cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Freedom of religion also means freedom from it.What religion were they forcing on the kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I strongly disagree with this court ruling, just saying we should not be teaching religions in any school Teaching religion and teaching about religions are two totally different things. No one is indoctrinating these kids into these faiths. These sorts of classes are only meant to educate people about different cultures and societies. The last thing we need is a generation of troglodytes that are completely ignorant of other cultures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 [A] federal State should not force parents to send their children to a government provincial school.Are private schools illegal in Quebec? Is home schooling illegal in Quebec? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 The parents went to court claiming that the curriculum violated their freedom of religion.Neither they, nor you in your long-winded nonsensical rant proved this fact. How was their freedom of religion violated? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sa'adoni Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) I agree with the couple, people shouldn't have to have their children exposed to religion. But it is their choice to send their child to a catholic school where religion classes are mandatory for a catholic school diploma. I know in Ontario religion classes are optional but you cannot graduate with the Catholic diploma without taking them. However public schools would not require this. Likewise homeschooling or GED would not require it. I find it highly unfortunate that the board would not accommodate the request for only exposure to the Catholic Faith at the school, even if it meant only receiving a "general diploma" with 4 other electives. It would be unfortunate if the family was forced to move to a francophone part of Ontario to get this equivalent service from Ontario Catholic schools Parents should be able to ask for accommodation to sensitive topics until their child is of majority age 16-18. Such as sex, religion, economics, and science&technology. Parents effectively control and are responsible for the freedom of belief conscience, and thought and religion of their child until they are of majority age. Since the legal gaurdian is responsible for that childs rights. Schools should accommodate requests for exclusion from topics that go against the beleifs that the guardian has for their child. Boards should be in dialogue with parents to avoid those problem areas when setting out guidelines to their schools and should offer alternative programming where only a minority is protected where the majority does not allow for protections at default. If education is mandatory, but violates the rights of the legal guardian for their child then it is more or less contrary to the fundamentals of justice in benefiting society an unconstitutional without a basis for fundamental justice because law itself does not necessitate religion to be instructed. There is a definate short sighteness in the supreme courts view in this matter, as it effectively capacitates boards to force religion whether a private school or a public school. This could be satanism or any religion and the students would still have to take the course. Should our children be forced to learn about the Cult of Uranus or Aphrodite? Edited February 19, 2012 by Sa'adoni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Should parents be able to pull their kids out of math and English classes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 I agree with the couple, people shouldn't have to have their children exposed to religion. What does 'exposed to' mean ? Does it mean being taught that they even exist ? It's an important thing to understand, if we're to understand history, civics, and culture. Parents should be able to ask for accommodation to sensitive topics until their child is of majority age 16-18. Such as sex, religion, economics, and science&technology. The public should decided the basic curriculum, not individuals. A common agreement of what is necessary to be an effective citizen allows us to create a society where dialogue and growth is possible. Should our children be forced to learn about the Cult of Uranus or Aphrodite? No, because it's not important to know about those things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 This is not a religious course in that it does not teach dogma. Rather, it's part social studies, part philosophy. Kids are taught about religions from a cultural perspective, alongside discussions on contemporary issues and larger ethical questions. Most of the classwork focuses on discussion and debate, with the goal of encouraging the kids to form defensible opinions. If anything, religion is just a vehicle, the real content of this course focuses on teaching students to reason. Here's info on the course objectives and outcomes, from the MELS website: Reflects on ethical questions http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_01 Demonstrates an understanding of the phenomenon of religion http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_02 Engages in dialogue http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/progression/ethiqueCultureReligieuse/index_en.asp?page=competence_03 WRT the SCOC, the court stated that there was no charter basis on which to rule against the curriculum. How is anyone confusing this with judicial activism or federal intrusion on provincial jurisdiction??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Thanks for the links....we can see just how "balanced" this religious curriculum is: Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) is covered throughout each year of a cycle Judaism and Native spirituality are covered on a number of occasions in each year of a cycle Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are covered on a number of occasions over the course of a cycle other religions may be covered over the course of a cycle, depending on the reality and the needs of the class It is obvious that the retooled courses only continue the main objectives of the Quebec government while responding to "diversity" criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 Thanks for the links....we can see just how "balanced" this religious curriculum is: Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) is covered throughout each year of a cycle Judaism and Native spirituality are covered on a number of occasions in each year of a cycle Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism are covered on a number of occasions over the course of a cycle other religions may be covered over the course of a cycle, depending on the reality and the needs of the class It is obvious that the retooled courses only continue the main objectives of the Quebec government while responding to "diversity" criticism. It's never been a secret that the curriculum would not equally represent all faiths in terms of time allocated. The course is designed to reflect both the contemporary and historical culture of quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 It's never been a secret that the curriculum would not equally represent all faiths in terms of time allocated. The course is designed to reflect both the contemporary and historical culture of quebec. And that's fine, but it most certainly is not just another social science course. This course has "baggage". