Thanks again for your reply. I understand that this can be a frustrating topic, so please feel free to ignore my curiosity if it displeases you. That said though, I think you’ve already satisfied my curiosity with this reply, though not in a way I was hoping. Not a problem though.
Except, how would a person of faith accept to follow that kind of education if it contradicts their beliefs? I don’t think any religious person, who believes their faith is the correct and most righteous path in life, would want to teach kids about the dangers of religion on a society’s freedom.
First off, I do not think that one must believe that their religion, or religion in general, can do no wrong, in order to follow and practice it. That is not a pre-condition. There are different degrees of faith; some are devout, some simply tag along, and some fall somewhere in between. Talking about the potential dangers of religion is simply stating a fact, and to those who believe this goes against their faith, then something twisted is already in place. Of course, it’s not possible for us to test teachers on whether they would properly observe reality, but we should allow them to not talk about such a topic if it bothers them, or that they should simply be dissuaded before taking up teachers’ training.
In any case, as you’ve mentioned in another section of your reply, if there are enough diversity amongst teachers, and I don’t doubt that there are many who are irreligious or, like yourself, anti-religious, then I don’t see why it cannot be communicated effectively to children.
And unfortunately, I don’t think your reply answers or deals with the crux of that argument in that section: you can’t prevent people from being irrationally religious, and now they can more easily hide themselves behind the facade of secularism.
Religious symbols in public spaces only applies to people with very specific roles in public services. Like teachers, judges, police officers, members of parliament, etc. Anybody else can wear whatever religious symbols they want anywhere, provided it doesn’t hinder things like official government ID photos, or being identified properly when voting for example, in which case it’s important that they remove them if it covers their face or hides their identity.
Thanks for the clarification. I think it’s okay if the justification is for identification, which would otherwise be impossible if they must cover their faces. As far as I’m aware, most major religions don’t enforce such a rule, and if there are, not strictly so (I think Islam requires rather strict coverage of the face, but as far as I’m aware, that’s only true for either certain sects or areas).
I still do not agree on why religious symbols should be removed from public roles. The rest of this reply should make that clear, along with the previous section.
That said though, I can somewhat accept removing these symbols from roles that are in a position of strong authority, either through political power or violence. I’m much less certain on those of softer form of authority, and teachers fall in this category.
No. There are some private religious schools, but even there it’s not nuns teaching to the students. And yes, we have been able to train teachers from all backgrounds. We have no problem with more progressive teachers who don’t mind working in a secular environment. As for the teaching about different religious or ethnic backgrounds, there are classes on that in elementary school about religion and moral values.
Thank you for clarifying on this. It’s reassuring to hear that, though I’m somewhat surprised, though in a good way, that nuns don’t run the show in those religious schools.
There has been one example that has really increased the discussion on this topic, and it’s the case of the Bedford elementary school in Côte-des-Neiges in Montréal where a ground of religious teachers started imposing their beliefs and their morals on everyone. They prevented girls from signing up to soccer because they claimed it was a boys’ sport. In another case, when a kid fell unconscious due to a malaise, instead of calling for medical help, they asked everyone to gather around the student and pray.
Hmm…
For that first case with soccer, I don’t think that’s a religious view per se. It’s traditionalist for sure, but I wouldn’t say it’s rooted in religion. Ask an old Chinese person (the Chinese are mostly irreligious to lightly religious) and you’ll probably hear the same thing. But then again, you may know more here: it may have been proven that the perspective of these teachers were influenced by their religion.
For the 2nd case, I can only say I’m appalled at what happened. But then again, in a school where we’ve simply banned religious symbols, who’s to guarantee this wouldn’t happen?
Well, my belief is that religion is a system of control of the population. It spreads like a cancer for the minds. It prevents rational thinking and scientific advancement. It also causes strife and violence. I am anti-religion. So yeah, I do have a certain bias towards secularism. I want people to be free, and if that means freedom of religion, that’s fine. But one fundamental right should be freedom FROM religion, which I never see mentioned anywhere because most people who are in power are almost always religious.
If anyone wants to practice their faith, they should be able to do so at home or in their places of faith. But, leave everybody else out of it.
I don’t think the freedom FROM religion needs to said here in Canada; many of us are already atheists. Not following any religion is, by itself, a kind of faith imo, not to some big person up in sky, or some prewritten destiny, but to believe that we humans have our own dignity and sensibilities, the ability to hold ourselves accountable, and to carve our own future.
