Quebec: Judge rules "Students must learn about other religions"

[Matata]

In all fairness to the parents, it was in junior high religion class that convinced me that all religions are equally crazy.

[Kerplunk]

I don't remember learning anything like this in school. Probably would have had the whole class bored out of our skulls.

[Thor]

I think this course is only in High School and as the one student I quoted said, studying satanism was fun.

[Finny61]

I think its a great idea to have a history class based on the study of many religions, it allows you a chance to tap into the belief systems of many cultures. My concern is that its a lot of material to cover and the teacher would need to be well versed.

HELP ME TOM CRUISE!!..TOM CRUISE USE YOUR WITCHCRAFT ON ME TO PUT OUT THE FIRE!! - Ricky Bobby

[Sainters7]

I went to a Catholic high school and in grade 11 & 12 Religious Studies was pretty much all about learning about other major religions. I actually really enjoyed it. I don't get what the problem is.

When you learn about alot of em, its funny because you start to see alot of similarities between them, especially their origin stories.

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Thor

I think this course is only in High School and as the one student I quoted said, studying satanism was fun.

Satan and Jesus were far and away the best parts of the bible, they've both taught me so much.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Not sure what social studies course you took, but in Alberta public schools SS 03-30 had nothing to do with religion at all at least in the late 90's. The only thing that comes close are when we went through the history of Japan/ww2 and briefly went over how the emperor was considered a living god.

While I dont know alot of the specifics of Canadian law - there should be a separation of church and state. No province should be shoving religion down the throats of students - I dont care in what form or for what purpose.

Forcing them to take this course from grade 1 to 12 - only in QC.

There were religion courses taught, but your parents could choose that you opt out. The time spent drawing 60 minutes a week durring grades 2-6 - what memories

Please don't sit there and lie to me. You learned a lot more in school than just that.

This has absolutely nothing to do with pushing religion on people whatsoever. I really don't understand what issue anyone would have with teaching children facts, beliefs, origins and important figures associated with major religions.

Do you also support not teaching children about the holocaust because there is a religious context to that as well? Crusades? Martin Luther and the reformation? KKK? Anything that mentions the word "Monarchy"? Just about any historical fact?

In order to understand history you need to know a lot of the facts surrounding certain events. Why events have happened over the course of world history have been at subtly influenced or directly related to religion.

That is a simple statement of fact.

[Thor]

Thats the problem one side is against information, the other welcomes a challenge to their beliefs.

[arloiginla]

Originally Posted by Thor

Thats the problem one side is against information, the other welcomes a challenge to their beliefs.

That's a poor generalization to make. I'm a Christian and I welcome a challenge to my belief. If I know that what I believe in, is really real, then it should be able to stand against differing viewpoints, questions and arguments. Don't dig up news reports about radicals and ignorant, overprotective and hypocritical "Christians" and use them to paint Christianity as a whole, with the same broad stroke of the brush.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by arloiginla

That's a poor generalization to make. I'm a Christian and I welcome a challenge to my belief. If I know that what I believe in, is really real, then it should be able to stand against differing viewpoints, questions and arguments. Don't dig up news reports about radicals and ignorant, overprotective and hypocritical "Christians" and use them to paint Christianity as a whole, with the same broad stroke of the brush.

So your children are not exposed only to Christianity, you challenge them with the various world religions, you challenge their ideas of our universe, our evolution, etc..

I do see what your saying, but secular people welcome new ideas, religious people are defensive against any ideas that challenge their own worldview.

[Knalus]

The problem is that the public system in the last 30 years has a horrible track record with religion in regards to actually teaching it properly. I don't trust them to teach this well, truthfully, or factually. I would rather my kids find out about it outside of school - where I would be more than willing to teach them myself - than have to repair the damage that misleading or incomplete truth (i.e. politically correct) lessons would make.

[Sliver]

This is a bit out of left field, but I find the treatment of religion a little weird at every level of education (I have a minor in religious studies from the UofC). I mainly focused on the nature of religion in my studies, but I was always looking for some sort of a "debunking" course that never existed.

I concede that it is important to learn about what people believe and why they believe it, but I was always surprised every lecture didn't end with: "But of course, all of this is ######ed nonsense and if you believe a virgin can give birth do a god's child you're not firing on all cylinders lulz lmao lol."

This is particularly true at the university level. It would be like if you went to a Chemistry class, and they instructor was lecturing you on alchemy. There would be an uproar! But with religion, we are supposed to be so sensitive to teachings that are untrue. I think a university class on religion should be dedicated to seeking out truths and/or untruths in religion; not being so sensitive that we have to check all reason at the door before we walk in the class.

