Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts

Friday, September 4, 2009

Students must learn about other religions: judge

Parents say new course threatens Christian faith

(Originally posted on NationalPost.com)

Graeme Hamilton, National Post

Published: Wednesday, September 02, 2009


MONTREAL -- Christian parents who objected to their children being taught about other religions in a mandatory new Quebec school course have suffered a serious setback with a ruling this week that the teachings do not infringe their religious freedoms.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Guy Dubois dismissed a bid by parents in Drummondville, Que., who said the course on ethics and religious culture introduced across the province last year was undermining their efforts to instill Christian faith in their children.

"In light of all the evidence presented, the court does not see how the ... course limits the plaintiff's freedom of conscience and of religion for the children when it provides an overall presentation of various religions without obliging the children to adhere to them," Judge Dubois wrote.

The course was controversial even before instruction began last September. During the year there were protest marches in some cities, and about 1,700 parents asked that their children be exempted from attending the class. All such requests were refused.

The course's introduction was the final step in the secularization of Quebec schooling that began with a 1997 constitutional amendment replacing denominational school boards with linguistic ones.

As of last year, parents no longer had the right to choose between courses in Catholic, Protestant or moral instruction. The new curriculum covers a broad range of world religions, with particular emphasis on Quebec's religious heritage -- Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and aboriginal spirituality. It is taught from Grade 1 through Grade 11.

The course's scope was too broad for the parents in the Drummondville case, who cannot be named because their two minor children are involved. During the trial, the children's mother testified that she did not see why her 7-year-old son needs to learn about Islam when he is still forming his own Catholic spirituality. "It's very confusing," she said.

In his ruling, Judge Dubois cited a Catholic theologian who testified that religious instruction is primarily the responsibility of parents, not schools. He added that there is a commitment on the part of the Catholic church to understand other religions.

The Quebec government, which intervened in the case in support of the Des Chênes school board, argued that the course was objective and in no way limited parents' ability to pass their religious beliefs on to their children. Teaching children about other religions is a way to promote "equality, respect and tolerance in the Quebec school system," it said.

Sébastien Lebel-Grenier, a law professor at Université de Sherbrooke, said he is not surprised that the new course survived a challenge under the Charter of Rights.

"What parents were demanding was the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions," he said. "This right to ignorance is certainly not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe."

He said the course is aimed not at instilling religious values but at trying "to explain to these children the diversity in which we now live in Quebec."

Richard Décarie, spokesman for a coalition opposed to the course, said the decision is a major disappointment. He believes there are grounds for an appeal, but he is not sure the parents involved can afford additional legal expenses. He said they have already spent close to $100,000 fighting the case.

"The course shouldn't be compulsory, because it changes completely how parents keep their moral authority over the education of their children," said Mr. Décarie, of the Coalition for Freedom in Education. "We're not talking about mathematics or French or English here. We're talking about something that involves the essence of the culture of people."

Two other challenges of the course are before the courts, with decisions expected this fall. Parents in Granby went to court after their children were suspended from school for failing to attend ethics and religious culture class. Montreal's Loyola High School, a private Jesuit school, has challenged the course, arguing that it obliges the school to put all religions on equal footing. The school says it already teaches world religions to its students.

National Post

Digg! Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Saturday, August 22, 2009

StreetDogs: This way to separate the atheists from the agnostics and theists

Reposted from: http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=79223

IF YOU’RE still not sure what the difference is between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist, you might appreciate this explanation from the folks at wordpress.com:

The difference between an atheist, an agnostic and a theist can be summarised by their responses to the question: do you have a dog?

The atheist will simply answer, “No”. If you go to his house to search for a dog, you won’t find one. There will be no signs in the house or the yard that there ever was a dog there. None of his relatives or friends will remember having seen a dog there. They’ll ask, “Does he have a dog? How could I not have known?” And they’ll be absolutely right. There are no signs that there could ever have been a dog at the atheist’s house or indeed anywhere where he spends his time. Not at his home, not at his work, nowhere.

The agnostic who thinks that there’s simply insufficient proof for either having or not having a dog will be a great deal less certain.

When asked, she’ll look around her house searching for traces of a dog. When pressed, she’ll say, “Oh, I’ve searched my house, but what’s to say that there’s not a dog in my garage as I’m searching the house, and what’s to say that dog isn’t going to be in my house while I search the garage?”. If asked, “Do you believe you have a dog, despite there being no signs of it?” She’s likely to answer firmly: “There’s simply not enough evidence to support the fact that I don’t own a dog to come to that conclusion.”

Then there’s the agnostic who doesn’t believe that he owns a dog, but is nevertheless not willing to completely rule out the possibility.

When asked, he’ll say, “I have no dog at home, that’s for sure.” Pondering the question further, he’ll say, “But, obviously, I can never be everywhere all at once. So, there must be some small possibility that there’s a dog out there somewhere that’s got a disk on its collar saying I’m the owner. That I don’t know about it isn’t sufficient proof that it doesn’t exist.”

Needless to say, you won’t find traces of a dog at his home either.

Finally, there’s the theist. When asked, she’ll answer an empathic “Yes!” But if you go to her house and search for a dog, you’ll not find a trace of a dog there either. Nowhere is a dog to be found.

Naturally you’ll ask her why she thinks she has a dog when there’s no evidence. You might find relatives and friends who say she has a dog, but who’ve never seen it, heard it, or felt it licking their face.

“It’s a matter of faith,” the theist will proclaim. “I have faith in this (or that) which says so. My friends say so. My parents said so. So who are you to question the fact that I have a dog?”

Other perspectives:

We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart. HL Mencken

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. Bertrand Russell

-MICHEL PIREU: pireum@bdfm.co.za

Digg! Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit

Monday, August 10, 2009

Friday, August 7, 2009

Chaser's war on everything



Stolen from Pharyngula

Digg! Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit

Another example of the comfort religion provides...

Tuesday night, George Sodini walked into a fitness center and shot the place up, killing 3 people and injuring 15. He had this to say in his online diary:

Maybe soon, I will see God and Jesus. At least that is what I was told. Eternal life does NOT depend on works. If it did, we will all be in hell. Christ paid for EVERY sin, so how can I or you be judged BY GOD for a sin when the penalty was ALREADY paid. People judge but that does not matter. I was reading the Bible and The Integrity of God beginning yesterday, because soon I will see them.

So no, you don't need to be an atheist to be a murderous raving lunatic, thankyouverymuch.

Digg! Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit

Faith-Vision Test

I'm gonna say this is a joke:



I got 0, in case you didn't know.

Digg! Stumble Upon Toolbar submit to reddit