Hooray For Quebec (requiring religious schools to teach evolution)

Great Debates
21

By extension, this is about parents controlling their children’s education. These parents specifically removed these kids from public schools and then enrolled them in evangelical schools. They chose this curriculum, and by the state saying this curriculum is invalid, it is directly opposing the parents’ right to control their children’s education.

And while home schoolers were not covered by this, there is no reason Quebec could not mandate this for them next week. There is no consistent standard why Quebec can mandate this for private schools and not for parents. They just have not done so yet.

22

Let the Parents teach their pet beliefs, but the kids need to also learn the Accepted Scientific Theory. It is also not for me to decide, but hopefully a large body of Scientists.

23

You said the state should step in and interfere with parents teaching children ID. So I would assume that you would want the state to step in and stop pastors from teaching children this, too.

We weren’t talking about what was necessary for a high school diploma, as far as I know. You were saying that it should be a crime for parents to teach their children only ID. Or, at least, the state should step in. Many parents teach their kids the young earth theory and that dinosaurs and man co-existed even while sending their kids to public schools. According to you, the state should step in and meddle when parents do that.

I know, but by your logic wherein the state is the enforcer of what is an accepted scientific theory, why should the state simply stop with evolution? Why shouldn’t the state also stop parents who teach unsupported conspiracy theories?

24

And the government, don’t forget them. You want the government to enforce these Accepted Scientific Theories. Of course, we tried that up until the Enlightenment and it didn’t work so well. . .

25

Renob: Would you be against the government imposing standards saying that the schools had to teach algebra, for example?

By the way, it is important to note, as Barbarian alluded to, that the school system in Quebec is rather different than what we are used to. Unless it has changed (and Barbarian’s phrasing seems to imply it may have), I seem to recall that there were essentially no separate non-religious public school system. I.e., everyone (or at least most people) went to religious schools of one form or another, be they Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish (or …).

26

Try to keep up, I already backed off of my initial position and went with what Giles said. But you took my original position and made many over the top assumptions that cannot be backed up by anything I said. I stand by hoping Fundies would stop teaching obvious falsehoods, but, no the government should not step in.

Jim

27

I think we can both agree on that.

The government should impose no standards on either private schools or home schoolers.

28

Are you opposed to compulsory education altogether? Because, if you have compulsory education, you need some minimum standard of what comprises education.

I believe in comulsoiry education, because I believe there are things which every adult should know, like reading, writing, arithmetic, and at least some basic science and social studies. And you won’t get that without compulsory education – even if hat does include private schools and hpme schooling (which still should meet the state’s standards).

29

Do you at least agree that if the Government has minimum requirements for a High School Diploma and chooses to include Evolution as it is the accepted scientific theory, it has the right to consider a student ignorant of this as not qualifying for a High School Diploma?
Do you accept any minimum standards of education? Let us say a minimum reading and math skill level?

Jim

30

Yes. If parents don’t want to send their kids to school, then it’s not up to the state to tell them to do so.

Not really. Even under a statute that says parents must educate their kids, many states give parents a lot of leeway on this.

Certainly. A state can determine what areas of knowledge allow one to obtain a high school diploma and if it wants to include knowledge of evolution as part of that requirement, I have no problem. I do have a problem for forcing people who choose to opt out of this system to learn a state-enforced curriculum.

For those who opt out of the government-run school system, no.

31

Again, why is it for you do decide what the kids need to learn? I think we both agree that ID is complete junk, and that the government has the right to enforce a curriculum in a school that it funds. But these schools are unlicensed, and not funded with government money. So by what authority can the government meddle in people’s private affairs?

32

Oddly enough, I find myself inclined to support the Fundy side of this argument. In a private school, I do not think it is appropriate for the government to essentially say “your religion is wrong” which is what it appears to be doing here. Also don’t see how an understanding of evolution is critical to functioning in the adult world. Evolution either happened, or it did not. Either way, the kids have to eat, bills must be paid, etc.

Put another way, I object to the government requiring a private school to teach evolution to the same degree that I object to a public school teaching creationism or intelligent design. The parent has a right to chose what is best for his child. If the parent wants the child to be educated according to fundy beliefs, so be it. That’s a right that touches on what would be considered First Amendment issues in the US.

Would anyone here get behind a requirement that the Amish start teaching computer science?

33

I often wonder about the Amish when there is a discussion like this. There seems to be a general acceptance that their lifestyle is a valid one, and the fact that they educate their children within the framework of that lifestyle is OK.

I guess I don’t see the difference between the Amish and any other religious group (or any group, for that matter) that likewise wants to have their children taught within a certain framework. Let’s face it, with most groups, the education isn’t nearly as basic and non-intellectual as what the Amish are doing. It’s usually a beef with certain areas of science, and I really have never seen a compelling argument for why a person has to be taught evolution in order to be considered well-educated. The understand & application of evolutionary theory is practically irrelevant in day-to-day life. All of us have some gap or another in our knowledge of the world. Probably 90% of the adults who have been taught about evolution don’t remember a damn thing about it by the time they turn 25, and really couldn’t care less.