Regardless, I think this Quebec initiative is good, but like I say, I'd really like to see religion taught in a more objective, logical manner. Blind faith can be poisonous as we've seen many times throughout history. It would be nice if there was a concerted, institutional effort to move beyond that.

/rant

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Thor

So your children are not exposed only to Christianity, you challenge them with the various world religions, you challenge their ideas of our universe, our evolution, etc..

I do see what your saying, but secular people welcome new ideas, religious people are defensive against any ideas that challenge their own worldview.

Hey, you just shattered my presumption that religious people were open, kind and charitable, and secular people are morally bankrupt.

[maverickstruth]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is a bit out of left field, but I find the treatment of religion a little weird at every level of education (I have a minor in religious studies from the UofC). I mainly focused on the nature of religion in my studies, but I was always looking for some sort of a "debunking" course that never existed.

...

This is particularly true at the university level. It would be like if you went to a Chemistry class, and they instructor was lecturing you on alchemy. There would be an uproar! But with religion, we are supposed to be so sensitive to teachings that are untrue. I think a university class on religion should be dedicated to seeking out truths and/or untruths in religion; not being so sensitive that we have to check all reason at the door before we walk in the class.

Interesting perspective. I majored in religious studies at the U of C, and I remember in one of my first courses and it being suggested that the best attitude you can take when studying someone else's religion is to say that 'X is true in so long as its true to someone.' For me, this perspective didn't so much imply being sensitive to the teachings (as you suggest), but more about being sensitive to the people who believe those teachings. A basis for common understanding, if you will.

Interesting enough, it was actually through my religious studies program that I 'lost my faith' (so to speak). Of course, for many of my classmates, it did the complete opposite. And, to be fair, I was focused on the socio-historical context for these religions -- which isn't so much about theological issues as it is about understanding how the religion impacted the culture, and vice versa.

In that kind of study, whether the beliefs were true or false aren't so important; what's important is that those beliefs were vital to those who held them, and you can't try to understand them without at least accepting that this is what they believed. I think the same can be said of modern religions.

Learning about other people's beliefs (that is, studying a religion as a cultural/psychological/etc. phenomenon as opposed to learning the doctrines and practices for potential application to one's own life) can give a basis for understanding, even if you personally think those beliefs are whack or don't agree with the implications of those beliefs. It doesn't imply agreement, but it often makes it easier to understand where others are coming from. And if you really want to change someone's behaviour or thought-patterns, you'll have a lot better chance at success if you understand where they're coming from.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by maverickstruth

Interesting perspective. I majored in religious studies at the U of C, and I remember in one of my first courses and it being suggested that the best attitude you can take when studying someone else's religion is to say that 'X is true in so long as its true to someone.' For me, this perspective didn't so much imply being sensitive to the teachings (as you suggest), but more about being sensitive to the people who believe those teachings. A basis for common understanding, if you will.

Interesting enough, it was actually through my religious studies program that I 'lost my faith' (so to speak). Of course, for many of my classmates, it did the complete opposite. And, to be fair, I was focused on the socio-historical context for these religions -- which isn't so much about theological issues as it is about understanding how the religion impacted the culture, and vice versa.

In that kind of study, whether the beliefs were true or false aren't so important; what's important is that those beliefs were vital to those who held them, and you can't try to understand them without at least accepting that this is what they believed. I think the same can be said of modern religions.

Learning about other people's beliefs (that is, studying a religion as a cultural/psychological/etc. phenomenon as opposed to learning the doctrines and practices for potential application to one's own life) can give a basis for understanding, even if you personally think those beliefs are whack or don't agree with the implications of those beliefs. It doesn't imply agreement, but it often makes it easier to understand where others are coming from. And if you really want to change someone's behaviour or thought-patterns, you'll have a lot better chance at success if you understand where they're coming from.

I absolutely agree with you 100%. I just think in addition to what you've described above, I would also like to see a little religious fact checking perhaps as an offshoot to religious studies, but still under that umbrella.

When you have entire groups of people carrying out actions based on fubared beliefs (eg Nazi Germany), the results can be horrific. It is from this angle I'd like to see religion studied at the university level, anyway.

Religion can be a dangerous force and I don't believe it's healthy to blithely brush the dangers aside with the attitude that "'X is true in so long as it's true to someone.' "X" may not be true at all in spite of people believing it to be true, and belief in "X" can put scores of other people at risk. That attitude can, has and will get people killed.

[Azure]

I took a world religion class in high school, but it wasn't mandatory.

Thing is....the subject is very complex, and there is no way in hell a Social Studies class where they have to cover numerous other topics as well will have enough to cover what should be covered.
Why don't they just offer a World Religions class instead?

The quote Thor posted is bang-on. They're only going to cover bare facts, and only the 'good' stuff.

