Quebec Kills Parents' Rights To Choose Religion Instruction

[Paycheck]

MONTREAL, October 17, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The new mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program that was introduced this fall in Quebec schools has parents fuming, with many complaining that the program effectively removes their right to choose the kind of religious education their children receive. To show their displeasure a group of Quebec parents has organized a protest march for tomorrow, Saturday, October 18.

Three years ago, the clause in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms that guaranteed freedom of religious instruction and parental rights (parents have "the right to require that, in the public educational establishments, their children receive a religious or moral instruction in conformity with their convictions") was changed without any public consultation. The amended clause read that parents have the "right to give their children a religious and moral education in keeping with their convictions and with proper regard for their children's rights and interests."

Removal of the phrase "in the public educational establishments" meant that parents no longer had any say in what type of religious instruction is given in the schools.

The new compulsory religion course, from which children cannot be exempted, replaces three options that had been available to Quebec students - a generic course in moral education or two other courses that were either Catholic or Protestant in nature.

The Canadian Press reports that lawyer Jean-Yves Cote, representing a couple in Drummondville that has started legal action against the their local school board and the government, says the number of angry parents is likely in the thousands and is growing.

The suit filed by Cote seeks the right for parents to exempt their children from the course.

A request for exemption from the Ethics and Religious Culture program by Loyola High School, a private Catholic boys' school in Montreal, on the grounds that the course conflicted with the school's Catholic character, was refused by Education Minister Michelle Courchesne, which prompted the school administration also to take the issue to court.

Sylvain Lamontagne, a parent from Valcourt, told the Canadian Press that he is concerned the course exposes his children to world religions at a very young age while threatening their Christian faith, and will cause confusion and push his kids towards atheism.

He refers to the new course as religious fast-food.

"We can't do this to children. It will only confuse them," said Lamontagne. "Religion isn't a Chinese buffet. You can't just pick one and then another however you want."

The protest march, organized by Angelo Polcaro, hopes to see several thousand parents from all parts of the province gather in Montreal on Saturday to voice their displeasure to Quebec's Education Department.

"How can a child, six-years-old, have an opinion on a religion when he doesn't even know his own religion? He has to have a base before he can make an opinion," Polcaro said in the Canadian Press report.

"I've got a problem with that. First let's teach the child his own religion and then we can go from there."

For more information please contact:

Martin P. Murphy, Executive Director
The English Speaking Catholic Council
2005 St. Marc
Montreal, Quebec, H3H 2G8
Phone: 514-937-2301
Fax: 514-907-5010
E-mail: escc@bellnet.ca

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101703.html

[Darski]

Come on people this is Quebec. What can you expect form them?

count yourself lucky that they still allow churches to exist but to expect them to allow God to exist is just foolishness.

[Grig]

What is the content of the course that is objectionable? If it is simply giving students an awareness of what the basic ideas of various religions are I don't see a lot of grounds for complaining.

[Paycheck]

What is the content of the course that is objectionable? If it is simply giving students an awareness of what the basic ideas of various religions are I don't see a lot of grounds for complaining.

I think the problem is that this course mandates treating all religions as morally equal or equally valid. At least, that's what I've heard about it. When you are teaching YOUR FAITH tradition to YOUR children, they have to be first grounded their own religious heritage before they can appreciate what other religions teach.

It is not an acceptable position for people who hold a faith for the government to come in and tell them what they are going to teach about religion. For the secular state to impose itself in an arena it has traditionally all but mocked, I find that only a bit amusing and ironic.

The children belong to the parents not to the State.

The State can f-off.

[Crash]

I don't see the big deal depending on how the course is set up.

More people ought to have a basic understanding of religion. The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

[liber]

I wonder how this affects homeschooling parents?

[homeandnativeland]

I don't see the big deal depending on how the course is set up.

More people ought to have a basic understanding of religion. The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

As long as the course remains OPTIONAL there is no big deal.

We don't need more 'everyones values are equal and your heritage is chaff' ideas like multicult.

My faith is superior, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I follow it. I'm sure the Pope, the local Rabbi etc. feel the same.

Tolerance means allowing us to all believe that.

