2009-05-18

Ethics And Religious Culture Course: Letter To The Editor

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to why some parents object to the new course on Religion and Ethics that is now mandated in Quebec schools.

Shouldn't we all know something of what others believe? And if the course aims at promoting tolerance and "the common good," how could any right-thinking person be against it?

Conservative Catholics and evangelicals are among the main opponents of the course. Those I know want a society in which all people (whatever they profess to believe or not believe) might live and let live. There ought to be at least civility among us, and in many cases co-operation for the common good.

However, this does not mean that children in Grade 1 must be taught about world religions. If parents and church teach, for example, that Jesus is Lord over all yet the school says Jesus is but one of many religious teachers (and how can it do otherwise?), there will inevitably be confusion in the child's mind.

The notion that such a course can be taught from a neutral point of view is a myth. Not to decide is to decide. Either the school affirms that everyone should bow before Jesus or it does not. There is no neutral ground.

Similarly, it is questionable whether ethics can be taught from some supposedly neutral perspective. The teacher always has a bias (whether Christian, humanist, utilitarian, etc.) which will be virtually impossible to conceal.

Big Brother needs to stop encroaching on the rights of parents.

John Vaudry

Bold italics mine.

It feels as though the government's plan to introduce an ethics and religious culture course assumes religion as taught in classes is the basis of cultural misunderstandings - or at least keeps students ignorant of world religions.

Proponents of the class deny it puts religions on an equal footing. They further resist the notion it's nothing but an exercise in relativism. On the contrary, it's aim is to foster "intolerance". Whatever that means.

Regardless, to me, the ultimate point here is freedom of choice. As the author said; the course encroaches on civil liberties. If some parents and educators are against it then so be it. They have a right to Catholic instruction. It wouldn't be such an issue if private schools (since they're privately funded) were exempt but they're not.

I grew up Italian and Catholic in a French and English language mileu. I cherish this fact.

My buddies and I didn't begin to interact with other religions and cultures until we reached CEGEP. Guess what? Contrary to all the bs, we thrived. We hung out and dated all sorts of people. Our Catholicism never impeded our progress. Did Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra need 'ethics and religion" to hang out with Joey Bishop, Peter Lawford and Sammy Davis jr.? Ok, I'm stretching things here.

Nonetheless, the same guys who were popular among many people, ended up marrying Chilean, Filippino, Lebanese-Italian and French. My brother married a girl with so many nationalities she lost count: Metis, French-Canadian, Filippino, Spanish and Irish are the predominant ones. My sister is dating a Jew - the best comedians ever. Was that unethical?

We "ignorant" and "intolerant" Catholic wops accomplished all this without an "ethics and religion" course.

I see the rationale for the curriculum but remain unsold.

I'll monitor this and if I'm proven wrong I'll be glad to admit it. But judging how they've handled the education file on 'integration" and linguistic shcool boards, there's a reasonable chance they'll bungle this up too.





5 comments:

  1. Our education system is trying to imitate France's dogmatically "laïc" system. When France was a amonolithic society it could work more or less, not anymore as has been demonstrated by recent events in Paris and elsewhere. Québec is no longer a monolithic society either. So let's give breathing space to all. Let the apostles of an absolute lay environmment have their little religion free islands and provide others their own islands. Bridges are alredy in place, just open them to traffic.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, France is in such "fantastic" shape. We shouldn't model them anymore than Sweden.

    There's the difference between America and us. We copy; they don't.

    Quebec is no longer mutli-ethnic yet it still wages it's own private and petty war with the English language.

    For me, it's not the state's place (especially Quebec which is still not fully comfortable with pluralism) to take on such a mammoth subject. If parents choose to not be a part of it then it's their free choice. Calling them "intolerant" is, well, intolerant in itself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At least education and health should be taken care of, to a certain extent, by collectivity in my opinion. I see it as more democratic.

    Religious education is though more complicated. A course on religions cannot be taught from a neutral point of view, that guy says. Well, this applies to history and tons of other subjects as well, which doesn't imply we should stop teaching them, even though religion penetrates much more to the core of an individual. Different opinions on religion could engender confusion in very small kids.

    Even though I personally prefer when people are given a choice, and I'm wondering if early family imprinting means to be given a real choice. This is mere abstract speculation, since it is probably always good to follow one's parents. Parents are parents. Complicated stuff in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  4. For me it does all come down to that: choice. And to assert people who don't want the course taught to THEIR kids as "intolerant" or "extremist" is too much for me.

    Who left the designers of this course "in charge"?

    I'm working on another piece for this topic. I'd like to hear yours (and PC's) opinion of the article link I'll provide.

    You're right: not easy to navigate through.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'll try to be there, Commentator.

    ReplyDelete

Mysterious and anonymous comments as well as those laced with cyanide and ad hominen attacks will be deleted. Thank you for your attention, chumps.