Good luck with that.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is a bit out of left field, but I find the treatment of religion a little weird at every level of education (I have a minor in religious studies from the UofC). I mainly focused on the nature of religion in my studies, but I was always looking for some sort of a "debunking" course that never existed.

I concede that it is important to learn about what people believe and why they believe it, but I was always surprised every lecture didn't end with: "But of course, all of this is ######ed nonsense and if you believe a virgin can give birth do a god's child you're not firing on all cylinders lulz lmao lol."

This is particularly true at the university level. It would be like if you went to a Chemistry class, and they instructor was lecturing you on alchemy. There would be an uproar! But with religion, we are supposed to be so sensitive to teachings that are untrue. I think a university class on religion should be dedicated to seeking out truths and/or untruths in religion; not being so sensitive that we have to check all reason at the door before we walk in the class.

Regardless, I think this Quebec initiative is good, but like I say, I'd really like to see religion taught in a more objective, logical manner. Blind faith can be poisonous as we've seen many times throughout history. It would be nice if there was a concerted, institutional effort to move beyond that.

/rant

With teaching religion as with anything they should probably stick to provable facts.
"It is a fact that Christians believe <xyz>"
"It is a fact that the Koran says <abc>"
"It is a fact that the belief that <jkl> held by group <qwe> contributed to historical event <rty>"


Those types of statements are provable and factual. Getting into stuff like: "Christians are wrong because god doesn't exist" like you suggest is probably not a good idea to teach at a university because its not a provable fact. Its the same reason they don't teach "Christians are right because god exists". If you want that type of discussion go to a church, temple, cult meeting, athiest internet message board, or whatever.

Something could be said for going through history to find links/contradictions to religious stories (i.e. "There has been no evidence found thus far to show a worldwide flood occurred at approx. 4000 BC") but to include stuff like "But of course, all of this is ######ed nonsense and if you believe a virgin can give birth do a god's child you're not firing on all cylinders lulz lmao lol." would be wrong. It all goes back to facts which you're able to prove.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

With teaching religion as with anything they should probably stick to provable facts.
"It is a fact that Christians believe <xyz>"
"It is a fact that the Koran says <abc>"
"It is a fact that the belief that <jkl> held by group <qwe> contributed to historical event <rty>"

Yep, I think we all agree on this.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Those types of statements are provable and factual. Getting into stuff like: "Christians are wrong because god doesn't exist" like you suggest is probably not a good idea to teach at a university because its not a provable fact. Its the same reason they don't teach "Christians are right because god exists". If you want that type of discussion go to a church, temple, cult meeting, athiest internet message board, or whatever.

Something could be said for going through history to find links/contradictions to religious stories (i.e. "There has been no evidence found thus far to show a worldwide flood occurred at approx. 4000 BC")

This is more what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

but to include stuff like "But of course, all of this is ######ed nonsense and if you believe a virgin can give birth do a god's child you're not firing on all cylinders lulz lmao lol." would be wrong. It all goes back to facts which you're able to prove.

This is where a religious bias is not helpful to scholarly study. A scholarly study on religion should check any bias at the door, religious or atheist. The goal of the offshoot I wish existed would be an objective study of religious claims.

It is beyond easy to prove a virgin cannot give birth to a god. This is absolutely undebateable. Just ask a grade five sexual education student how a baby is made if you need proof.

[corporatejay]

I went to Catholic school in calgary and our grade 11 religion class focused on all religions. One of the students in our class was a Wikkan (sp?) (a witch) and the teacher let her talk about her religion's views in comparison to those religions we learned about (Islam, Buddism, Judaism). I thought the class was extremely informative and a fresh change from the same redundant "Jesus loves you" nonsense I had heard since elementary.

That being said, I don't know how I feel about the court forcing schools to teach it.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Sliver

This is where a religious bias is not helpful to scholarly study. A scholarly study on religion should check any bias at the door, religious or atheist. The goal of the offshoot I wish existed would be an objective study of religious claims.

It is beyond easy to prove a virgin cannot give birth to a god. This is absolutely undebateable. Just ask a grade five sexual education student how a baby is made if you need proof.

In usual terms, alright I'll give you that but throw a god that's able to do anything into the mix and it becomes not impossible... unless you're sitting on hard factual proof that god does not and has never existed.

"We have no proof of this story beyond a 2000 year old account that was received in a vision to a poor carpenter and was then passed down orally for about 100 years before being written down. We have no proof of such an event repeating itself since." That, IMO, is perfectly acceptable way of putting it. Maybe follow that up with a nice game of 'telephone' to see how a message can get lost being passed around a classroom... never mind passed around for 100 years.
Nobody took a side one way or another but simply laid out the facts we have regarding the story, however improbable it may be, and let the students decide for themselves.