Religious Schools - A Form of Child Abuse?

[bigdude]

Over the years we have seen a poliferation of religious schools crop up all over the place primarily because of the tax advantages that are being offered.

I suggest that these religious schools are a form of child abuse. Children should be brought up to explore all religions, and not to be told that their parent's religion is the best one, or the only true path to God etc., whatever that means, and all the other nonsense that goes with this crap.

Study longer to earn more money

But a chat with Arthur Sweetman, director of the school of policy studies at Queen's University, has convinced me that raising the compulsory schooling age has more advantages than disavantages.

"It's pretty clear that the economic return is substantial," says Sweetman, who wrote a report on the subject for the Ontario government a couple of years ago.

The key is adapting the high school curriculum - to offer more course choice to students who would otherwise drop out - and hiring enough teachers, he says.

"Senior high school should not become a parking lot," Sweetman wrote in his report.

He favours an exemption clause that would allow kids to drop out earlier for medical or religious reasons.

I, however, object to letting parents use religion to stunt their children's educational development. As far as I'm concerned, it's a form of child abuse.

McFarland, meanwhile, says he'll continue to push for the proclamation of his bill.

"It's always been sort of an uphill battle," he sighs. "Everyone ducks their heads."

[cybercoma]

I think it's the parents' right to raise their children according to whatever religion they believe in. You may as well move to ban religion altogether if you're going to take that right away from parents.

Not only this, but would it even be advantageous for everyone in society to be a doctor or lawyer? Who then would mop the floors or pick up the garbage?

If certain families withdraw their children from school so they can help on the farm, because that's what the kids are going to do for the rest of their life, what's the problem with that?

You're not stunting their educational developement, you're stunting their real-life work experience (it would be awfully difficult to argue that no one learns from experience) in the field they will undoubtedly go into.

Terrible idea all around, imho.

[bigdude]

How you relate doctors to religion I have no idea. What in the world does one have to do with the other?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think it's the parents' right to raise their children according to whatever religion they believe in.

Hmmm. I have two reactions to that. First, I don't think you really believe that as an absolute 'right'. Second, and I hope you will reply to this, I wonder on what basis you argue that one person has a 'right' to control the mind of another.

You may as well move to ban religion altogether if you're going to take that right away from parents.

Curious comment. Do you think religions would not survive if childhood indoctrination were halted?

If certain families withdraw their children from school so they can help on the farm, because that's what the kids are going to do for the rest of their life, what's the problem with that?

The problem is that the child's opportunities are thereby foreclosed.

[willy]

Talk about extremists. I hope the NDP comes out with some of this stuff, or even better the Liberals. The Conservatives will win in a landslide. This is a wedge issue of epic proportions. The day the state decides how to raise my kids, I will move.

Stay away from my kids with your secular humanistic values.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Stay away from my kids with you secular humanistic values. This is an example of human rights abuse.

How so?

[willy]

Not going to bother, TTS. Lets just say, I believe in God and what I love about this country is that I am free to do so and to bring up my kids with that knowledge.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Not going to bother, TTS. Lets just say, I believe in God and what I love about this country is that I am free to do so and to bring up my kids with that knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you admit your claim was without foundation. Okay, but FYI, if you thought about what you type before hitting the button, you could avoid such errors.

[Riverwind]

Not going to bother, TTS. Lets just say, I believe in God and what I love about this country is that I am free to do so and to bring up my kids with that knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We may disagree on what the gov't should be doing about gay marriage and stuff but in my book there is nothing wrong with having deep religious convictions and teaching that to your kids. Don't get the idea that everyone opposed to 'social conservative' issues is opposed to religion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Not going to bother, TTS. Lets just say, I believe in God and what I love about this country is that I am free to do so and to bring up my kids with that knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just to distance myself with that yahoo. We may disagree on what the gov't should be doing about gay marriage and stuff but in my book there is nothing wrong with having deep religious convictions and teaching that to your kids. Don't get the idea that everyone opposed to 'social conservative' issues is opposed to religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you just call someone a "yahoo?". Do you know what that makes you?

[Riverwind]

Did you just call someone a "yahoo?".  Do you know what that makes you?

A yahoo?

[willy]

Okay, fine I will answer.

I think it is unthinkable that a family of faith would not be able to teach there children about that faith. As part of my faith I believe one is not whole without a relationship with God. The world is a place of pain and suffering and without God it is hopeless. I would prefer my children have a deep and profound faith to deal with the wrongs that will occur to them in their lives at any age.

This is not unthinking but it is a parent’s responsibility to protect their children until they are mature enough to do so on their own. Because of my religious beliefs this protection extends to how I educate my children.

It is your right as a parent to choose to do differently.

As for you glib comment about typing in error. Your condescending approach to religious debate is something I rarely feel like taking part in. You can debate yourself if you wish to discuss the merits of my faith. I come to this forum to discuss federal politics.

My reaction to this tread was one of surprise that views as extreme as removing religious institutions from Canadian society would be acceptable.

[bigdude]

Everything is political when you come right down to it.

You are perfectly free to teach your children good moral teachings, but to suggest to your kids that Christian religion, or any religion, is superior to another in not acceptable, and accounts for a lot of the troubles on our small and fragile planet.

