Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Why we must remove the part of religious culture | by Daniel Baril
Under the guise of "secularism open", this course marks the turn of the multi-Quebec school.
Daniel Baril, adviser for the Mouvement laïque québécois
Hell, for those who believe it, is paved with good intentions, they say. On a theoretical level, the idea of a course of religious culture is a good intention with which it seems difficult, prima facie, to disagree. But just take a look at the programme Ethics and religious culture to see that the objectives of the religious fall of surrealism and that the supposedly non-denominational foundations are in fact a vision of the mind.
Remember the objective of this part: "bring students understand the various expressions [of religious phenomenon], to grasp the complexity and perceiving the experiential dimensions, historical, doctrinal, moral, ritual, literary, artistic, social or policy. The development of competence […] requires the ability to associate these terms to their respective religion and perceive that they may have links with various elements of the social and cultural environment here and elsewhere. "
Nothing less. Let us not forget that this course is given to children who have just left kindergarten. How can we reasonably believe that such an objective, which is actually a career plan for a sociologist of religion, can be achieved in children aged 6? The teacher must for its part "to bring students to learn to think for themselves "and to" develop a critical sense that helps students understand that all opinions are not equal in value. " One can not but agree here. But "in order not to influence students in developing their point of view, [the teacher] does not give his own". The approach is to advance the judgement of the child by confrontation with other views or with the consequences of a view has a sense of ethics but is inapplicable to religious content. How to develop critical judgement face of beliefs that are the faith? The content of the religious aspect is simply inappropriate for such an approach.
The prayers… cultural!
The most revealing the true nature of this course lies in the themes. Here are some examples from the primary curriculum. The teacher must address "significant stories that have a big influence." These stories are, among others, those of the Magi, Flood, Nanabojo, Glouskap and the revelation to Muhammad. Then there are stories of "important people" (sic): the Annunciation, the birth of Jesus, the birth of Moses, the birth of Buddha, the life of David and "giant Goliath."
All these stories are mythological stories. To solve the supposed deficit religious culture deplored by some theologians, therefore abreuvera on children aged 6 to 12 years in the sum of mythologies of mankind.
The course also covers religious practices in order to "discover" their characteristics: Mass, the first communion, confirmation, worship on Sunday, the consecration of children, the Friday prayer, the Sabbath, the postures of prayer, contemplation, ritual objects, rosary, prayer wheel, the Lord's Prayer, reading the Bible, singing incantatory, and the list is still long.
How will we talk about how these cultural practices faith? Children who are present these contents are religious and can not make a difference between a confessional approach to religion and a cultural approach. This distinction exists only on paper and becomes a vision of the spirit in the classroom. While the confessional approach was to say, for example, "Jesus is risen at Easter," the cultural approach will be to say "Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus at Easter." The message is the same and the approach will not change the meaning that a child of six years will give the religious beliefs which will be presented.
Bringing the lost sheep
What role will the children that parents preferred to include training in moral order to prevent this type of religious indoctrination? They will be drowned in the majority believing and practicing and will soon join its ranks.
Even if the program states that "cultural expressions and those from representations of the world and human beings that define the meaning and value of human experience outside of beliefs and religious adherence are discussed," nothing, absolutely nothing like this exists in the program beyond this puritanical périphrase which aims to avoid the words humanism and atheism.
Not only this course glorifies religions and thus falls within the historical revisionism, but each occasion where a naturalist or scientific vision of life could have been dealt with is missed. This is particularly the case with the theme of representations of the world: it introduced the "story of the Creation", the AUM, the American turtle, the yin and yang, but not a word about what it said science or that affect atheists.
The course marks the turn of the multi-Quebec school. Instead of having a separate religious education according to the confessions, any place in the same course is to remove the name of religious schools, decreed that the approach is cultural and here is the result.
It is against this background that will support multi the second part of the course, the ethical component. Such a confusion between religion and ethics is unacceptable and is thus leaves suggest that ethical behavior can not be developed in connection with a religious belief and a person without religion is therefore amoral or immoral.
Although this could be justified, we do not believe that a return to the exemption would be desirable. The religious culture could be offered as an optional second cycle of secondary while young people have acquired a minimum of critical thinking with regard to religious content.
We believe that such a development could positively endorse all of Quebec's population and avoid the deadlock that legal challenges could lead.
