Quebec Kills Parents' Rights To Choose Religion Instruction

[Crash]

The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

Religious instruction should be left to parents and churches.

There may be a place for comparative religion courses at the senior secondary level, by then the students have hopefully developed to a level of maturity that will allow them to appreciate the differences and make realistic decisions about their own place in (or outside of) the religious systems.

Precisely. This whole thing is not about education. It is about indoctrinating children and saturating them of their parent's faith. That's the end game here. All religions are equal. No religions are superior to another. We should not think that. Therefore, the religion of your parents is intolerant and you must leave it. All religions are of equal value and worth, etc. etc. etc. Basically, it's Communism's approach to religion all over again. They want to get the kids young before they have been formed.

I think parents who indoctrinate their children are doing them just as much as a disservice as if the state did. It's parent's job to show children the way, and what they believe in and provide them as much knowledge as possible. Most times children will adopt this system of beliefs in at least a significant way anyway. Sheltering people from other world views will just make them more appealing when they're older, and is denying them knowledge.

[Hailey]

The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

Religious instruction should be left to parents and churches.

There may be a place for comparative religion courses at the senior secondary level, by then the students have hopefully developed to a level of maturity that will allow them to appreciate the differences and make realistic decisions about their own place in (or outside of) the religious systems.

Precisely. This whole thing is not about education. It is about indoctrinating children and saturating them of their parent's faith. That's the end game here. All religions are equal. No religions are superior to another. We should not think that. Therefore, the religion of your parents is intolerant and you must leave it. All religions are of equal value and worth, etc. etc. etc. Basically, it's Communism's approach to religion all over again. They want to get the kids young before they have been formed.

I think parents who indoctrinate their children are doing them just as much as a disservice as if the state did. It's parent's job to show children the way, and what they believe in and provide them as much knowledge as possible. Most times children will adopt this system of beliefs in at least a significant way anyway. Sheltering people from other world views will just make them more appealing when they're older, and is denying them knowledge.

Who I give birth to I have ultimately say in what they are taught and learn. The transmission of the Christian faith is the single most important thing in the life of a Christian parent. That someone is allowing their child to be taught some nonsense about all religions being equal while they are cowering in the corner is objectionable to say the least. If you believe that my perceived duty to transmit my faith is a disservice so be it but until you are the one who gave birth to them it's really not your concern.

[Crash]

The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

Religious instruction should be left to parents and churches.

There may be a place for comparative religion courses at the senior secondary level, by then the students have hopefully developed to a level of maturity that will allow them to appreciate the differences and make realistic decisions about their own place in (or outside of) the religious systems.

Precisely. This whole thing is not about education. It is about indoctrinating children and saturating them of their parent's faith. That's the end game here. All religions are equal. No religions are superior to another. We should not think that. Therefore, the religion of your parents is intolerant and you must leave it. All religions are of equal value and worth, etc. etc. etc. Basically, it's Communism's approach to religion all over again. They want to get the kids young before they have been formed.

I think parents who indoctrinate their children are doing them just as much as a disservice as if the state did. It's parent's job to show children the way, and what they believe in and provide them as much knowledge as possible. Most times children will adopt this system of beliefs in at least a significant way anyway. Sheltering people from other world views will just make them more appealing when they're older, and is denying them knowledge.

Who I give birth to I have ultimately say in what they are taught and learn. The transmission of the Christian faith is the single most important thing in the life of a Christian parent. That someone is allowing their child to be taught some nonsense about all religions being equal while they are cowering in the corner is objectionable to say the least. If you believe that my perceived duty to transmit my faith is a disservice so be it but until you are the one who gave birth to them it's really not your concern.

You're right, it's not my concern what you do with your children, just like it is not yours what I do with mine. I'm allowed to have my beliefs and you yours about parenting, that is the wonderful free world that we live in.

This was a topic on a message board that was provided for discussion's sake, and therefore people's opinions. I personally see no problem with giving children knowledge if it is presented in an impartial way. Like I said, the way this subject was presented was bogus anyway. The only way people get told "all religions are equal" is presenting religion in a benign and impartial way. If people are indoctrinating your children it is a different matter, but knowledge is not a doctrine it is an impartial imparting of facts and docturines.

[Hailey]

I've not commented that you are wrong to teach your children all religion is equal. That's within the scope of your role as parent to decide.

If people indoctrinate my children to believe all religion is equal I have the right to say something though.

[Crash]

This is where I just don't understand. What is wrong about learning about other faiths? That's what it comes down to, not that "all religions are equal" really. High school has had such a thing as part of its curriculum for a long time, and these children are still your "property". How many muslims do you think the high school system recruits?

[Hailey]

This is where I just don't understand. What is wrong about learning about other faiths? That's what it comes down to, not that "all religions are equal" really. High school has had such a thing as part of its curriculum for a long time, and these children are still your "property". How many muslims do you think the high school system recruits?

I would not allow anyone other than myself or my husband to discuss other religions with our child.

