Religious Schools - A Form of Child Abuse?

[kimmy]

In Canada courts have inherent jurisdiction to protect children, and the governments have well established laws about when parental 'rights' may be terminated.

As I said, in clear-cut cases where it's necessary to protect the child's well-being.

The next question, then, is whether treatment of children in accordance with religous traditions  does or does not invite state intervention.  I would say that it depends on the specifics.  We are not concerned here with genital mutilation or severe punishments, obviously, but with cases of religious mal-education.  So, the question is:  should parents be allowed to mal-educate children for religious  reasons (or other reasons)?

While you're now using the phrase "mal-educate", that's a little different from what bigdude and yourself were getting at earlier in the thread. bigdude contends that religious schooling is child-abuse. And you seemed to be trying to question whether parents have the right to "indoctrinate" their children into any religious tradition. In other words, I think you have a much broader notion of what "mal-education" might constitute than many people would accept.

You equated it with mind-control earlier. If it's your position that parents shouldn't be allowed to impart any belief system to their children, can you imagine the can of worms that would open?

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

...I think you have a much broader notion of what "mal-education" might constitute than many people would accept.

Actually, I have not gotten to what society may say constitutes mal-education specifically. I'm still at the level of concepts here .

Whatever we end up considering to be mal-education, the question is whether society should endorse it.

If it's your position that parents shouldn't be allowed to impart any belief system to their children, can you imagine the can of worms that would open?

Well, that's not my position. My position would be that there may be SOME belief systems we don't want imparted to children, and that parents should have no exception in that regard.

[cybercoma]

There are 2 different but essential questions in this issue:

1)  Are parents entitled to raise thei children 'as they see fit'?

2)  SHOULD parents be entitled to raise their children 'as they see fit'?

The answer to both is clearly 'no'.

In Canada courts have inherent jurisdiction to protect children, and the governments have well established laws about when parental 'rights' may be terminated.

So, Canada has answered these two questions already.

The next question, then, is whether treatment of children in accordance with religous traditions  does or does not invite state intervention.  I would say that it depends on the specifics.  We are not concerned here with genital mutilation or severe punishments, obviously, but with cases of religious mal-education.  So, the question is:  should parents be allowed to mal-educate children for religious  reasons (or other reasons)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are the children being mal-educated? Prove to me that these kids are maleducated and we may have a discussion on our hands. Co-operative education and work placement programs become a much larger part of education the higher up in schooling you get. There are already restrictions in place that require children to be in school until they're 16, so everyone has an opportunity to be literate and understand the fundamentals of math. What about home schooling? Do you think home schooling should be outlawed? Do you not think the particular religions we're talking about who take their kids out for farming work are going to provide a better education actually on the job their kids will go into because of their faith?

You're wading into human rights violation territory with your assertion that the government needs to enforce agnostic ideals on the faithful for something you personally feel is maleducation. I'm certain the groups of people you're specifically referring to would not consider it maleducation; however, leaving their kids in school unable to help run the family business could be considered maleducation to them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Are the children being mal-educated?  Prove to me that these kids are maleducated and we may have a discussion on our hands. ...

I think my post above, to kimmy, indicates why these questions are premature, in my view. Of course we would need acertain that mal-education exists in a given case. But the question is, to me, where it is present, is religion an excuse?

BTW I think we can safely speculate that SOME mal-education exists, both religious based and not.

Clearly some criteria for mal-education would have to be devised.

Do you not think the particular religions we're talking about who take their kids out for farming work are going to provide a better education actually on the job their kids will go into because of their faith?

Well I don't know what parricular religions you refer to. But, no, I don't accept your proposition that anyone's education should be sacrificed because we presume upfront that their future job options are limited because of who they are.

You're wading into human rights violation territory with your assertion that the government needs to enforce agnostic ideals on the faithful for something you personally feel is maleducation. 

You misunderstand the situation. I am questioning whether society should permit violations of children's rights out of deference to their parent's beliefs. I am not dealing (yet) with whatever those beliefs may contain.

[apollo19]

It is a violation of the UN Charter to fund religious schools and Canada has, in the past, been criticized by the UN for doing so.

Canada's response, as always given the sorry state of federal powers, was that it is a provincial responsibility and it cannot intervene.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You see, this is the other thing that I failed to mention in my first post. I don't think EVERYONE should be forced to support religious schools. Why should a person of one religion pay to support a school of another religion he/she does not have any belief in?

I agree that education should be a provincial responsibility and the provinces need to take ownership of this problem.

If various religions want their own religious schools they're entitled, but they should receive no funding forcefully taken from the general public through taxes. They should be private and students of those faiths and their parents should be footing the bill for the "special" education they want their children to receive.

