Supreme court on Quebec’s secularist religion course

[betsy]

Supreme court appeal on Quebec’s secularist religion course

October 21, 2010

MONTREAL, QC – The Catholic Civil Rights League is pleased to learn that the Supreme Court of Canada has allowed the appeal of families from Drummondville, Quebec seeking an exemption from the province’s ethics and religious culture (ECR) course.

“This case is about the principle of parental authority in the religious education of their children,” said League President Phil Horgan. “The appeal is a significant opportunity to affirm these rights in the public forum, and encourage parental rights in the implementation of moral and religious instruction in Quebec’s public schools.”

The League supports Quebec’s Catholic parents, and those of other faiths, in their insistence that parents are the first educators of their children, and have the right to choose their religious education. The League is among the educational and religious organizations that supported the application for appeal, in recognition of the rights of parents to direct their children’s religious education.

The new course was introduced in September, 2009 to replace older courses in Catholic or Protestant religion, or non-religious ethics courses. More than 70 per cent of families had been choosing courses with religious content. Criticism of the new course includes lack of doctrinal content, an emphasis on moral relativism and an over-broad definition of religion, as well as the course’s compulsory nature. Most school boards refused requests for exemption, leading the Drummondville parents to start the court case. Their application for the right to an exemption was refused by the court in September, 2009.

http://christiangovernance.ca/news/supreme-court-appeal-on-quebecs-secularist-religion-course

I don't know about you....but I don't want religion to be taught in school!

That right belongs to parents.

Edited April 16, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

http://christiangovernance.ca/news/supreme-court-appeal-on-quebecs-secularist-religion-course

I don't know about you....but I don't want religion to be taught in school!

That right belongs to parents.

You do not want religion to be taught in school. That includes, I suppose, religion masquarading as science, aka creationism, right?

The course in question is not a religion course, it is a course about religion. Different. Which defeats the argument put foraward by its opponents.

[bloodyminded]

I'd like to know what constitutes the "emphasis on moral relativism."

Since I rather doubt that the course offered was admittedly pro-"moral relativism," I think we can conclude that this is the analysis of the opponents.

But it's pretty vague. What do they mean?

Edited April 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CANADIEN]

I'd like to know what constitutes the "emphasis on moral relativism."

Since I rather doubt that the course offered was admittedly pro-"moral relativism," I think we can conclude that this is the analysis of the opponents.

But it's pretty vague. What do they mean?

Looks to me that these parents sees anything other than religious indoctrination as moral relativism.

[bloodyminded]

Looks to me that these parents sees anything other than religious indoctrination as moral relativism.

That's my guess, too. Or even to put it more generously, maybe they see anything that isn't actively Christian as "moral relativism."

I dunno. Surely the lack of Christian faith is not in and of itself "moral relativism"?

[betsy]

You do not want religion to be taught in school. That includes, I suppose, religion masquarading as science, aka creationism, right?

That is what secularists are saying.

Although it is science explaining that everything was created (implying the existence of a Creator or God/a god), Intelligent Design is not a religion.

Although Intelligent Design does seem to support the creation-beliefs of various religions (Judeo-Christian, Islam etc.,), it is not a religion.

Edited April 17, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

The course in question is not a religion course, it is a course about religion. Different. Which defeats the argument put foraward by its opponents.

I oppose the fact that it's mandatory. Religion involves learning of moral values.

Studying numerous religions can cause confusion in a child's mind, and it will undermine the values being taught by parents at home.

This is taking away the right of the parents.

A court case that will test Quebec's controversial mandatory ethics and religion course opened on a dramatic note Monday when one of the plaintiff's key witnesses fainted as he took the stand and was forced to submit his testimony in writing instead.

The witness's parents – who can't be named because their children are minors – are challenging the mandatory course in Quebec Superior Court, arguing it should be optional for students who hold different religious views.

Their children are currently taking the "Ethics and Religious Culture" class as required under new Quebec rules that took effect in September 2008.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2009/05/11/quebec-ethics-course-0511.html

Edited April 17, 2011 by betsy

[CANADIEN]

That is what secularists are saying.

Along with people of faith who have an understanding of what science is.

Although it is science (...)

It is not science.

[CANADIEN]

I oppose the fact that it's mandatory. Religion involves learning of moral values.

Studying numerous religions can cause confusion in a child's mind, and it will undermine the values being taught by parents at home.

This is taking away the right of the parents.

By that account. the teaching of science would undermine the right of the parents to teach their children pseudo-science such as intelligent design. Perhaps biology, chemistry, physics, natural sciences should be optional too?

There is NOTHING in learning about other religions that undermines the growth of one's faith or the right of parents to direct that growth.

[bloodyminded]

By that account. the teaching of science would undermine the right of the parents to teach their children pseudo-science such as intelligent design. Perhaps biology, chemistry, physics, natural sciences should be optional too?

There is NOTHING in learning about other religions that undermines the growth of one's faith or the right of parents to direct that growth.

Of course you're right. And that the bulk of the Christian faithful have no terribly contradictory relationship to science, and do not feel hostile to major scientific pillars such as evolution, is evidence of this.

[CANADIEN]

Of course you're right. And that the bulk of the Christian faithful have no terribly contradictory relationship to science, and do not feel hostile to major scientific pillars such as evolution, is evidence of this.

Thanks. Now, back to teaching about religion in schools.

The notion that learning that there are various religions is undermining the teaching of one particular religion (by the parents) does not make sense. Unless, of course, the teaching of a particular religion needs to ignore the fact that there are people who believe differently or have no religious beliefs.

Parents are entirely free to teach their kids, for example, that Hindus are going straight to Hell because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and their Saviour. Their right to do so is not undermined when the kids are told in a classroom that Hindus are different from Christians.

By the same token, I doubt very much that the rights of parents to teach their children that there is no God is undermined when children are exposed to the fact (in school, or simply walking down the street) that there are people who believe there is a God. I find it interesting that there are no atheist parents in Quebec (as far as I know) who wants their children exempted from the new curriculum.

Edited April 17, 2011 by CANADIEN

[bloodyminded]

Thanks. Now, back to teaching about religion in schools.

The notion that learning that there are various religions is undermining the teaching of one particular religion (by the parents) does not make sense. Unless, of course, the teaching of a particular religion needs to ignore the fact that there are people who believe differently or have no religious beliefs.

Parents are entirely free to teach their kids, for example, that Hindus are going straight to Hell because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and their Saviours. Their right to do so is not undermined when the kids are told in a classroom that Hindus are different from Christians.

By the same tokens, I doubt very much that the rights of parents to teach their children that there is no God is undermined when children are exposed to the fact (in school, or simply walking down the street) that there are people who believe there is a God. I find it interesting that there are no atheist parents in Quebec (as far as I know) who wants their children exempted from the new curriculum.

Well said, and you're right. Informing children that other religions exist does not undermine parents' authority.

It's a frankly bizarre assertion. Literally: telling the incontrovertible, undebatable truth to the children about objective reality is....really bad for them!

[betsy]

Along with people of faith who have an understanding of what science is.

It is not science.

We'll never agree with each other on that. As for the right of the parents...we'll just have to wait and see how the Supreme Court will decide on that.