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 19, 2012 Report Share Posted February 19, 2012 And that's fine, but it most certainly is not just another social science course. This course has "baggage". All public school social studies courses do... unless you can show me one that 'fairly' represents the historical perspectives and contributions of all peoples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 All public school social studies courses do... unless you can show me one that 'fairly' represents the historical perspectives and contributions of all peoples. Not like this one, which has a dubious legacy involving the subject of religion in public schools. Western Civilization classes have long included incomplete academic study of religion(s), but not with this kind of stink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_and_religious_culture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 This post has got to be in the running for the facepalm of the year award, so far. It's not a religious course, it's just a course about religion. You honestly don't understand the difference? This course explains various religions and their beliefs. A religious course would promote one particular religion. Yikes. Anyways, the parents should have the right to pull their kids in this instance. Why? Because they're ignorant hillbillies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Neither they, nor you in your long-winded nonsensical rant proved this fact. How was their freedom of religion violated? I will be the first to admit that a post as loong as mine qualifies as a rant. That's probably why you missed the following paragraph: The argument [that freedom of religion is being violated] has been presented, and rejected, in three different courthouses. Freedom of (or from) religion is not shield against hearing facts about the existence of other faiths and their tenets. As the Supreme Court (and other courts before it) stated, NOTHING in the program forces students to embrace or rejct one or any religion. Nothing prevents parents from teaching one religion or no religion at all, or that any or all religions are bad. Feel free to explain at any point in time how this amounts to me claiming that the parent's freedom of religion is being violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I obviously missed the boat on your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Not like this one, which has a dubious legacy involving the subject of religion in public schools. Western Civilization classes have long included incomplete academic study of religion(s), but not with this kind of stink. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_and_religious_culture What evidence do you have of a particularly foul odour hanging over this course vs any other? The course's driving focus is on teaching kids to explore ethics and the philosophical underpinnings of rational thought. Religion is but one part of the overall course load. Unlike the world religions or modern western civilizations classes I took, this course is taught over a period of 10 yrs, giving students an opportunity to actually develop a competence in the subject matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 .... Unlike the world religions or modern western civilizations classes I took, this course is taught over a period of 10 yrs, giving students an opportunity to actually develop a competence in the subject matter. To what purpose? Why would elementary and secondary students need to develop "competence" in the subject of religion, with a curriculum bias towards Catholics and Protestants? Has this been going on since 1867? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 To what purpose? Why would elementary and secondary students need to develop "competence" in the subject of religion, with a curriculum bias towards Catholics and Protestants? Has this been going on since 1867? Religion is one component, a good lens into the cultural attitudes that govern and influence society, a good frame within which to discuss questions related to ethics and the evolution of morality. My son has been taking these courses since they began. He's currently in his first year of high school, more than halfway through the year, and religion hasn't come up in this class once. They're currently studying ethics in marketing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 To what purpose? Why would elementary and secondary students need to develop "competence" in the subject of religion, with a curriculum bias towards Catholics and Protestants? Has this been going on since 1867? Same reason we teach Canadian geography or history. These religions played an important formative role in the establishment of our society and continue to play a role today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) ...My son has been taking these courses since they began. He's currently in his first year of high school, more than halfway through the year, and religion hasn't come up in this class once. They're currently studying ethics in marketing. Very well...this demonstrates that ethics can be taught without a religious component. Frankly, I don't know how one would/could teach ethics and rational thought using religion with a straight face given what we know about the actions of organized religion. Edited February 21, 2012 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 This part is even more bizarre: Quebec introduced the ethics and religious culture curriculum to replace the former Protestant and Catholic religious courses for all students except those in Grade 9. The program is not on the Grade 9 curriculum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzy Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Very well...this demonstrates that ethics can be taught without a religious component. Frankly, I don't know how one would/could teach ethics and rational thought using religion with a straight face given what we know about the actions of organized religion. It's certainly possible, but it would be an incomplete narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted February 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Well, maybe they were. What about the child? Should they not get to learn because of their parent's beliefs?For questions of education, it is not for the federal Supreme Court to decide - unless possibly it is to protect a language minority in a province.The Supreme Court had no business issuing a judgment in this case - Excuse me? The parents went to court claiming that the curriculum violated their freedom of religion. A right protected in the Constitution. The role of the Court is to interpret the Constituion, that is in this case to determine if the mandatory nature of the curriculum violates the Constitution.Education is a provincial jurisdiction.End of story. IMV, the federal Supreme Court should not be involved in this question. ---- The Charter of Rights protects individuals against the federal government. That's all. This post has got to be in the running for the facepalm of the year award, so far. It's not a religious course, it's just a course about religion. Facepalm?Why is the federal government, a federal court, involved in an education question? The last thing that Canada needs now is a federal institution imposing decisions on a province. As I have always argued: Canada works best when ordinary people are not forced to choose between where they live, and Ottawa. (Then again, maybe it's better to recognize that a federal Canada doesn't really work well... ) Feel free to explain at any point in time how this amounts to me claiming that the parent's freedom of religion is being violated.Rant? You miss the far more serious issue in this federal Supreme Court decision.CANADIEN, welcome to the 21st century - the century that your reasoning has created. Fortunately for you, you'll be dead before its end. Unfortunately for your children or grandchildren, they'll have to live in the 21st century. Then again, CANADIEN, you probably have no kids - like most urban Leftists in the West. Edited February 21, 2012 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Facepalm? facepalm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.