Daniel Baril, adviser for the Mouvement laïque québécois
Hell, for those who believe it, is paved with good intentions, they say. On a theoretical level, the idea of a course of religious culture is a good intention with which it seems difficult, prima facie, to disagree. But just take a look at the programme Ethics and religious culture to see that the objectives of the religious fall of surrealism and that the supposedly non-denominational foundations are in fact a vision of the mind.
Remember the objective of this part: "bring students understand the various expressions [of religious phenomenon], to grasp the complexity and perceiving the experiential dimensions, historical, doctrinal, moral, ritual, literary, artistic, social or policy. The development of competence […] requires the ability to associate these terms to their respective religion and perceive that they may have links with various elements of the social and cultural environment here and elsewhere. "
Nothing less. Let us not forget that this course is given to children who have just left kindergarten. How can we reasonably believe that such an objective, which is actually a career plan for a sociologist of religion, can be achieved in children aged 6? The teacher must for its part "to bring students to learn to think for themselves "and to" develop a critical sense that helps students understand that all opinions are not equal in value. " One can not but agree here. But "in order not to influence students in developing their point of view, [the teacher] does not give his own". The approach is to advance the judgement of the child by confrontation with other views or with the consequences of a view has a sense of ethics but is inapplicable to religious content. How to develop critical judgement face of beliefs that are the faith? The content of the religious aspect is simply inappropriate for such an approach.
The prayers… cultural!
The most revealing the true nature of this course lies in the themes. Here are some examples from the primary curriculum. The teacher must address "significant stories that have a big influence." These stories are, among others, those of the Magi, Flood, Nanabojo, Glouskap and the revelation to Muhammad. Then there are stories of "important people" (sic): the Annunciation, the birth of Jesus, the birth of Moses, the birth of Buddha, the life of David and "giant Goliath."
All these stories are mythological stories. To solve the supposed deficit religious culture deplored by some theologians, therefore abreuvera on children aged 6 to 12 years in the sum of mythologies of mankind.
The course also covers religious practices in order to "discover" their characteristics: Mass, the first communion, confirmation, worship on Sunday, the consecration of children, the Friday prayer, the Sabbath, the postures of prayer, contemplation, ritual objects, rosary, prayer wheel, the Lord's Prayer, reading the Bible, singing incantatory, and the list is still long.
How will we talk about how these cultural practices faith? Children who are present these contents are religious and can not make a difference between a confessional approach to religion and a cultural approach. This distinction exists only on paper and becomes a vision of the spirit in the classroom. While the confessional approach was to say, for example, "Jesus is risen at Easter," the cultural approach will be to say "Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus at Easter." The message is the same and the approach will not change the meaning that a child of six years will give the religious beliefs which will be presented.
Bringing the lost sheep
What role will the children that parents preferred to include training in moral order to prevent this type of religious indoctrination? They will be drowned in the majority believing and practicing and will soon join its ranks.
Even if the program states that "cultural expressions and those from representations of the world and human beings that define the meaning and value of human experience outside of beliefs and religious adherence are discussed," nothing, absolutely nothing like this exists in the program beyond this puritanical périphrase which aims to avoid the words humanism and atheism.
Not only this course glorifies religions and thus falls within the historical revisionism, but each occasion where a naturalist or scientific vision of life could have been dealt with is missed. This is particularly the case with the theme of representations of the world: it introduced the "story of the Creation", the AUM, the American turtle, the yin and yang, but not a word about what it said science or that affect atheists.
The course marks the turn of the multi-Quebec school. Instead of having a separate religious education according to the confessions, any place in the same course is to remove the name of religious schools, decreed that the approach is cultural and here is the result.
It is against this background that will support multi the second part of the course, the ethical component. Such a confusion between religion and ethics is unacceptable and is thus leaves suggest that ethical behavior can not be developed in connection with a religious belief and a person without religion is therefore amoral or immoral.
Although this could be justified, we do not believe that a return to the exemption would be desirable. The religious culture could be offered as an optional second cycle of secondary while young people have acquired a minimum of critical thinking with regard to religious content.
We believe that such a development could positively endorse all of Quebec's population and avoid the deadlock that legal challenges could lead.
Labels: Art and culture, Canada, Québec, Religion and fanaticism, Secularism
# posted by Francis Chartrand @ 7:21 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]