 |
| The 9 member Supreme Court of Canada in session. |
In a unanimous decision handed down on Friday, February 17, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada has dealt what amounts to a resounding defeat to all religious institutions on a matter that is crucial to the long term survival of religion in Canada. The verdict could have repercussions worldwide.
The Court ruling provides secular governments with a means of targeting religion's divisiveness and the resulting social disharmony, affirming government's right and obligation to use it's authority and mandate for education, to nurture a better informed and more harmonious citizenry.
Religion's primary tool for success in acquiring new members has been the indoctrination of young children before they have acquired sufficient knowledge or ability to research, reason or judge objective and subjective claims of "truth" for themselves. This manipulation of young children harms them and society, to say the least, but it can now be neutered by enabling and promoting objective, unbiased secular religious education, including atheism and ethics courses in schools, in the manner currently exemplified by the Government of Quebec.
It all began in the majority Catholic Canadian Province of Quebec when schools, both public and private, were mandated by the Ministry of Education to teach a neutral, secular course in 'Ethics and Religious Culture' (ERC) from the beginning of school year, September 2008. The program's primary objective was and is, to teach children to recognize others and act for the common good, while seeking to cultivate a culture of dialog among children. It is mandated for all school children from Grades 1 through 11 in Quebec.
ERC has been opposed by many interest groups, the primary three being: Religious groups that claim it is relativistic and contrary to their faith, Nationalists who say the program is a form of multiculturalism and Secularists who claim the curriculum tends to be too respectful of all religions. The Council on Jewish Education in Quebec, commended the Quebec government for championing the cause of universal friendship among human beings, but the organization contended that Orthodox Jews are required, according to Torah law, to limit their study of theology to the theology of the Torah. The Council, in it's honesty, highlights the problems caused by religion.
The legal challenge to the government was led by Catholic parents, supported by the Roman Catholic Church and various other Christian denominations. They petitioned the Courts to exempt their children from the ERC course.
Writing on behalf of all nine Supreme Court Justices, Justice Marie Deschamps wrote:
"exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion of [the parents]."
She also wrote:
"State neutrality is assured when the state neither favours nor hinders any particular religious belief, that is, when it shows respect for all postures towards religion, including that of having no religious beliefs whatsoever."
According to Deschamps:
"[T]he early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society. The suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government’s obligations with regard to public education. Although such exposure can be a source of friction, it does not in itself constitute an infringement of s. 2(a) of the Canadian Charter and of s. 3 of the Quebec Charter."
The ruling in favor of the Ministry of Education has not gone well with the province's Roman Catholic majority. The Society of Saint Pius X - United States District concluded in it's response:
"As always, it is the weakness of the faithful and of the shepherds that it is the devil’s tool to bring about the destruction of souls, the loss of Faith, and the overturning of any semblance of recognition of God’s rights over families and society."
According to LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, formerly Archbishop of Quebec and the current prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, referred to it as:
"the dictatorship of relativism applied beginning in elementary school."
The Vatican, in the Circular Letter to the Presidents of Bishops' Conferences on Religious Education in Schools posted on their website, had this to say:
"The Christian faithful are to strive so that in civil society the laws which regulate the formation of youth also provide for their religious and moral education in the schools themselves, according to the conscience of the parents. In fact, the Catholic religious instruction and education which are imparted in any school are subject to the authority of the Church."
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, it is very likely that those opposed will turn to politics or other means to end the ERC program. If not, the various religious groups will fail to maintain the ignorance and gullibility of their members and will find it difficult to persist in their claims that they each are the exclusive guardians of "objective truth". None-the-less, governments have a mandate and obligation to educate the public, and the intent of that obligation is to ensure a safe, harmonious and successful society. It is foreseeable, that other secular governments will now be emboldened to emulate the Quebec Ethics and Religious Culture program. It is a fact of society, that disputes often arise from ignorance, that lack of knowledge needed to understand the other side, and education is the key to building a better, more tolerant society. Social and cultural change resulting from this education will come slow, over many decades, and not without a fight from those with vested interests.
Sources:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/supreme-court-says-quebec-ethics-course-is-neutral-on-religion-but-vatican
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/canada_imposes_relativism_2-27-2012.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_and_religious_culture
http://www.thecourt.ca/2012/02/28/the-positive-role-for-government-in-freedom-of-religion-s-l-et-al-v-commission-scolaire-des-chenes-et-al/
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20090505_circ-insegn-relig_en.html
I think the opinion of the religious organizations is perfectly accurate. A secular examination of similarities and differences of various religions would naturally lead to more difficulties in accepting one religion's tenets as unquestioned and unquestionable life principles. That does infringe on the ability of religion to maintain itself by getting new adherents while they are young and impressionable.
ReplyDeleteAs an atheist, the notion doesn't bother me at all. If one set of ideas cannot sustain itself on contact with others, then the fault probably lies in the worldview. However, as a U.S. citizen and Soldier, sworn to defend freedom of religion, I see this as a problem - within our system, anyway, though not necessarily within Canada's. The right of parents to control their children's education is not an inviolable one, but I am hesitant to thwart it so extensively, especially in the area of Constitutionally-protected religion.
Hi Bob,
DeleteI too am a US citizen and I agree with you that what's at stake here is the future ability of religious organizations to leverage early childhood indoctrination to form the mind-set of children before the age of reason and knowledge. However, the right to practice one's religion as established in the 'Freedom of Religion' clause in the Constitution and similarly in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is in no way infringed upon. The right of the individual to religious freedom does not imply a right to infringe upon the mind of the weak, the ignorant and the gullible. Does it?
The only thing a US soldier can and must do is act upon the orders of the chain of command that leads to the President. For the President, this is a matter of constitutional law which should and will eventually be heard by the Supreme Court at some point.
As for the "inviolable" right of parents to control their children's education, a devout Muslim cannot, for example, claim that the only education their child should receive is the teachings of the Koran. There are compulsory courses that every child must take, and parents have no choice in the matter.
Further, every State has a right, a duty and an obligation by the Constitution and related laws to educate the public as necessary to ensure a safe, harmonious and successful citizenry.
Funny thing is, conservative religious fundamentalists in this country have been demanding religious education be taught in schools under the guise of things like "creationism" but have lost every court battle because it was obviously their intent that it be presented as the "objective truth" of a Christian God. However, Ethics and Religious Culture is already taught to some degree in schools as part of Social Studies. Quebec has shown leadership by developing full-fledged stand-alone in-depth courses for it's students, and because of the unanimous 9-0 Supreme Court ruling, those courses are here to stay.
Religion has declined big time in Europe, and North America is bound to follow suit. It's a matter of time and education.
Clive