can easily seek out answers on their own without having to get the schools involved..... and you avoid the hassles and foreseeable issues that can and will arise from introducing such a class in public schools.

Plus the simple fact that common sense will tell everybody here that the greater majority of kids going to school these days have zero interest in being taught religion in the classroom. School's boring enough as it is.
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
So where do we draw the line in "informing" children of the various religions? Should Scientology be included, paganism, Bahai Faith, Jainism, Rastafarian movement etc etc?
 

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,677
161
63
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC
What's hard to understand is you distorting the whole concept that teaching ABOUT religions will somehow turn into indoctrinating kids into religions. You keep trying to make that point, and it's utterly foolish.

That's the part that's hard t understand.

It is not hard to understand at all.

What do religions do in order to indoctrinate their followers?

They "TEACH" them about their religion, what they believe in, their history, etc.

What you propose is doing the exact same thing, only you try and split hairs on the minor differences that make no real difference in the first place. You pull some Politically Correct stunts by making it a class that "Teaches" all religions and then argue that because it's a school teacher teaching these religions, it's somehow different, but the process is still the exact same thing and makes no difference.

Some food for your own thoughts:

in·doc·tri·nate - To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles.

What is another word for "Instruct?"

Answer: "To Teach"

The Doctrine or Principle in question is "Religion"

So tell me once again what the differences are between "Teaching" and "Indoctrinating" again?

I can just hear the teacher: 'In late December, we have some time off. We call it Christmas. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. It's a great time to stay home and have fun.' Later in the year, we'll have some time off called 'Easter'. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. Have a nice long weekend. Oh, right, we have weekends off, but I don't know why, and I'm not allowed to talk about it. See you on Monday. Why is it called Monday? I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it.

That's just a very poor argument.

Every kid and their dog by the age of 3 knows what Christmas and Easter are.... do you seriously expect me to believe that we need an entire class based solely on explaining to kids these holidays?

Since the names of our weekdays/weekends are already addressed in Social Studies and History classes in their present forms, once again, there is no valid reason for creating a whole new class to explain the same crap.

Also, try and keep on track that not one person in here said Religions and their ties to our society should be banned completely out of public schooling.

Public schooling already explains these things adequately in the already existing courses in school and if you didn't know this, then you should have paid better attention in school the first time around.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
What's hard to understand is you distorting the whole concept that teaching ABOUT religions will somehow turn into indoctrinating kids into religions. You keep trying to make that point, and it's utterly foolish.

That's the part that's hard t understand.

Some honestly feel that spiritual thinking is learned, contagious in a way. Personally I don't, but, this thread is evidence of plenty of atheists and agnostics who do. I really don't feel that forcing their kids to be exposed to something they feel will be detrimental to them in that manner, is the place of government. Leave it to the parents to explain why they get a Christmas break, not the school. If you want your kid to know the religious basis of Christmas, put them in Catholic school, or teach them at home. Public schools here certainly manage to remain secular about it while still observing it.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
I can just hear the teacher: 'In late December, we have some time off. We call it Christmas. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. It's a great time to stay home and have fun.' Later in the year, we'll have some time off called 'Easter'. I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it. Have a nice long weekend. Oh, right, we have weekends off, but I don't know why, and I'm not allowed to talk about it. See you on Monday. Why is it called Monday? I don't know why, and we're not allowed to talk about it.


Nothing of the sort. I can see how a possible lesson may go.

On 25th of December, the Christians celebrate the festival of Christmas; they celebrate the birth of Christ. While scholars disagree as to whether a man named Christ actually existed, Christians consider him to be much more than a man, the Son of God, the Messiah. Christians also believe that giving one’s life to Christ is the only way to achieve salvation.

Now, who could possibly have a problem with something like that? Similar lessons could be taught regarding Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism etc. I see nothing wrong with that.

Isn't that what this thread was originally about?

People seemed to leap to the conclusion that being required to teach about various religions was somehow the same as forcing kids to believe various religions.

I don’t think original thread is about comparative religion, somehow the discussion got hijacked into that topic (not that there is anything wrong with that).

The original discussion was about private schools. When it comes to private schools, those not funded by the government, the issue is simple. They are free to teach anything they like. Not only comparative religion, a private school is free to teach Bible or Koran or whatever, provided they meet the basic course requirements as laid down by the government.

What's hard to understand is you distorting the whole concept that teaching ABOUT religions will somehow turn into indoctrinating kids into religions. You keep trying to make that point, and it's utterly foolish.

That's the part that's hard t understand.

That is the slippery slope argument, I never put much faith in that. I think we are sensible enough to know when to stop and when not to go down the slippery slope.

So where do we draw the line in "informing" children of the various religions? Should Scientology be included, paganism, Bahai Faith, Jainism, Rastafarian movement etc etc?

Major religions in Canada could be included. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Sikhism etc. As to the minor religions, they can learn from their parents. Kids go to school to learn about Canada, and these major religions shape Canada in important ways. Minor religions don't since there ae so few adherents. So it is not necessary to teach about minor religions.