For me, the bottom line is that parents have the right to teach their children their values and what they believe to be right and wrong. It is simply not the role of the state to decide what people should teach their children to believe.

34

This story has been making the rounds in the media around here for a few weeks. First, we learned that some Hasidic kids in Montreal were going to schools that only taught them what their parents thought would be necessary in their life – which for girls basically meant how to be a good wife. Then, it was revealed that an extremely closed “Christian” cult in Joliette (north of Montreal) was also operating a school – which I believe they had previously agreed to close – that didn’t follow the government’s minimum standards. Finally, we learned that religious schools in my region, Outaouais (north of Ottawa) also didn’t teach standards.

It should be noted, as Sweet Mercury does, that these are (or were) unaccredited schools. In other words, they are not recognized as “schools” by the government. And the law in Quebec is that children must go to school – public or accredited private – until they are 16 years of age, unless they are authorized to be home-schooled, in which case they must still learn the minimum that is on the program, and I believe their authorization to be home-schooled can be revoked if the result isn’t satisfactory.

So if the children we are speaking about here were only taught in these “non-schools”, and their parents did not complement their education with what they are not taught there, it is obvious that they already were in an illegal situation. This said, the ministry of Education has traditionally followed a course of negociation, and not confrontation, with religious groups who disagree with parts of the official educational program. This is why this situation was allowed to exist for a long time. I guess they now decided to enforce the law, maybe due to the exposure all of this has got in the last weeks. (But I’m surprised that I can’t find anything about this decision on Radio-Canada, or in Le Devoir, or other Quebec-based media that presumably would know more about it than the National Post does.)

Now, whether you think the law is just depends of course on your opinion of compulsory education. I happen to think that it is a good thing that children, up to a certain age, are taught a curriculum that is chosen by specialists in education. I think it is a right every children should have. And I believe most people in Quebec would agree with me. This doesn’t stop religious groups from teaching other things as well, maybe things that go against the official line, as long as their children do not remain completely ignorant of the facts.

Now, to those (Barbarian, jshore) who mention that the education system in Quebec was until a decade ago or so, still split on religious lines: I don’t see what this has to do in this case. For one, it’s not the case anymore, our school boards are now language-based, and for two, even when it was still the case, we weren’t an especially religious society. In fact, I think this might be the thing. Quebec is a rather secular society, and this means we haven’t had the battles over creationism vs. evolution that there has been in the United States. Most people here don’t doubt that kids have to learn at least a minimum about science, and if people claim the opposite, they seem out of place, especially since people tend to be a little wary of non-traditional religious groups. This is why I expect this decision to be almost universally applauded here, while, as we can see, quite a few Americans would disagree with it.

35

I think people that are anti-Fundie and Anti-Evangelical and Anti-RCC, etc, are far more forgiving of Amish & Quakers as they are pacifists that have never tried to foist their beliefs on others through politics. If the Fundies stopped meddling in politics, I imagine many more people would just ignore them. Additionally for the Amish, if you know about the Amish at all, you know that many Amish leave the community and the faith; it is close to being a static religion. I am actually more forgiving of the RCC as it is a shrinking religion that now keeps a lower profile than the Evangelicals do. However these are all WAGs and in answer to your WAGs. I doubt we can find a root cause or a solid poll to explain why Amish are Quaint (in a good way), Quakers respected, but Fundies looked down upon.

Jim

36

Trouble is, the parents won’t be alive forever and if they’ve turned their children into uneducated basket cases, the state’ll have to pick up the tab. There is a public interest here that can and should have some say.

37

And that’s all fine and good, but that’s not what’s happening here. At what point does the teaching of evolution make judgements on what’s right or wrong? At what point does the teaching of sex education imply that safe sex is fine with God? It’s just the teaching of facts (Evolution is taught in terms of facts that support a theory, not as a fact).

38

See, I don’t think any of that is relevant. I get that there is a substantive difference between science and religion. Not everybody does. It is not the role of the state to decide that someone MUST accept the difference.

39

But that’s equivalent to saying that the state has no obligation to make sure kids are taught facts in school. And if the state has no obligation to make sure kids are taught facts, then I can say whatever I want. I could start up my own school where the kids are taught from kindergarten that i’m the best person ever, and that gravity works due to the Earth being filled with a large vacuum, that 2 + 2 = 76, etc. So when they come out of my school, after the ages at which they’re most able to learn, and with their heads filled with whatever random stuff I can think up - they won’t be able to get anything but basic jobs, and they’ll find it very hard to interact with others socially. Don’t you think the state should have the right to make sure it’s citizen’s lives aren’t ruined in this way?

Clearly i’m exaggerating - faith schools in general don’t teach things that can completely destroy a child’s life (though the worst evangelical schools may come close) but I think the state should make sure there’s at least a minimum standard of education. And personally i’m all for a the teaching of the facts about what religious people believe, too - and I don’t mean “Christians believe in God, but they’re wrong”, I mean “Christians believe in God”. We have an obligation to make sure our kids are prepared for adulthood.

40

Sarahfeena, not to hijack the current discussion, but can you expand on the Amish school system and how it relates to general US education standards? I tried Google and only came up with a bunch of articles on the recent schoolhouse shooting.