Quebec religion course is mandatory: Supremes
The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Quebec course on religion and ethics taught in grade schools and high schools is a mandatory part of the curriculum.
I don’t understand how it’s a problem for your kids to learn about the beliefs and practices of other religions, so I think this was a good ruling.
But I am curious. They mention “ethics” – do the kids ever learn that there are many people who live good lives without a religion?
Tux 12:54 on 2012/02/17 Permalink
Agreed, it’s a good way to preserve religious freedom while also doing something to prevent the religious brainwashing of children by their parents.
Jack 13:57 on 2012/02/17 Permalink
Can somebody help me out here, I know that Loyola High School ( Jesuit-R.C.) also brought the Ministry to court on not wanting to teach this course. Will this have an impact on that case……come on we got have one lawyer here.
no\deli 15:45 on 2012/02/17 Permalink
The fact that they’re conflating religion and ethics should give you some idea of the direction they’ve taken/will take, but broad points aside – I’ve seem some of the coursework. It’s laughably skewed. In favour of whom, you ask? Look up the mountain for a hint!
These folks used to be active on this topic. Maybe the ruling will reignite them. Here you will find an outline of the class. <– Says it all.
John 16:23 on 2012/02/17 Permalink
The Loyola case is different, and is, I believe waiting to be heard by the Court of Appeal of Quebec. Loyola doesn’t want to exempt students from the course; it wants to teach a similar course that would respect its own Roman Catholic perspective.
Today’s decision seems to suggest the court didn’t have much evidence in front of it – two of the justices in their separate opinion (Lebel & Fish JJ.) found “…Based on the rules of civil evidence, therefore, the documentary evidence does not make it possible to find a violation of the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. The state of the record, however, also does not permit to conclude that the ERC Program and its implementation could not, in the future, possibly infringe the rights granted to L and J and persons in the same situation.” (taken from the headnote).
I’m not sure this case will impact Loyola’s arguments.
qatzelok 17:43 on 2012/02/17 Permalink
@ Kate: “But I am curious. They mention “ethics” – do the kids ever learn that there are many people who live good lives without a religion?”
Teaching atheism or agnosticism is the same as teaching any other ideology. To teach what you wrote would be to teach an opinion.
Instead, they are being taught ethics and religious traditions. And then, as they get older, they can examine people who practice the various tribal cults and **make up their own minds.**
Robert J 03:22 on 2012/02/20 Permalink
The one thing I don’t understand is why the federal court ruled in this case. Surely they don’t get to decide that the course is mandatory (otherwise logically Ontario would be obligated to have a similar course, which it doesn’t). As I understand it, the court is deciding not to overrule Quebec’s decision to make the course obligatory.
Am I off the mark here?
Kate 11:24 on 2012/02/20 Permalink
It’s because the case was framed as “this Quebec curriculum thing infringes on our Canadian charter right to religious freedom” so it was heard at the Canadian supreme court, which decided it didn’t.