Quebec's new All religions course
When Quebec eliminated Catholic and protestant schools in favor of secular language segregated schools it was left with the problem of "religious instruction." In my year, gearing up to the change, I was given the choice of a religion course (most Catholicism) and a morals course. The morals class filled up and the rest had to continue to take the religion course. Since then Quebec has been working hard to secularize.
To that end it has come up with a world religions course, which is mandatory (the religion one was too). The objections are (basically) that the parents have no choice and that children will see all religions as mythology because they are all presented in a similar way. I don't think I need to say much about that, but think of the converse problem: what is to stop parents from unfairly imprinting their child with a single religion? Some may say this is the parents right. I agree, but it is not an absolute right in my view. Why?
Forget religion specifically. Views can be hurtful and outdated. Racism is a good example. Does a parent have the right to pass on racist beliefs to their child? I'd say no because what is forgotten in this type of argument are the rights of the child. The child has the right to be informed and later on with that information he will make up his mind (and there is nothing we can do to stop that). Thus what is important is presenting the facts correctly.
Educating a child about other religions is no different. The child has the right to information. If you decide to send your child to public school (this is the decision people are forgetting when they say it should be the parents who decide: This group mainly) you are accepting they will be taught PUBLIC values. In a multicultural society, religion is pluralistic and thus must be taught this way. If parents don't like it they need to make the decision to take the child out of public school which is entirely in their power.
Incidentally, the list of 10 reasons (in French) the CLE group gives for why they dislike the course are 10 reasons to like it if your of a different mind and remember children have rights too. (It is quite astonishing to see the lack of respect these people have for the decision making powers of the children and adolescents despite plenty of evidence children can out think adults if given training such as in chess.)
To that end it has come up with a world religions course, which is mandatory (the religion one was too). The objections are (basically) that the parents have no choice and that children will see all religions as mythology because they are all presented in a similar way. I don't think I need to say much about that, but think of the converse problem: what is to stop parents from unfairly imprinting their child with a single religion? Some may say this is the parents right. I agree, but it is not an absolute right in my view. Why?
Forget religion specifically. Views can be hurtful and outdated. Racism is a good example. Does a parent have the right to pass on racist beliefs to their child? I'd say no because what is forgotten in this type of argument are the rights of the child. The child has the right to be informed and later on with that information he will make up his mind (and there is nothing we can do to stop that). Thus what is important is presenting the facts correctly.
Educating a child about other religions is no different. The child has the right to information. If you decide to send your child to public school (this is the decision people are forgetting when they say it should be the parents who decide: This group mainly) you are accepting they will be taught PUBLIC values. In a multicultural society, religion is pluralistic and thus must be taught this way. If parents don't like it they need to make the decision to take the child out of public school which is entirely in their power.
Incidentally, the list of 10 reasons (in French) the CLE group gives for why they dislike the course are 10 reasons to like it if your of a different mind and remember children have rights too. (It is quite astonishing to see the lack of respect these people have for the decision making powers of the children and adolescents despite plenty of evidence children can out think adults if given training such as in chess.)
Labels: politics, Religionish
posted by Eddie | 12:03 AM
2 Comments:
The concept that you can simply provide children with information devoid of moral content I think cannot stand. Children demand to understand matters of right and wrong -- you can't just tell them to wait until they are 18 and then they can make up their own minds. If you accept that, then you have to make a decision about who is the primary teacher of morality -- the parents or the state. If you opt for the parents, then you have to accept the principle of free speech, with all its warts. I don't think we are at the stage of facist or communist countries where the primary teacher of morals is the state, and parents can express their opinions at their peril.
It is of course the job of the parents to instill "morals" (I prefere the term ethics since it is devoid of dogmatic conotations). If a parent teaches their child Islam at home and in school they learn about Christianity it doesn't mean they will convert or that the child will becessarily become Christian. It only teaches them other believe other things here is a overview.
When parents decide to put their children in public schools they agree to have public values instilled in the child. this includes things like getting in trouble for racist remarks. If the child is home schooled then the parents have compete control, if the parents chose to relenquish that right by sending their child to public school then they are accepting that public values will be taught. A nazi parent can't ask for an exemption for their child to not learn about WWII.
Post a Comment
<< Home