Yes, many of those currently in power are religious, but at this point, at least from how things have been presented, it seems more ceremonial than definition, a footnote rather than the title, that they are who they are “oh and they’re also a Christian / Muslim / whatever”. There are some amongst the electorate that do care about that, but the voices are small, though some rare ones loud. There’s potential to devolve into what we see now in the US, however, but forcing secularism with a heavy hand will only serve to provoke them and direct them to more extreme measures.
You are most welcome to be anti-religious, and I too don’t have a good reason to believe religion should be around, and actually believe that we would all be better without it. But I think your stance is quite a bit more extreme. I wouldn’t say what you said in the affirmative, but would say that it’s a very exploitable vector to mobilize society for irrational actions. I think saying that religion is inherently anti-rational-thinking and anti-science is a stretch, though less so for the latter.
Faith is simply a double-edged sword. There were those who used it for social good, and there are those who used it for social bad. As with any systems that we humans come up with, once they’ve been around long enough, we as a species know more about the system we’ve made to both streamline and exploit it. Tribal hierarchy, royalty, religion, gangs, town councils, and as we would all know well, governments, and if you allow me to use non-political systems, trade, finance, insurance, even healthcare. Any system initially made with good intentions to serve humanity can end up being exploited by certain people for bad, and the longer its around, the more people who know how to exploit these systems. That’s why I have no qualms about your stance, but I wouldn’t say I fully support it, because all I see is that we’re simply stuck in this cycle, where we only try to tear down what ends up being broken, but never addressing why we tend to exploit them. I digress.
I think my comment is getting too long and Lemmy isn’t happy about it, so I’m going to cut it out into a separate reply.
Yeah this is a big philosophical discussion lol. I understand your point of view. Regarding religion, I think it’s just slightly different than mine.
And regarding wearing religious clothing/symbols, I also agree with most of what you say. It shouldn’t become banned to a point that people can’t participate in society. I think right now we hit the sweet spot (my opinion) where there’s very select roles where it applies, school teachers being one of them, to avoid any influence. But as you said, and as we saw with the Bedford school case, that won’t stop people from imposing their religious morals on anyone. So yeah, I’m kind of on the fence there, but I’d rather not have any religious symbols in class than to allow some and influence young kids in any way.
Yeah, sorry lol. I definitely went on a big tangent there with human-created systems for humanity. It’s what I constantly think of though, whenever I look at recent events.
Going back to religious symbols, I think enforcing it on teachers was particularly controversial because 1) it’s a very common profession for people to go into, and so it becomes a strong point of institutional discrimination (if that’s not something that already raises eyebrows even for those other professions), and 2) that it’s arguably ineffective, as is the case in Bedford (and I’d argue it so for other professions too). IMO, if they are allowed to wear those symbols, at least it’d be a bad look for their religion if they made a clearly bad decision if and when it’s based on their religious knowledge. And it’s easy enough for kids to pick up on that, especially if we do them right by instilling them with critical thinking.
Kids aren’t stupid. They don’t look at a crucifix on the wall and just think “that’s cool, imma follow it”. They’ll most likely think nothing of it, but will be curious about it. They’ll wonder what it is and ask. Teachers should be prepared to answer the questions that follow. (Eg) “This used to be a Christian school,” “Why’s it not one anymore?” “Because some not so great things happened all across Quebec and people realized that it’s most probably not a good idea for schools to be tied to religions,” “What wasn’t so great?” “While Quebec was doing well, its people were not, and unfortunately, the people who were in control of schools were not preparing children to be smart enough to do difficult work that’s needed to become successful. We decided that we’ve had enough of that, and so schools have changed to become what they are today. We want our new generation to be smart, independent people who can do amazing things with their lives.”
Of course, there’s going to be those who are overtly against secularism, or those who wish to go back to those times, who would pass to become teachers. While the state cannot outright ban such people from becoming teachers, there are many ways to make it clear that schools are secular spaces, and the state will exercise its power within secular rules to uphold them. For example, spreading religion in schools can be made strictly forbidden. To go one step further, ban talking about religions in schools, and only allow them be mentioned within the context of history, and as factually possible and without using strong words. Banning the topic on school grounds is also good for avoiding conflicts between religious groups, at least within schools. Have control over the approval of history and moral teachers and make it fair by excluding those who would have a conflict of interests: both religious and anti-religious people wouldn’t be allowed to teach these subjects. That way, you can still have those who are religious become teachers without robbing them of a chance of a decent job (arguable given the current state of things, but I meant a “job” more so in the general sense, so not just teachers), ie without closing off a potential future for a large group of people, with some sacrifices. This is something that I think is a practical solution (though not entirely original, I must admit).
