Quebec Kills Parents' Rights To Choose Religion Instruction

[Garden-Gnome]

Link to your post, ripley51?

[Paycheck]

That was a long response.

Obviously, since that was the context of the discussion. But my point stands: just who is this tax payer? Why do liberals such as yourself believe that only you pay taxes? If I pay taxes, I should have a say in how those tax dollars are directed, especially with something as sensitive as my children. Besides, the whole "no religion in taxpayer-funded public schools" is a specious argument anyway. Every society and every education system inculcates a religion, a world view, a moral view into their students. Don't you see the pink triangles around on diversity day, man? Athiestic, Agnostic, or Nihilistic secularism is just as much as religion as Catholicism is. You just don't have the balls to call it that. Liberals have been playing the semantic lie very well for years. But not with me.

There are many taxpayers in Canada and not all of them are Christian. However, whether or not it is 24% or 63% of Canada's population that are faithful Christians is besides the point, as Canada is a pluralistic country welcoming to people of a wide array of faiths. Aboriginals, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists and agnostics each contribute to Canadian society in a wide variety of ways. Canada is not an Anglican Saudi Arabia. As for my taxes, I don't even pay taxes in Canada, I pay them in the USA :-) Rant: That said, decision making in a democracy should belong to the adult citzens, not to those who pay taxes. The voices of students, retirees and the unemployed are as important as those of the workers.

You are missing the point which was a simple one. If two parents want to take the burden of educating their children from the State, they should be compensated accordingly. I am not even asking for what it's REAL worth is to society i.e. less socially delinquent children, over achievers, better educated, more civilized, huge economic benefit in the future, stable, etc., etc. etc. I am simply asking the State to respect the wishes of the parents and act accordingly. For all of the claptrap of "human rights" in this country, this most certainly is a most basic human right: to educate your children, the children PARENTS are sacrificing for NOT the State, without the State's intrusive and immoral intervention both in terms of its perverse ideological agendas as well as the financial raping of the parents' capacity to educate their own children as they see fit. This might be novel to you, but the State EXISTS to serve the family. The family does not exist to be force fed homosexual, pro-abort, atheistic, nihilistic, marxist drivel from government high priests, peddling their bankrupt and mickey mouse religion.

Oh please. The social program and the code of laws of this country came from a Christian worldview, friend. Do you think that it's just a coincidence that it has served us so well? Or maybe there's something to this religion thing. Like grab a clue, man.

Western civilization, codes of laws, and social programs emerged much before the revolutionary spirit of a famous first century Palestinian Jew.

Last 1700 years has been just a blur to you, eh?

Pay attention. It goes like this, as far as best educated and cohesion goes(all things being equal):

1. Homeschooled
2. Private School
3. Public School

Any questions?

All things are not equal. Homeschooled kids do better in large part because they have extremely dedicated parents, those kids would have also done well in public schools. Whereas in public schools, you have a fair number of kids whose parents don't put in any effort. I'm greatful we live in a world where the performance floor for these kids is raised, and some of them end up making it.

Bingo! Do you know what the % of homeschooled kids is in this country that are Christian? Here's a hint: it's over 90% at least. Now, the stats are clear. These kids are working in an environment which fosters independence and efficiency. They are also privately tutored. It doesn't take a lot of research to figure out that these kids ON AVERAGE are going to do much better. And that's what the stats show. And, so the MOTIVATION for homeschooling kids is NOT ONLY to give them a good education, but also to inculcate into them a sense of the sacred, the noble, and the honourable through the example Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Homeschooled kids end up being major contributors to the culture and the entire society benefits.

But agnositics like you, DA, think it's great that these kids are over-achievers and certainly like the great benefit these kids are going to give our society when they mature, but you don't like the motivation or the impetus that actually got them there which is the religion that their parents passed down to them.

In other words, like the self-absorbed culture around you, DA, you think it's great that you are being treated by a top notch surgeon. But you would rather he leave his Christianity outside of the operating room.

I find that so typical of your side. Pathetic.

Not sure what you mean by "underlying processes, but as the teaching of history is a perfect example of the scam you are (unwittingly or wittingly I do not know) trying to snowjob me with.
History according to whom? Americans? Muslims? Socialists? Catholics? Liberals? Conservatives? Homosexuals? Feminists?

A variety of sources, and then letting the students decide which they prefer. Here's an example, historical fact:
World War II happened 1939-1945.
One might ask, what caused World War II to happen? And the answer is not a prior obvious. Different people will have different opinions, but to come up with a plausible explanation you'll need to identify historical forces.