For example, we live in an area of the city that for Edmonton has many people who are Jewish. My neighbours are Jewish and I have a close relationship with the mother of the household. I've noticed that her children never ask me any questions about our faith when they come by and I respect that. I don't bring up religion at all except if I am asked about my availability for something if it conflicts I'll mention that I'll be at church or what not but it's said in a very practical way. My own children asked questions about something that was in their house that I knew to be religious and I chided them not to do that. I answered their question afterwards. While I trust this particular person not to prothletize I don't know if I can apply that generically. I'm not depriving them of knowledge but I'm the one that will do the instruction.

My nutty sister-in-law is a pagan and endlessly tries to find opportunities to teach them about her whacko faith and I have to cut that short. She doesn't want any children herself but apparently mine are up for grabs.

[Paycheck]

This is where I just don't understand. What is wrong about learning about other faiths? That's what it comes down to, not that "all religions are equal" really.

There is nothing wrong with learning about other faiths, Crash. But it must be done in the context of knowledge and not agendas, and at the proper age. This is what we can look forward to:

Morse-Chevrier explained that the course covers different world religions as if all are equal. The major religions focused on in the program are Christianity, Native Spirituality, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheism is also covered as a cultural expression. A draft of the course document mentioned the bizarre Raelian cult under 'other religions' but that reference has been removed.

Instruction equating homosexuality with normal family life is to be presented as early as grade one. Under 'ethics' for grades 1-2 the course is intended "to bring children to explore the diversity of relationships of interdependence between members of different types of families."

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100409.html

High school has had such a thing as part of its curriculum for a long time, and these children are still your "property". How many muslims do you think the high school system recruits?

Property? That's rich. Children are not property. They are under our guardianship and care NOT the State's. The State is there for support. That's what Christianity teaches. It is the State that teaches that children are property. That's why it can destroy them at will through abortion, for instance or the fight over who owns the embryos. But, since the State takes a neutral stand about such a question, I guess being property is morally neutral too.

[Paycheck]

My nutty sister-in-law is a pagan and endlessly tries to find opportunities to teach them about her whacko faith and I have to cut that short. She doesn't want any children herself but apparently mine are up for grabs.

I think that describes the environmental and liberal movement's agenda today. They don't have any children themselves, or if they do, they've long aborted them. Today, they're pushing 60, are the most shrill and angry people, and presume to tell us how to raise our kids?

Puleaze.

[DA_Champion]

Personally I don't think religion should be taught in taxpayer funded public schools.

While I myself like the idea of a "religions of the world" or something like that class, it should probably not make the general curriculum if it risks alienating a lot of people. There's no shortage of wonderful and powerful things that can be taught in schools, they can easily replace this theology 101 class with something of comparable or greater value and without the controversy. Perhaps they could make it available as an elective, chosen from a list of supplementary history classes, i.e. history of the western hemisphere or 19th century history.

[DA_Champion]

My nutty sister-in-law is a pagan and endlessly tries to find opportunities to teach them about her whacko faith and I have to cut that short. She doesn't want any children herself but apparently mine are up for grabs.

I think that describes the environmental and liberal movement's agenda today. They don't have any children themselves, or if they do, they've long aborted them. Today, they're pushing 60, are the most shrill and angry people, and presume to tell us how to raise our kids?

Puleaze.

Hailey's sister-in-law is probably around 25-30 (Bayesian reasoning).

The Greens, the NDP and in the USA the Obama wave get disproportionate support from those aged 18-35. You should rethink your stereotype.

[Paycheck]

Personally I don't think religion should be taught in taxpayer funded public schools.

While I myself like the idea of a "religions of the world" or something like that class, it should probably not make the general curriculum if it risks alienating a lot of people. There's no shortage of wonderful and powerful things that can be taught in schools, they can easily replace this theology 101 class with something of comparable or greater value and without the controversy. Perhaps they could make it available as an elective, chosen from a list of supplementary history classes, i.e. history of the western hemisphere or 19th century history.

Not a problem, but then again, why should I be forced to support public education, if I choose to pull my kids? Go and educate your own kids (if you can be bothered to have any, that is), and give me back my tax dollars.

(As an aside, religion is of inestimable value, at least from a Canadian context, DA. Then again, if you knew something about this country's heritage, you would not say such a foolish and stupid thing. It's a fine thing, evidently, to be a pariah living off of the great sacrifices of our Christian fathers and mothers, while thumbing your nose at the theology undergirding it and playing the fool for Bill Maher's audiences.)

Liberals like to say that religion has no place in public education but they're not so sure what to do with the money we pump into it. I really never understood that. Of course, that's where the Big State demands our money and indoctrinates our children according to the values of the chattering classes who play the champagne circuit and where abortion is as common as how many men they've slept with.

[Hailey]

My nutty sister-in-law is a pagan and endlessly tries to find opportunities to teach them about her whacko faith and I have to cut that short. She doesn't want any children herself but apparently mine are up for grabs.

