Whose child is it, anyway?
Not long ago I sat in on the most recent religious freedom case before the Supreme Court of Canada. The May 18 hearing involved the Quebec government's Ethics and Religious Culture course. Specifically, it involves whether parents can have their children exempted from the course, or parts of it.
As one would expect, the judges from Quebec asked most of the questions. It was pretty clear that there is a wide gulf between their understanding of the relative roles of the state and parents when it comes to the education of children.
Until 1997 all schools in Quebec were “confessional," meaning they were Roman Catholic or Protestant. In 1997, there was a constitutional amendment making schools language-based.
The Quebec Ministry of Education developed the Ethics and Religious Culture course to replace the religion classes that were previously part of the curriculum. Because religion was taught in all years of a child's education, the Ethics and Religious Culture curriculum covers all years with the exception of Grade 5. It is a compulsory part of the curriculum.
The Quebec government allows parents to request an exemption for their children from various parts of the curriculum. Many parents requested that their children be exempted. Every single one of these requests was denied.
Supreme Court Justice Deschamps asked, “Why do parents have a problem with their children learning that there are other religions?" If that was the focus of this program, most parents would not have a problem with it.
The problem is that Ethics and Religious Culture teaches children that all religions are equal. While the goal is to create a tolerant society, this curriculum goes too far. It does not teach each religion as a block so students understand it. Rather, it teaches bits and pieces of various religions trying to show that they are very similar to one another.
Quebec has had problems with being tolerant of minority groups. So much so that in 2008 it appointed the Bouchard-Taylor Commission on “reasonable accommodation of minorities." So the Quebec government is trying to deal with a very real problem in society.
But is forcing children to challenge their own beliefs at a very young age the way to go about this? And who is better placed to understand the needs of the child than that child's parents?
Many Christians consider education of children a parental responsibility. Certainly, schools help with this education process. But if public schools are not the right answer for our children, we have options like Christian schools or home schooling.
Some people go farther and argue that it is not only a parental responsibility but a parental right to determine the education of our children.
This isn't the first time parents and the state have tangled over education. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Jones case in 1986 that the state has a compelling interest in the education of children and can place requirements on parents who home school.
But the Court also said parents are the ones primarily responsible for raising their children.
The Quebec government has been putting increasing pressure on religious parents. It is not only the Ethics and Religious Culture program in public schools that is at issue. Loyola High School, a private Catholic school in Montreal, is fighting the requirement that they teach the same curriculum even though they still have religion classes. And government officials are harassing home schooling families in Quebec.
The Supreme Court will make its decision within the next year. Let us hope and pray that they come out on the parents' side, and will respect the Christian minority in Quebec.
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.