These schools should also be licensed by the province to ensure that children are learning the fundamentals that everyone needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is where other provinces should follow BC's system, where there are no public religious schools. Parents then can make a choice, to get a "free" public education or to pay for the religious education they wish their child to have. A few years ago during my earlier tenure in school, I looked into attending one of these schools simply because of the better education that was recieved (even though I'm an athiest), and it was quoted around $3,000 per school year. The private schools are also required to follow the provincial education curriculum, but they can add in the religious extras as they see fit.

[I Miss Trudeau]

I wonder on what basis you argue that one person has a 'right' to control the mind of another.

A fully self critical examination of the this would suggest that its impossible to prevent that mind control. All we can really do is decide (in a basically "religious" way) which program to load our children with.

I would personally like to see children programmed in "self critical rationalism," but my position on that really sort of prevents me from constructing an argument to support it.

[willy]

Clearly some criteria for mal-education would have to be devised.

Scary look into the mind of the left.

1. Set a protocol based on the bright lights in government

2. Have midlevel paper pushers apply that protocol to every situation

3. Make sure that you protect people form themselves by making decisions based on broad generalities

[I Miss Trudeau]

Scary look into the mind of the left.

1. Set a protocol based on the bright lights in government

2. Have midlevel paper pushers apply that protocol to every situation

3. Make sure that you protect people form themselves by making decisions based on broad generalities

You know, from the perspective of the child, the parents could be analogous to the state in this regard.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Clearly some criteria for mal-education would have to be devised.

Scary look into the mind of the left.

1. Set a protocol based on the bright lights in government

2. Have midlevel paper pushers apply that protocol to every situation

3. Make sure that you protect people form themselves by making decisions based on broad generalities

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scary look into the mnd of willy. Fabricate any old bullcrap in support of personal prejudices, and attribute these fabrications dishonestly to others.

:angry:

[cybercoma]

Are the children being mal-educated?  Prove to me that these kids are maleducated and we may have a discussion on our hands. ...

I think my post above, to kimmy, indicates why these questions are premature, in my view. Of course we would need acertain that mal-education exists in a given case. But the question is, to me, where it is present, is religion an excuse?

BTW I think we can safely speculate that SOME mal-education exists, both religious based and not.

Clearly some criteria for mal-education would have to be devised.

Do you not think the particular religions we're talking about who take their kids out for farming work are going to provide a better education actually on the job their kids will go into because of their faith?

Well I don't know what parricular religions you refer to. But, no, I don't accept your proposition that anyone's education should be sacrificed because we presume upfront that their future job options are limited because of who they are.

You're wading into human rights violation territory with your assertion that the government needs to enforce agnostic ideals on the faithful for something you personally feel is maleducation. 

You misunderstand the situation. I am questioning whether society should permit violations of children's rights out of deference to their parent's beliefs. I am not dealing (yet) with whatever those beliefs may contain.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you want my personal opinion, I think children should be required to be in school until a certain age (right now I think it's 16...in Ontario anyway). After that, if the parents want to pull their kids from school, fine. They'll get a better education working in the real world living in the community their faith is based on.

This is for a very small percentage of people, we're not talking Catholics, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists here.

What about home schooling though Sweal, would that be a form of mal-education? Should a child be required to be taught in a government institution?

[Black Dog]

The Sates has no business funding religious institutions. Period. I fpeople want to raise their kids to believe in invisible superheroes, that's there business and their responisbility, not mine.

Stay away from my kids with your secular humanistic values.

Why don't we secular humanists and you religious folks cut a deal. We won't dictate what you have to believe or teach your children. And, in exchange, you keep your nonsense out of public policy. That means no more religious-based opposition to same sex civil marriage, no more tax breaks for churches, no more public funds for religious schools. Sound good?

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Sates has no business funding religious institutions. Period. I fpeople want to raise their kids to believe in invisible superheroes, that's there business and their responisbility, not mine.

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly?

[willy]

Why don't we secular humanists and you religious folks cut a deal. We won't dictate what you have to believe or teach your children. And, in exchange, you keep your nonsense out of public policy. That means no more religious-based opposition to same sex civil marriage, no more tax breaks for churches, no more public funds for religious schools. Sound good?

Does that mean we don't have to pay taxes? If we have no representation, I don't want to have to pay taxes.

If secular humanist is your religion, who is your invisible super hero. (an aside)

Look, are the secular humanists so homogenous that they will not accept the varied people of this country, be them Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or many of the aboriginal faiths. Are you that much of an ideologue you can't handle a pluralistic society. We are all sure of our truths so the only way we can coexist is to respect that difference.

Your kids don't need to go to religious schools, and people of all faiths pay taxes, when their are enough of us those dollars should go to schools that meet our needs as public schools meet yours. Dollars follow students and parents place the students.

I am encouraged that we are still a democracy and I will crawl over broken glass to make sure I get my vote to prevent this intolerant line of thinking.