Well, at least you proved my point. Public education is not there to show us what the truth is. It's there to pass around the Koolaid, teach our children that everyone's opinion is equally valid (except for the Christians, of course), and that, in then end, it really doesn't matter because we're all "good people" in the end.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007 ... ion=justin

[DrJim]

French-Canadians fought in the past to have the right to have Catholic education in public schools. Now, those same French-Canadians are taking away that right. This is scandalous. I received Catholic education in public school (in the 80's and 90's). It was bad, but at least it was there. Parents who did not want their kids to receive religion courses could put them in the morals courses. It wasn't an oppressive system. But even this was too much for the marxists and freemasons who work at the education department.

Catholicism is the most important part of our identity as French-Canadians, family being the second one. Leftists who have ruled us since 1960 have always attacked those two entities. Now that our society is going through an identity crisis, going back to our Catholic roots should be our first move. But no, we choose to run into a brickwall instead.

Churches now have to take care of the religious education. Well, guess what, churches don't have the ressources of the school system. This is also part of the strategy of marxists and freemasons. If less ressources are available to teach religion to kids, less religion will be taught.

[Paycheck]

French-Canadians fought in the past to have the right to have Catholic education in public schools. Now, those same French-Canadians are taking away that right. This is scandalous. I received Catholic education in public school (in the 80's and 90's). It was bad, but at least it was there. Parents who did not want their kids to receive religion courses could put them in the morals courses. It wasn't an oppressive system. But even this was too much for the marxists and freemasons who work at the education department.

Catholicism is the most important part of our identity as French-Canadians, family being the second one. Leftists who have ruled us since 1960 have always attacked those two entities. Now that our society is going through an identity crisis, going back to our Catholic roots should be our first move. But no, we choose to run into a brickwall instead.

Churches now have to take care of the religious education. Well, guess what, churches don't have the ressources of the school system. This is also part of the strategy of marxists and freemasons. If less ressources are available to teach religion to kids, less religion will be taught.

Very well said, Jim.

There is no Quebec without Catholicism. Your whole culture depends on it. The problem is that most people are too blinded to see it, even though the stats are there for anyone who is honest to admit it. Quebec is a dying society. It has been for decades, and its suicide rates are through the roof. I think they are the highest in North America, if not the world. The only way Quebec is sustaining itself is through immigration, but that, as we have discovered through the Bouchard Commission this past summer, is creating its own simmering boiling pot.

Quebecers don't get it. It's the Church and Quebec. Both or neither.

That's not a politically correct thing to say, for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not true.

Unless Quebec turns back to its Catholic roots, there will be no identity to speak of in any meaningful sense.

[ymimad]

why are schools teaching religion anyway?
I think it should be left up to the parents to
teach their own children religion if they have any.
schools need to get back to the 3 Rs and stop with
the brainwashing to communism.

[Eddy]

Even home-schoolers are required to teach the course. It is required for every single child in Quebec. It is not simply a course that teaches kids about different religions, but teaches them that all religions are equal from a secular perspective. For example, one of the textbooks provided for the course teaches the children that Henry Morgentaler is a Quebec hero who helped women gain their rights.

BTW, Eddy, I would really appreciate having all the details on this humdinger of a quote. Can you provide the textbook (publisher, year, etc.) and page number for it, along with the context of the statement?

I would like to blog about this. Thanks.

I stand corrected to some degree: there is not actually a statement about Henry Morgentaler such as I indicated. Here is the real text. I apologize for the length but I wasn't sure how much French to use here, and what required translation. I hope this is helpful.

Collection Agora : Dialogue 2e cycle du secondaire Éthique et Culture Religieuse, by Melanie Dubois and Chantal Bertrand, Les Éditions La Pensée inc., Montréal, 2008. http://www.editions-lapensee.qc.ca/

Page 69: at the end of a list of topics to be chosen by small groups, researched, and presented, such as Greenpeace, the fight against apartheid, and the ‘collective against sexist advertising’: ‘‘Figures importantes: César Chavez, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, Henry Morgentaler’’

Page 127: ‘‘C’est seulement en 1988, grâce entre autres aux actions du docteur Morgentaler, que la Cour suprême du Canada décriminalise l’avortement.’’

On page 128 a fuller discussion of abortion takes place, with prolife and prochoice arguments presented. The prolife side consists of two arguments. First, some consider it immoral to kill a human being, but the embryo is human, therefore abortion is immoral. ‘‘They (opponents of abortion) consider the embryo as fully human with the same rights as everyone else. It is necessary to protect its (the embryo’s) life at any price.’’ Second, religious arguments are often used (e.g. God gave life, he (sic) alone should be able to take it away).