[Crash]

I don't see the big deal depending on how the course is set up.

More people ought to have a basic understanding of religion. The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

As long as the course remains OPTIONAL there is no big deal.

We don't need more 'everyones values are equal and your heritage is chaff' ideas like multicult.

My faith is superior, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I follow it. I'm sure the Pope, the local Rabbi etc. feel the same.

Tolerance means allowing us to all believe that.

Well, I really don't know how much choice is involved in the elementary school system, so as I say, I agree with a course that gave an impartial take on religion. I don't think people should ever be scared of knowledge that is presented in such a way.

The purpose of education is not to indoctrinate people, it is to give them knowledge in the most impartial way possible and let them draw their own conclusions.

[liber]

The purpose of education is not to indoctrinate people, it is to give them knowledge in the most impartial way possible and let them draw their own conclusions.

That's a laugh. I really don't think that is what public education is about anymore. It is all about the indocrination.

[Crash]

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

[Paycheck]

I don't see the big deal depending on how the course is set up.

More people ought to have a basic understanding of religion. The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

As long as the course remains OPTIONAL there is no big deal.

We don't need more 'everyones values are equal and your heritage is chaff' ideas like multicult.

My faith is superior, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I follow it. I'm sure the Pope, the local Rabbi etc. feel the same.

Tolerance means allowing us to all believe that.

Well, I really don't know how much choice is involved in the elementary school system, so as I say, I agree with a course that gave an impartial take on religion. I don't think people should ever be scared of knowledge that is presented in such a way.

The purpose of education is not to indoctrinate people, it is to give them knowledge in the most impartial way possible and let them draw their own conclusions.

So, what you are saying, is that the State should be able to mandate a certain kind of religion (i.e. one that puts them all equal and makes them all the same) on our children?

And are you saying that parents cannot instruct their children in their faith and according to their own time table introduce them to other religions?

And are you saying that one faith is so superficial that one does not need a substantial amount of time to learn about it? Its history, its doctrinal points, its moral views, etc. etc?

[laconic]

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.

[One Truth]

I can't imagine by now that the Catholic education in Quebec schools was particularly Catholic or particularly educational.

[Paycheck]

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.

[Crash]

I don't see the big deal depending on how the course is set up.

More people ought to have a basic understanding of religion. The people who write this article act like knowledge is their enemy when teaching their own children about their own faith...

As long as the course remains OPTIONAL there is no big deal.

We don't need more 'everyones values are equal and your heritage is chaff' ideas like multicult.

My faith is superior, as far as I'm concerned. That's why I follow it. I'm sure the Pope, the local Rabbi etc. feel the same.

Tolerance means allowing us to all believe that.

Well, I really don't know how much choice is involved in the elementary school system, so as I say, I agree with a course that gave an impartial take on religion. I don't think people should ever be scared of knowledge that is presented in such a way.

The purpose of education is not to indoctrinate people, it is to give them knowledge in the most impartial way possible and let them draw their own conclusions.

So, what you are saying, is that the State should be able to mandate a certain kind of religion (i.e. one that puts them all equal and makes them all the same) on our children?

And are you saying that parents cannot instruct their children in their faith and according to their own time table introduce them to other religions?

And are you saying that one faith is so superficial that one does not need a substantial amount of time to learn about it? Its history, its doctrinal points, its moral views, etc. etc?

I am saying that the purpose of education is to give people knowledge. What conclusions people draw with knowledge is their own right as individuals.

The purpose of this course, as far as I can tell, is to educate people about religions, which is a worthwhile pursuit, if the course is approached in a proper way. Saying all religions are equal must be put in context in an educational sense. They would not be approaching religion as one being the purist or absolute faith, they would simply be giving a benign, impartial take on religions and what their faith preaches. That is the point of education.

I don't believe religious instruction is the "job" of any particular person, much like education of morals is either. We must provide children with all the knowledge we can and when they become an age where they can reconcile these things they should be free to make their own decisions. I believe that childhood is about giving children the tools (knowledge is a big one) to eventually determine their own values, and if you so choose part of that is taking them to church, then that is your prerogative as a parent.