23 May, 2011

Canadian Religious Authority To Force Parents Into State Religion

Socon or Bust » Blog Archive » Canadian Religious Authority To Force Parents Into State Religion

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous23 May, 2011

    How often have I heard people lament the violation of the separation of church and state should a religious group was propose a change to laws (An American concept to be precise). This is clearly a violation of that principle only the state is the violator.

    Cheers
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The word “divine” is always followed by “mythical or supernatural beings”. "

    How can one learn ethics from a group that knowing distorts the cirriculum guidelines? Here's how the guidelines typically use those words:

    "Help students become aware that different
    cultures and religious traditions have numerous
    ways of representing the divine, as well as
    mythical and supernatural beings."

    https://www7.mels.gouv.qc.ca/DC/ECR/pdf/ecr_elementary.pdf
    There is no implication that the divine is a myth. And perhaps the people who object if they took the course or even read the guidelines would appreciate that some religious traditions employ mythic stories such as our Native Peoples whose culture we historically attempted to wipe out.

    I think Marilyn Morse could use a course in ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael: I understand your point, but I ask you to please consider that what's presented on paper does not always translate to be the way it turns out in practice. You know that I've spent the majority of my time as a priest on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. As well I remain connected to teachers and parents from the Quebec side.

    It seems that the 'baby has been thrown out with the bathwater' as this new curriculum has been worked out in classes. Elementary teachers will tell you that the nuanced difference between 'divine' and 'myth' is beyond the comprehension of young students. The desire to offend no religious group results in all religions being labeled as either being all 'real' or all 'false' when presented in such a manner. This stands in contradiction to the rights of parents to instill Christian values in their children. The question the court must decide is who has the right to make such a decision for children: the state or parents?

    There is able precedent that the state has the right to prohibit acts that endanger the welfare of the child, For example, if children were being inculcated with 'Manson morals', the state would no doubt take custody of the children. But does the transmission of religious values as practiced in the western world rise to the same level of harm to a child's welfare? I don't think so.

    So Michael, I don't think that Ms, Morse necessarily needs a course in ethics, (who knows, eh?) but I do see some merit in the concern of parents with this bureaucratic implementation of the new education curriculum as it currently stands.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  4. If I were to post this :

    Bishop Fred Henry in this article

    http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=de36467f-7996-432d-badc-eece3a8758eb

    talks about “the Roman Catholic Church” and then goes to say “exempt from the obligation to report a case of child abuse to the police in accordance with the Alberta Child Welfare Act.”

    Clearly I’m abusing the intention of the bishop's orignal sentence to inflame passions.

    The author of this post on the Quebec school course may have some valid points but when I read such a flagrant distortion of a quote, my inclination is to dismiss the author entirely. The problem is people will read that inflamatory sentence and think that is true and repeat it and inflame more anger. If people are to get angry, get angry against the facts not a misquote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael: I freely admit I'm in need of a 2nd (or is it 3rd?) cup of coffee, but I do not understand the point you're making. Am I misquoting you or are you speaking about Ms. Morris? If it's me... I apologize.

    Fr. Tim

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not you. Ms. Morris. I think the post is inadvertently (I give the benefit of doubt) disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics