World religions curriculum stays: Supreme Court
OTTAWA, ON—A Supreme Court decision on Quebec's mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture program is stirring up debate among evangelicals.
In 2008, Quebec began requiring all students in the province to use the Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum, whether they are in private school, public school or home-schooled. Students from Grade 1 to Grade 11 are taught about religion in Quebec's history and contemporary culture, world religions, and how to make ethical decisions.
Parents from Drummondville, Quebec, began a court challenge when the public school board turned down their request to exempt their children from the courses. The Drummondville parents were concerned the courses would teach relativism and prevent them from passing on their Catholic faith to their children.
The Supreme Court released its decision in the case, S.L. v. Commission scolaire des Chênes, on February 17. The Court ruled that the parents had not shown "objective proof" that the curriculum interfered with their ability to pass their faith on to their children, and dismissed their court challenge.
"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," wrote Justice Deschamps in the majority decision.
Evangelicals are divided on the decision, and even on what the case was about.
Sandra Koke, a homeschooling parent in Kitchener-Waterloo, is concerned about the prospect of state-mandated religion curriculum. "I would like to teach my children within a biblical framework. For instance, we discuss other religions, their historical basis, but I am not going to teach that all religions are equal. That is an intellectual cop out.
"Christianity is often slandered in the media. What guarantee is there that's not going to happen in the religion course?"
Glenn Smith, executive director of Christian Direction, agrees that parents are the first educators, particularly in the confessional instruction of their children, but he doesn't think this case was about religious freedom. Smith believes this curriculum does a good job of educating children about religion, not indoctrinating them.
"This was a case about whether the Ministry of Education has the right to establish a curriculum to have an educated citizenry in a religiously plural culture," says Smith.
John Stackhouse, professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College in Vancouver, B.C., supports the Supreme Court's decision in this case. He considers this program's education about religion essential to a decent education and does not believe the Drummondville parents should have the right to withdraw their children.
Stackhouse criticizes evangelical groups such as the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) and the Canadian Council of Charities for their interventions in this case. He believes these groups should have intervened on behalf of the curriculum, not against it.
"It's a legitimate option to withdraw a child from class, but it needs to be our very last resort," says Stackhouse, "and it is a hysterical option in this case."
EFC president Bruce Clemenger agrees with education about religion, but says it must be done carefully in a way that allows for accommodation of deeply held beliefs.
"I am a strong advocate of education about religion in the classroom, education about religion in history, religious pluralism presently. Kids need to understand that," says Clemenger. "But, in the end, if the curriculum crosses the line and becomes indoctrination, then in those situations we need an opt-out clause. That's why we intervened."
The Supreme Court's decision in this case identifies a departure from previous rulings, says Don Hutchinson, general legal counsel at the EFC.
"In the past, the court would pay attention to the imminent danger of infringement or the likelihood of infringement by a government action. The court seems to be signalling that until the damage has been done, they don't want to hear about the infringement that might take place," says Hutchinson. "That's a huge concern."
In his analysis of the decision, Hutchinson notes that while the decision had disappointing and troubling elements, he was also reassured by "the comments on the need for the state to be neutral in education, respectful of religion and sensitive in curriculum development."
Another challenge of the Quebec program is working its way through the courts. The Quebec Superior Court ruled in June 2010 that the government violated religious freedom by imposing the program on Loyola High School, a private, Roman Catholic school. That decision has been appealed.
Dear Readers:
ChristianWeek relies on your generous support. please take a minute and donate to help give voice to stories that inform, encourage and inspire.
Donations of $20 or more will receive a charitable receipt.Thank you, from Christianweek.