The prochoice side has three arguments. First, feminists first fought for the right to have abortions because of difficult pregnancies which were risky for the life and health of women. Second, thanks to (grâce à) freedom of conscience a woman is enabled (habilitée) to make this choice herself without having to obey anyone else. She can and has the right to make her own decision to become a mother; c’est ce qu’on appelle le droit à la maternité choisie. And 3rd, ‘on reconnaît aux femmes qu’il s’agit de leur corps, on appelle cela l’intégrité physique. C’est sur ce principe que l’on admet’’ that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she considers legitimate.

While there might be some habitués of Freedominion who would argue about Cesar Chavez (I am not one of them) surely we would agree that the intention was to place Morgentaler not in a list of controversial figures but of praiseworthy figures.

In the part where abortion is discussed I note that the writer says regarding the prolife side ‘they consider’ but for the proabortion side ‘has the right’, ‘on reconnaît’ (we recognize), ‘what we call’, and ‘we admit’. I leave it to those whose French is better than mine to correct my understanding of the text.

This text is for Sec. 4 which is Grade 10 elsewhere (except I guess Manitoba where it is Senior 2). It is what has replaced religious education. It is NOT simply a presentation of world religions and traditions that have had an influence on Quebec up to today. Many people have the impression that this course is about 'what do the Jews and Moslems do on Christmas?' but it is about far more than that: it is about creating a certain mindset.

If you are interested you can go to the website of the publisher and look at the texts in the box ‘nous vous invitons à visionner les publicités suivants’ which will show you the books used for other grades. E.g. Collection labyrinthe Les grandes religions (same grades) ‘inspiré des actuels programmes d’enseignement moral et d’enseignement religieux, mais resolument orienté vers l’overture d’esprit’, inspired by real programmes of moral and religious instruction but resolutely oriented to openness of spirit (implying that real religious teaching programmes aren’t). Collection Empreintes for kids in elementary school: ‘Elle (la collection) reconnaît la contribution de l’enseignement moral au « développement d’une conscience commune » comme l’envisage le reforme’ : this collection recognizes the contribution of teaching about morality to ‘‘the development of a communal conscience’’ as the Reform has envisaged it (did Quebec parents understand that the government would be using this course to form their children’s conscience?)

I will end with one last comment. I was told by an administrator that one thing expressly forbidden was to bring actual practitioners of religions in to speak about their religion. To have a Rabbi or Pundit in to talk about Judaism or Hinduism would be ‘confessionalism’. The Collection Rencontres speaks favourably about desirable ‘encounters’ : rencontres avec soi-même, rencontres avec les pairs, rencontres avec l’enseignement comme passeur culturel et rencontres avec d’autres humains par la médiation notamment des contenus des manuels. There’s nothing better to teach kids about their neighbours and their ‘different ways’ than by keeping the religious people away, in Quebec.

[Felix Culpa]

French-Canadians fought in the past to have the right to have Catholic education in public schools. Now, those same French-Canadians are taking away that right. This is scandalous. I received Catholic education in public school (in the 80's and 90's). It was bad, but at least it was there. Parents who did not want their kids to receive religion courses could put them in the morals courses. It wasn't an oppressive system. But even this was too much for the marxists and freemasons who work at the education department.

Catholicism is the most important part of our identity as French-Canadians, family being the second one. Leftists who have ruled us since 1960 have always attacked those two entities. Now that our society is going through an identity crisis, going back to our Catholic roots should be our first move. But no, we choose to run into a brickwall instead.

Churches now have to take care of the religious education. Well, guess what, churches don't have the ressources of the school system. This is also part of the strategy of marxists and freemasons. If less ressources are available to teach religion to kids, less religion will be taught.

Nail, meet hammer!

[Felix Culpa]

Quebecers don't get it. It's the Church and Quebec. Both or neither.

That's not a politically correct thing to say, for sure. But it doesn't mean it's not true.

Unless Quebec turns back to its Catholic roots, there will be no identity to speak of in any meaningful sense.

Hey, Paycheck: Y'ever read anything by Abbé Groulx?

He's pretty much sneered at these days---in some cases, for quite legitimate reasons: he was quite anti-Semitic.

Although he was 100% wrong on the Jews, he was 100% right on the fact that Catholicism informed Quebec society---all of French Canadian society, for that matter, but he was writing only for Quebec---and that if Catholicism was forgotten, French-Canadian society would collapse too. He butted heads with the early secular (Marxist-influenced) Quebec nationalists for that very reason.