And as far as funding/taxes are concerned not one cent should be given to support any religious institution. I happen to attend a relighious institution and they are able to provide charitable tax benefits to our members. I totally disagree with that. Why should someone with some superstitious belief be given some kind of tax break over others? This money is needed for much more wothwhile projects in our society.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Did you just call someone a "yahoo?".  Do you know what that makes you?

A yahoo?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. Someone who shoots her mouth off carelessly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

As for you glib comment about typing in error. Your condescending approach to religious debate is something I rarely feel like taking part in. You can debate yourself if you wish to discuss the merits of my faith. I come to this forum to discuss federal politics.

YOU made an assertion. I asked you to support it. Your reply was non-responsive (some might say 'glib'), and so I pointed this out. Tough noogies.

My reaction to this tread was one of surprise that views as extreme as removing religious institutions from Canadian society would be acceptable.

Did anyone argue for removing religious institutions? I must have overlooked that post.

[Guest eureka]

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.

[Technocrat]

im going to agree with that one... no public dollars should be spent on religious institutions or organizations.

Although maybe i should apply for the funding of a jedi/padewan training center

[bigdude]

All the more reason we need to reopen the Constitutional talks and give Ottawa the power it needs to sort out this hodge-podge of a country of ours.

[cybercoma]

I think it's the parents' right to raise their children according to whatever religion they believe in.

Hmmm. I have two reactions to that. First, I don't think you really believe that as an absolute 'right'. Second, and I hope you will reply to this, I wonder on what basis you argue that one person has a 'right' to control the mind of another.

On the basis that the first five years of a child's development will mould them into the person they will be for the rest of their life. It's the parents' responsibility to raise their child as they see fit, not as you demand they raise them. A parents' NATURAL right to raise their child as they see fit is inherently "controlling the mind of another" and inevitable, regardless of religion. You're completely ignoring the importance faith has to some people and by saying people shouldn't be allowed to raise their child according to their religious practices is a denial of a basic human right.

You may as well move to ban religion altogether if you're going to take that right away from parents.

Curious comment. Do you think religions would not survive if childhood indoctrination were halted?

The survival of the religion is neither here nor there. The point I was making is that you're denying people to practice their religious beliefs. You might as well make all religions illegal to practice because they may warp the fragile minds of children. It has nothing to do with a fear of religions not surviving because I think once people gain life experience they become well aware of the world around them and are capable of making the choice of having faith in a religion or not.

You're talking about denying religions like Christianity the sacrament of baptism and so forth, which is just ridiculous. That would be like forcing someone who is Jewish or Muslim to consume pork.

If certain families withdraw their children from school so they can help on the farm, because that's what the kids are going to do for the rest of their life, what's the problem with that?

The problem is that the child's opportunities are thereby foreclosed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make it sound like no one has ever dropped out of school then gone back at a later date and become successful. You're also making it sound like some of these kids taking over multi-million dollar farming businesses is a punishment. If these kids feel they're being mistreated, then they can go back to school once they make that determination. But what you're talking about is going from one form of control (from their family and communities) to forcing government control on them that goes against their faith.

[cybercoma]

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.

Of course, everyone should be required to fund public education because it benefits everyone equally since all children must be educated.

[cybercoma]

...did I just agree with eureka?

[PatM]

Disclaimer: I am agnostic, not athiest. Athiests are against the idea of a god or gods - I don't believe in god(s) but I'm not about to tell you YOU can't believe in them.

On that political compass test I came close to Ghandi - a little right and a bit more libertarian.

Religious schools are not an abuse at all. I have no problems with parents bringing their kids up in their own faith (or lack thereof). Its not for the reason you might think though. You see, if the parents aren't the ones that should choose how to raise thier child, who is? Should government walk in and say "Your child has to be taught by Buddists today, Taoists tomorrow, Shintoists next tuesday."

Children DO get exposure to other faiths and cultures in everyday life. If the parents are extremely strict and isolationist - keeping their children away from anyone not of "the faith", I find that tragic. What can you do about it though? Stepping into that family's life and forcing them to teach or learn something that goes against their personal faith goes against all concepts of freedom. Children grow up though and they can choose to learn other things if they wish.

I may not like families that indoctrinate their children into a faith, but the alternatives are all far worse.

[willy]

The money issue:

In BC Catholic schools are private. The government subsidizes each student but as a total cost to the tax payer it is much less than if they were in public school.

Every kid that goes to private schools then frees up money in the public school that gets more per student in funding.

[kimmy]

I'll just mention that I think this whole thread was based on a misreading of the original article. The key quote:

He favours an exemption clause that would allow kids to drop out earlier for medical or religious reasons.

I, however, object to letting parents use religion to stunt their children's educational development. As far as I'm concerned, it's a form of child abuse.

I believe that Mr Sweetman is saying he objects to parents using religion as an excuse to pull their kids out of school.

As for the rest... as a fun-loving agnostic, I personally have little affection for organized religions of any stripe, but peoples' right to raise their children is probably among the most fundamental we have as a species. Any interference is a matter of the utmost seriousness and can only be condoned in clear-cut situations.

-k

[The Terrible Sweal]

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)?