I think that describes the environmental and liberal movement's agenda today. They don't have any children themselves, or if they do, they've long aborted them. Today, they're pushing 60, are the most shrill and angry people, and presume to tell us how to raise our kids?

Puleaze.

She's not sixty. She's young and of child-bearing age but she's crazed for sure. I am thankful she doesn't have children and has no plans but her interest in my kids causes conflict.

[Paycheck]

My nutty sister-in-law is a pagan and endlessly tries to find opportunities to teach them about her whacko faith and I have to cut that short. She doesn't want any children herself but apparently mine are up for grabs.

I think that describes the environmental and liberal movement's agenda today. They don't have any children themselves, or if they do, they've long aborted them. Today, they're pushing 60, are the most shrill and angry people, and presume to tell us how to raise our kids?

Puleaze.

Hailey's sister-in-law is probably around 25-30 (Bayesian reasoning).

The Greens, the NDP and in the USA the Obama wave get disproportionate support from those aged 18-35. You should rethink your stereotype.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm just describing the Baby Boomer Generation too.

There's plenty of young people today who want to go the sterilized route, I don't dispute taht one little bit.

That's why "education" is so important to them: they don't have any kids so they steal ours to propagate their cancer. That's how it works.

[Crash]

There is nothing wrong with learning about other faiths, Crash. But it must be done in the context of knowledge and not agendas, and at the proper age. This is what we can look forward to:

Morse-Chevrier explained that the course covers different world religions as if all are equal. The major religions focused on in the program are Christianity, Native Spirituality, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Atheism is also covered as a cultural expression. A draft of the course document mentioned the bizarre Raelian cult under 'other religions' but that reference has been removed.

Instruction equating homosexuality with normal family life is to be presented as early as grade one. Under 'ethics' for grades 1-2 the course is intended "to bring children to explore the diversity of relationships of interdependence between members of different types of families."

You're preaching to the choir. Way back when when I was a younger man (seems like it was an eternity ago ) in high school I lodged a complaint against a teacher who was a disciple of Noam Chomsky spreading the gospel. My complaint and his stubbornness led to him leaving our school. I believe in education that is impartial and informative. There is no disagreement there.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I have to say, I don't care. My personal belief is a grotesque lifestyle that I do not understand. At the same time, I personally don't care what gay people do, whether it be participate in parades, form interest groups, or get married.

If children are taught to be tolerant, if tolerance means "I don't care what the next guy does" then that isn't exactly that far removed from my world belief. I think you will find that children are among the most vicious demographic, when it comes to homosexuals though in any case.

Property? That's rich. Children are not property. They are under our guardianship and care NOT the State's. The State is there for support. That's what Christianity teaches. It is the State that teaches that children are property. That's why it can destroy them at will through abortion, for instance or the fight over who owns the embryos. But, since the State takes a neutral stand about such a question, I guess being property is morally neutral too.

Again, preaching the the choir, about children being property, you will note my quotations. Otherwise, I think religion is a significant party of the history of the world. One cannot deal with history properly without talking about religion. The state is not necessary, in my opinion, if you want to home school or private school your children, but religion is just as much part of the educational experience as anything else.

[DA_Champion]

Not a problem, but then again, why should I be forced to support public education, if I choose to pull my kids? Go and educate your own kids (if you can be bothered to have any, that is), and give me back my tax dollars.

(As an aside, religion is of inestimable value, at least from a Canadian context, DA. Then again, if you knew something about this country's heritage, you would not say such a foolish and stupid thing. It's a fine thing, evidently, to be a pariah living off of the great sacrifices of our Christian fathers and mothers, while thumbing your nose at the theology undergirding it and playing the fool for Bill Maher's audiences.)

Liberals like to say that religion has no place in public education but they're not so sure what to do with the money we pump into it. I really never understood that. Of course, that's where the Big State demands our money and indoctrinates our children according to the values of the chattering classes who play the champagne circuit and where abortion is as common as how many men they've slept with.

I didn't say "no religion", I said "no religion in taxpayer-funded public schools". I hope schooling doesn't take up such a huge quantity of kids' time that they don't have time to pursue anything else afterwards. I am not "thumbing my nose" at christian theology in this discussion.

Schools are a cost of organizing a cohesive and competitive society. If you want to opt out of civilization you can live in the forest. I don't think civilization would be viable if people could pick and chose which aspects they wish to live by, i.e. this and that social program, the code of laws, et cetera. Canada benefits greatly from having one of the highest literacy rates in the world. You may have confidence that everybody would do a swell job of educating their kids but I can't say I share such confidence. I suspect there would be a great mass of people who are illiterate, innumerate for that matter and the costs would manifest themselves later.

Liberals are not a homogeneous group and I'm not sure why you'd expect them to present a unanimous voice on what should be taught in public schools. In a recent discussion with two friends, we disagreed on whether high school history should focus on sequences of facts or on underlying processes. What do you think? Can you see why rational people might disagree?