[kimmy]

The Sates has no business funding religious institutions. Period. I fpeople want to raise their kids to believe in invisible superheroes, that's there business and their responisbility, not mine.

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly?

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?

Would it be fair to argue that children should not be fallowed to eat meat products until they are adults, so that they can decide for themselves whether "meat = murder"?

Surely if one can argue that imparting religion to kids doesn't give secular human values a fair shake, one could also make the argument that vegetarian beliefs aren't getting a fair shake in our meat-loving culture either.

-k

[bigdude]

Kids could do worse than have vegetarian diets - why don't you lose the cattle industry bs that is constantly being shoved down our throats.

[The Terrible Sweal]

If secular humanist is your religion, who is your invisible super hero. (an aside)

"Secular humanism" is not a religion, it is a label.

Look, are the secular humanists so homogenous that they will not accept the varied people of this country, be them Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or many of the aboriginal faiths.

Red herring.

No one here is proposing to not accept people with religious beliefs.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The Sates has no business funding religious institutions. Period. I fpeople want to raise their kids to believe in invisible superheroes, that's there business and their responisbility, not mine.

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?

(1) I am confident that in some cases it is sacrifice. (2) The judgement of our society through its democratic institutions.

Would it be fair to argue that children should not be fallowed to eat meat products until they are adults, so that they can decide for themselves whether "meat = murder"?

Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we?

Surely if one can argue that imparting religion to kids doesn't give secular human values a fair shake,

I never argued any such thing. This discussion would go better if a priority were placed on not making up silly straw-man arguments.

Secular human values don't need a 'fair shake'. Children need to be educated in a way which does not harm their ability to participate fully in society.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Look, are the secular humanists so homogenous that they will not accept the varied people of this country, be them Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or many of the aboriginal faiths. Are you that much of an ideologue you can't handle a pluralistic society. We are all sure of our truths so the only way we can coexist is to respect that difference.

Do you honestly believe this crap? Or did you just get it from Gutterford or Liefield and figure, "Hey, this sounds clever!" I mean, you make it sound like homosexuals are trying to tell you that you can't have heterosexual marriages, rather than the other way around.

[willy]

mean, you make it sound like homosexuals are trying to tell you that you can't have heterosexual marriages, rather than the other way around.

What on earth are you talking about? Did the word homogenous confuse you?

What exactly is crap about my statement? I firmly believe that pluralism and not secularism is a noble goal for a functioning society. Can you put a few words together to suggest why this is not so?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I firmly believe that pluralism and not secularism is a noble goal for a functioning society.

Secularism isn't a goal, it is a result of the liberal goal of religious freedom.

Pluralism of the kind religious conservatives conceive would be incomptible with individual liberty and equality.

[kimmy]

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly?

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?

(1) I am confident that in some cases it is sacrifice.

Please be more specific. I know you're not just talking about normal church-going people. I mean, as far as I know, every Prime Minister during my lifetime has been a practicing Christian (probably Catholic, yes?) so obviously just being raised in a religious tradition doesn't prevent someone from participating in society to the fullest.

I know you're not talking about mainstream churches here. So what ARE you talking about?

(2) The judgement of our society through its democratic institutions.

The will of the majority should prevail over individual liberty?

Would it be fair to argue that children should not be fallowed to eat meat products until they are adults, so that they can decide for themselves whether "meat = murder"?

Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we?

We do. Recent cases regarding the medical treatment of Jehovah's Witness children certainly illustrate the point. But if you look at these decisions, I think you'll find that the court takes the freedom of religion very seriously, and only the clear danger to the child's welfare justifies the violation of the religious beliefs.

Surely if one can argue that imparting religion to kids doesn't give secular human values a fair shake,

I never argued any such thing. This discussion would go better if a priority were placed on not making up silly straw-man arguments.

Secular human values don't need a 'fair shake'. Children need to be educated in a way which does not harm their ability to participate fully in society.

I'm not trying to straw-man you. I'm just trying to get you to tell us what you're talking about. You seem to be itching to make an argument of some kind about this bit:

Children need to be educated in a way which does not harm their ability to participate fully in society.

...so please, go ahead.

-k

[Black Dog]

Does that mean we don't have to pay taxes? If we have no representation, I don't want to have to pay taxes.

You'll still pay taxes for the services you use. Sorry.

If secular humanist is your religion, who is your invisible super hero. (an aside)

On the far right.

Look, are the secular humanists so homogenous that they will not accept the varied people of this country, be them Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or many of the aboriginal faiths. Are you that much of an ideologue you can't handle a pluralistic society. We are all sure of our truths so the only way we can coexist is to respect that difference.

What's so hard to understand about seperating church and state? Believe what you want, don't make me pay for it. Simple.

