Quebec bans religious teaching in publicly subsidized daycares

[Asher]

For the record, if you were arguing that there should be a similar system (with similar rules) for charter/religious daycares like there is for schooling, that's a separate matter.

What Quebec has is a public daycare system, which has no affiliation with or ties to any religious faith. It is analogous to the public school board, not the separate school boards or charter schools. If you wish to establish the latter for daycares, more power to you. But they come with strings attached, like the schools do.

[notyoueither]

They most certainly cannot attend public schools in Alberta, by the letter of the law.
They CAN in Ontario. Not Alberta.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_schools#Alberta_and_Saskatchewan

That's ****ed up. I was unaware of that wrinkle. I can tell you that Catholics attended public schools that I went to, and that the link does not say they are forbidden just that there is bureaucracy involved.

[Asher]

Yes, apparently you can ATTEND public schools...but the taxpayers at the residence must fund & elect board members of the Catholic school. Either that or renounce their faith. The law only regulated the funding and election of the board for the district ("support"), but did not affect attendance requirements.

[notyoueither]

Oh, I see. I thought you were making a relevant argument.

Charter schools are an obvious rare exception. There are also charter schools for homosexuals and black people ("Afro-centric"), so there's that... Charter schools are not directly comparable to your standard public daycare, which is directly comparable to the public school system. Separate systems are created for those who favour indoctrination of children.

They are the exception, not the rule.

Name one public school in Alberta that offers religious instruction...

Don't squirm.

You said:

There's also a reason why it's forbidden to teach religion in a Public School.

which is factually incorrect.

Just admit it and we can move on.

[Asher]

Yes, it appears my information was outdated if you view it holistically. What I meant is teaching religion as in how to pray, why God thinks it's wrong to be gay, why women should not work, etc.

Starting in the 2005-06 school year, the CBE permitted the instruction ABOUT world religion for the purposes of learning about their beliefs.

http://www.cbe.ab.ca/new/religion.asp

This, I think we can both agree, is far removed from the kind of religious instruction the article is talking about.

One of the fundamental requirements is that the school's approach is strictly instructional, NOT devotional.

These are the same guidelines the Ontario public school district uses:

The school may sponsor the study of religion, but may not sponsor the practice of religion.
The school may expose students to all religious views, but may not impose any particular view.
The school's approach to religion is one of instruction, not one of indoctrination.
The function of the school is to educate about all religions, not to convert to any one religion.
The school's approach is academic, not devotional.
The school should study what all people believe, but should not teach a student what to believe.
The school should strive for student awareness of all religions, but should not press for student acceptance of any one religion.
The school should seek to inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to conform him or her to any one belief.

[Asher]

Here are the two courses high school students can take pertaining to religion:

Religious Meaning 20

Explore the needs and ways that humankind searches for religious meaning through text, practice, experience and ritual.
This course allows students to develop skills in researching and investigating religious related topics.

World Religions 30

The study of the meaning, basic beliefs, faith and the development of the major religions of the world.
The course will enable students to discover the essence of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. Students will research and investigate world religions using critical thinking.

This clearly has **** all to do with the faith-based daycares which are no longer eligible for public funding in Quebec.

[notyoueither]

The fallacy here is the absence of religion is not zealotry. People are more than welcome to religion, but that is supplemental to the basic needs of public education (Public schoolboards) or public daycare (Public daycares...).

Zealotry is insisting religion should be taught in public day cares.

No, the zealotry is attempts to use the authority and finances of the state to exclude religion from the public square.

I don't give a **** if you are a mullah who wants to supress all but one faith or an atheist who wants to suppress all other faiths.

And yes, I am considering atheism to be a faith for the purposes of this discussion and others like it.

[Asher]

No, the zealotry is attempts to use the authority and finances of the state to exclude religion from the public square.

Public dollars are secular dollars.

Sooner that you deal with this, the easier your life will be in the coming decades as religious beliefs become more fringe.

And yes, I am considering atheism to be a faith for the purposes of this discussion and others like it.

And yes, that is still very stupid.

Atheism is not the same thing as not teaching devotion to religion. You seem to have your terms and concepts all confused.

Secularity is simply defined as being separate from religion. You are confusing it with another dogma (atheism). They are distinct concepts.

The government should not be in the business of devotional instruction.

[Asher]

Why should I pay for the indoctrination of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhists, etc beliefs into people?

Answer that for me philosophically.

It makes no sense. It does not provide a public benefit unless you are a member of the same faith. That kind of system clearly does not fit a public government. The public government should exist to cover every person. If you require additional funding for something in excess of what the government provides, you can go to your community for that.

And this goes for far more than religion. I don't think the government should be funding gay pride parades, etc. Or any resources gay-specific. The public government should exist to serve the general public, not minority sectors of society.

It should provide basic infrastructure, legislate laws to protect its citizens, provide basic education, and provide basic healthcare. If you want things in excess of this, you should go out and do it yourself.

[giblets]

Even if you want to consider atheism a religion, so what? Are public dollars being used to teach kids that there is no god?

[Asher]

Even if you want to consider atheism a religion, so what? Are public dollars being used to teach kids that there is no god?

I didn't want to argue this, because many religious people think the teaching of scientific theory and fact to be teaching atheism. Whole big can of worms...

[giblets]

I didn't want to argue this, because many religious people think the teaching of scientific theory and fact to be teaching atheism. Whole big can of worms...

Well, if someone wants to argue that science classes are religious that just shows they shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Elok]

Who the devil said science is religious? It's an explicitly naturalistic approach to life, but the way it works, it pretty well has to be. Atheism is not really a religion, merely an opinion on religion. You could argue for secular humanism being a religion, but that's boring so let's not. No government should use public dollars to fund religious teaching, if all Catholics are required to pay for the upkeep of Catholic schools that's kinda messed up, and even titular monarchs are a ridiculous anachronism. Also, I'm relieved that this thread hasn't degenerated into dickish sniping between believers and infidels as per usual. That's all I have to contribute to the thread at the momentokaybye.

EDIT: Oh, fundamentalists said teaching science is religious. Duh. I suggest ignoring them; it's what I do.

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm not sure how banning religious teaching is different from banning teaching atheism. And I say this as an atheist who fully believes religion is nothing but superstition.

[notyoueither]

Public dollars are secular dollars.

Sooner that you deal with this, the easier your life will be in the coming decades as religious beliefs become more fringe.

Actually, I don't have a dog in this hunt except as far as organising a civil society goes.

I'm neither religious nor atheist. I think secularism is a good idea, to a point. Like many other things it can be carried to extremes and have results that I do not agree with.

And yes, that is still very stupid.

Atheism is not the same thing as not teaching devotion to religion. You seem to have your terms and concepts all confused.

Secularity is simply defined as being separate from religion. You are confusing it with another dogma (atheism). They are distinct concepts.

The government should not be in the business of devotional instruction.

Atheism as some push it is faith-like.

Secularism does not entail a complete absense of religion from public life, except as promoted by extremists such as rabid atheists.

There is a difference between the state not promoting any particular religion and the state supressing religion. The extent to which you and some others seem to want to push secularism is every bit as pernicious as the goals of many religious fanatics who think that their way or their view is the only right way or view and is the only one that should be allowed in society.

It's intolerant and authoritarian.