Turns out he was right and they were wrong.

The intellectual history of Quebec is absolutely fascinating, and much under-appreciated in English speaking Canada. Too bad, because Catholics are missing out on how some really interesting ideas about the Church and society were and are being played out.

[travelhobbit]

<A HREF="http://forlifeandfamily.blogspot.com/2008/10/quebec-policy-on-religion-to-educate-or.html">Quebec Policy On Teaching Religion — To Educate Or To Confuse And Proselytize?</A>
A very long essay I wrote in response to a wordy comment on my blog.

(It's 5:30 am and I got work tomorrow )

[Eddy]

travelhobbit: I like the part where Openly Atheist says atheists aren't complaining about the program. Of course they're not; the course is based on a world view they would be comfortable with, and that world view is evident throughout.

[dwday]

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have a solution to suggest re: what religious/moral instruction is appropriate in public schools?

I'd particularly like to hear from those who are outraged that all religions are presented as equal: which religion should the public schools endorse as being better, and what would you offer parents not subscribing to the 'better' faith?

[Paycheck]

By the way, I find it pretty ironic that the only way the Conservatives are going to get a majority in this country is for Quebec to go back to its Catholic roots.

[Paycheck]

Just out of curiosity, does anybody have a solution to suggest re: what religious/moral instruction is appropriate in public schools?

I'd particularly like to hear from those who are outraged that all religions are presented as equal: which religion should the public schools endorse as being better, and what would you offer parents not subscribing to the 'better' faith?

Here is the problem as I see it.

First, as the Catholic Church teaches, it is the primary RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY of the parents to educate their children. More of them should be doing just that. That is, homeschooling their children. However, should parents choose to delegate that authority to the State, they have every right to do so, provided the State respects their wishes. The right of the parents to form their children according to their own values is sacrosanct and must be respected by the State, provided, of course, the parents do not clearly abuse their authority and the common good is respected.

Should parents send their children to a public school, it should be understood that their rights are never abrogated. The State is always UNDER and SERVANT to the Family, not vice versa.

Of course, today, this whole idea has been turned right around such that people in liberal societies like Quebec believe that the State essentially has the right and the responsibility to education the children. That really reduces children to mere biological chess pieces of the State which are subject to State sponsored ideological indoctrination. Parents become little more than breeding vessels at the service of a tyrannical state who does not tolerate dissent from the zeigeist. And nor do I think this is an exageration in the slighest given the Province of Quebec's fascist insistence that all schools and homeschoolers everywhere must comply with singing praises to the Glorious One, Henry the Butcher.

This, of course, all comes from the devaluation of the unborn child and the demotion of the natural family to something arbitrary and optional. i.e. divorce, abortion, euthanasia, invitro fertilization, embryo hustling (the new 21st century slavery), child porn, same-sex adoptions, etc. etc. etc. As the Church has always warned, an attack on the Family is an attack on freedom. It is no coincidence that both evils are happening at the same time on a global level.

Now, here is the problem in Canada. We have two competing world views: one that acknowleges God and one that does not. In a relatively homogenious society like Canada was before Trudeau arrived, there was no problem. Canada was a Christian nation. We saw things relatively the same way (notwithstanding intramural squabbles between us Papists and the Protestants). But with the gutting of the Christian religion and the acceptance of relativism in all its forms (cultural, religious, etc.), things have begun to unravel. You cannot sustain a society with competing world views. This applies to the law in general and education in particular.

In terms of education, now that the State has shown itself to be an enemy of parents, we are therefore asking for our basic human rights to be respected which includes allowing us to form our own children without intrusive State thuggery.

If the public school system wants to teach that all religions are morally equivalent (an absurd notion, to be honest), then that, sadly, is its prerogative. I think that is a suicidal mistake, because, in part, the West will not survive without Christianity. If we are honest, by every objective measure possible, we see that fact is coming to pass. However, what the State most certainly does not have the right to do is to usurp the rights of parents to educate their own children.

So, from a Christian point of view, we say to the State and to our fellow citizens: form your public education system in regards to your Koolaid worldview, but let us form our own children according to our own values.

In the end, when the West implodes on itself because of all the Koolaid it's been driking, we'll see which one is left standing. My bet is with 2000 years of success, not the last 40 of marshmellow secularism.

[Paycheck]

Even home-schoolers are required to teach the course. It is required for every single child in Quebec. It is not simply a course that teaches kids about different religions, but teaches them that all religions are equal from a secular perspective. For example, one of the textbooks provided for the course teaches the children that Henry Morgentaler is a Quebec hero who helped women gain their rights.