I firmly believe that pluralism and not secularism is a noble goal for a functioning society.

A pluralistic society can only survive with a secular govrnment.

[willy]

A pluralistic society can only survive with a secular govrnment.

Yes agreed, the government, the institution is secular, but the people who make decisions, push the paper and make the laws have values influenced by varied world religions or lack there of.

A secular institution can administer tax benefits or subsides to groups that are not secular. Many have the tag NGO and they do much of the good work in our country and around the world. Feeding lines in the big cities to world hunger groups like World Vision. They do great work. These groups should not be co-opted by government or administered but as a tax payer if the government can enhance there efforts from time to time, I say go for it.

[The Terrible Sweal]

How can you accept the sacrifice of young minds so heartlessly?

Are you sure it's sacrifice? Whose judgment shall prevail as to what kind of values may be presented to young minds?

(1) I am confident that in some cases it is sacrifice.

Please be more specific. I know you're not just talking about normal church-going people. I mean, as far as I know, every Prime Minister during my lifetime has been a practicing Christian (probably Catholic, yes?) so obviously just being raised in a religious tradition doesn't prevent someone from participating in society to the fullest.

How about specific examples: removal of evolution and/or teaching deliberate false biology or other falsified science, or teaching doctrines of racial or gender inferiority.

The will of the majority should prevail over individual liberty?

First a question, then an answer:

Question: Which individual?

Answer: Yes in proper cases.

Would it be fair to argue that children should not be fallowed to eat meat products until they are adults, so that they can decide for themselves whether "meat = murder"?

Were we sufficiently confident that meat truly is dangerous, certainly. We already have this kind of rule for many things, don't we?

We do. Recent cases regarding the medical treatment of Jehovah's Witness children certainly illustrate the point. But if you look at these decisions, I think you'll find that the court takes the freedom of religion very seriously, and only the clear danger to the child's welfare justifies the violation of the religious beliefs.

I think it's important to cut that a little bit finer. The cases show that the clear dangers have justified a very personally invasive process forming a significantly defining aspect of the religion. In other words, it isn't so much setting the bar as selecting the pigeonhole.

[kimmy]

How about specific examples:  removal of evolution and/or teaching deliberate false biology or other falsified science, or teaching doctrines of racial or gender inferiority.

You put me in a difficult situation. As a happy-go-lucky agnostic, I'd really love it if the Young Earth Creactionists and the Snakehandlers and the Apocalyptic Pentacostals and the Christian Hardliners and the Islamic Fundamentalists would all just fuck off.

But as someone who believes in the rule of law and the protection of individual rights, I'm kind of resigned to the fact that we're stuck with them.

I'm definitely in favor of keeping crap science and intolerance out of public schools. However, I don't know that there's any law requiring children to take Biology in school, and I don't think there's any plausible way you can prevent parents from teaching their kids creationism once they get home from school.

How about the Dar-al-Madinah mosque in Vancouver-- that's the one that gained notoriety after Vancouverite travel-enthusiast Rudwan Khalil turned up dead in Chechnya after a fight with Russian security forces. Sheik Younus Kathrada was (and might still be) under investigation by the RCMP to determine whether his sermons about Jews constituted hate speech.

While personally I wouldn't mind a bit if the guy got hit by a bus, and I'm pretty sure his views aren't very conducive to the enlightened and peaceful society we all want, I don't personally feel comfortable with the idea that "the will of the people" should be able to shut him up. If his sermons cross the line, then his right to free speech has butted up against others' right to personal safety, and then that's something the courts can look into. Judges have lost a lot of sleep over that kind of decision, I'm sure.

The will of the majority should prevail over individual liberty?

First a question, then an answer:

Question: Which individual?

Answer: Yes in proper cases.

By "which individual" I assuming you're asking whether I mean parent or child. For purposes of this discussion we're talking about parents, right?

As far as I know, parents *do* have the right to make decisions regarding the upbringing their children. You've pointed out that that right isn't all-encompassing or unlimited. But I believe the limitations on that right are determined by the constitution, not by the will of the majority. I'm no lawyer, but I believe the rules regarding what constitutes "proper cases" are already in place, and are rather narrow in scope.

I think it's important to cut that a little bit finer.  The cases show that the clear dangers have justified a very personally invasive process forming a significantly defining aspect of the religion.  In other words, it isn't so much setting the bar as selecting the pigeonhole.

Not quite sure I follow. Are you saying that since the courts can order such a dramatic violation of religious freedom in dire circumstances, they might also be able to order less dramatic violations of religious freedoms in less dire circumstances? Don't get mad... once again I'm just trying to figure out what you're getting at.

My view is that the "dire circumstances" part is kind of a prerequisite before any violating takes place. I feel that without a compelling reason, you can't go asking courts to consider limiting individual rights.

-k