BTW, Eddy, I would really appreciate having all the details on this humdinger of a quote. Can you provide the textbook (publisher, year, etc.) and page number for it, along with the context of the statement?

I would like to blog about this. Thanks.

I stand corrected to some degree: there is not actually a statement about Henry Morgentaler such as I indicated. Here is the real text. I apologize for the length but I wasn't sure how much French to use here, and what required translation. I hope this is helpful.

Collection Agora : Dialogue 2e cycle du secondaire Éthique et Culture Religieuse, by Melanie Dubois and Chantal Bertrand, Les Éditions La Pensée inc., Montréal, 2008. http://www.editions-lapensee.qc.ca/

Page 69: at the end of a list of topics to be chosen by small groups, researched, and presented, such as Greenpeace, the fight against apartheid, and the ‘collective against sexist advertising’: ‘‘Figures importantes: César Chavez, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, Henry Morgentaler’’

Page 127: ‘‘C’est seulement en 1988, grâce entre autres aux actions du docteur Morgentaler, que la Cour suprême du Canada décriminalise l’avortement.’’

On page 128 a fuller discussion of abortion takes place, with prolife and prochoice arguments presented. The prolife side consists of two arguments. First, some consider it immoral to kill a human being, but the embryo is human, therefore abortion is immoral. ‘‘They (opponents of abortion) consider the embryo as fully human with the same rights as everyone else. It is necessary to protect its (the embryo’s) life at any price.’’ Second, religious arguments are often used (e.g. God gave life, he (sic) alone should be able to take it away).

The prochoice side has three arguments. First, feminists first fought for the right to have abortions because of difficult pregnancies which were risky for the life and health of women. Second, thanks to (grâce à) freedom of conscience a woman is enabled (habilitée) to make this choice herself without having to obey anyone else. She can and has the right to make her own decision to become a mother; c’est ce qu’on appelle le droit à la maternité choisie. And 3rd, ‘on reconnaît aux femmes qu’il s’agit de leur corps, on appelle cela l’intégrité physique. C’est sur ce principe que l’on admet’’ that a woman can have an abortion for whatever reasons she considers legitimate.

While there might be some habitués of Freedominion who would argue about Cesar Chavez (I am not one of them) surely we would agree that the intention was to place Morgentaler not in a list of controversial figures but of praiseworthy figures.

In the part where abortion is discussed I note that the writer says regarding the prolife side ‘they consider’ but for the proabortion side ‘has the right’, ‘on reconnaît’ (we recognize), ‘what we call’, and ‘we admit’. I leave it to those whose French is better than mine to correct my understanding of the text.

This text is for Sec. 4 which is Grade 10 elsewhere (except I guess Manitoba where it is Senior 2). It is what has replaced religious education. It is NOT simply a presentation of world religions and traditions that have had an influence on Quebec up to today. Many people have the impression that this course is about 'what do the Jews and Moslems do on Christmas?' but it is about far more than that: it is about creating a certain mindset.

If you are interested you can go to the website of the publisher and look at the texts in the box ‘nous vous invitons à visionner les publicités suivants’ which will show you the books used for other grades. E.g. Collection labyrinthe Les grandes religions (same grades) ‘inspiré des actuels programmes d’enseignement moral et d’enseignement religieux, mais resolument orienté vers l’overture d’esprit’, inspired by real programmes of moral and religious instruction but resolutely oriented to openness of spirit (implying that real religious teaching programmes aren’t). Collection Empreintes for kids in elementary school: ‘Elle (la collection) reconnaît la contribution de l’enseignement moral au « développement d’une conscience commune » comme l’envisage le reforme’ : this collection recognizes the contribution of teaching about morality to ‘‘the development of a communal conscience’’ as the Reform has envisaged it (did Quebec parents understand that the government would be using this course to form their children’s conscience?)

I will end with one last comment. I was told by an administrator that one thing expressly forbidden was to bring actual practitioners of religions in to speak about their religion. To have a Rabbi or Pundit in to talk about Judaism or Hinduism would be ‘confessionalism’. The Collection Rencontres speaks favourably about desirable ‘encounters’ : rencontres avec soi-même, rencontres avec les pairs, rencontres avec l’enseignement comme passeur culturel et rencontres avec d’autres humains par la médiation notamment des contenus des manuels. There’s nothing better to teach kids about their neighbours and their ‘different ways’ than by keeping the religious people away, in Quebec.

Thanks for that Eddy.

[homeandnativeland]

Well, it ought to be, that's my point.

I agree, but there are many political agendas at work in all civic levels.