I can understand your frustration of having to deal with the fact that kids would have to be in contact with religious teachers, but I’d argue that a heavy-handed approach, while it may satisfy you currently, is not beneficial in the long term for yourself or society as a whole. Once again, you may win the war, but you can’t win their hearts. Discrimination breeds hatred, and hatred brings about the worse in people. We see this everywhere, and throughout time. Sweep it under the rug, and one day it’ll grow large enough to swallow us all along with the rug.
It needs to be shown as clearly as possible by neutral parties that secularism is good for everyone, including those who are religious, and show concrete results, while we keep training the next generation to have the ability to think for and by themselves, instead of having someone else think for them. This extends to a lot of things, though it can be summarized as a better chance at life for everyone, and an actually-better life for everyone.
Thanks again for your reply. I understand that this can be a frustrating topic, so please feel free to ignore my curiosity if it displeases you. That said though, I think you’ve already satisfied my curiosity with this reply, though not in a way I was hoping. Not a problem though.
First off, I do not think that one must believe that their religion, or religion in general, can do no wrong, in order to follow and practice it. That is not a pre-condition. There are different degrees of faith; some are devout, some simply tag along, and some fall somewhere in between. Talking about the potential dangers of religion is simply stating a fact, and to those who believe this goes against their faith, then something twisted is already in place. Of course, it’s not possible for us to test teachers on whether they would properly observe reality, but we should allow them to not talk about such a topic if it bothers them, or that they should simply be dissuaded before taking up teachers’ training.
In any case, as you’ve mentioned in another section of your reply, if there are enough diversity amongst teachers, and I don’t doubt that there are many who are irreligious or, like yourself, anti-religious, then I don’t see why it cannot be communicated effectively to children.
And unfortunately, I don’t think your reply answers or deals with the crux of that argument in that section: you can’t prevent people from being irrationally religious, and now they can more easily hide themselves behind the facade of secularism.
Thanks for the clarification. I think it’s okay if the justification is for identification, which would otherwise be impossible if they must cover their faces. As far as I’m aware, most major religions don’t enforce such a rule, and if there are, not strictly so (I think Islam requires rather strict coverage of the face, but as far as I’m aware, that’s only true for either certain sects or areas).
I still do not agree on why religious symbols should be removed from public roles. The rest of this reply should make that clear, along with the previous section.
That said though, I can somewhat accept removing these symbols from roles that are in a position of strong authority, either through political power or violence. I’m much less certain on those of softer form of authority, and teachers fall in this category.
Thank you for clarifying on this. It’s reassuring to hear that, though I’m somewhat surprised, though in a good way, that nuns don’t run the show in those religious schools.
Hmm…
For that first case with soccer, I don’t think that’s a religious view per se. It’s traditionalist for sure, but I wouldn’t say it’s rooted in religion. Ask an old Chinese person (the Chinese are mostly irreligious to lightly religious) and you’ll probably hear the same thing. But then again, you may know more here: it may have been proven that the perspective of these teachers were influenced by their religion.
For the 2nd case, I can only say I’m appalled at what happened. But then again, in a school where we’ve simply banned religious symbols, who’s to guarantee this wouldn’t happen?
I don’t think the freedom FROM religion needs to said here in Canada; many of us are already atheists. Not following any religion is, by itself, a kind of faith imo, not to some big person up in sky, or some prewritten destiny, but to believe that we humans have our own dignity and sensibilities, the ability to hold ourselves accountable, and to carve our own future.
Yes, many of those currently in power are religious, but at this point, at least from how things have been presented, it seems more ceremonial than definition, a footnote rather than the title, that they are who they are “oh and they’re also a Christian / Muslim / whatever”. There are some amongst the electorate that do care about that, but the voices are small, though some rare ones loud. There’s potential to devolve into what we see now in the US, however, but forcing secularism with a heavy hand will only serve to provoke them and direct them to more extreme measures.
You are most welcome to be anti-religious, and I too don’t have a good reason to believe religion should be around, and actually believe that we would all be better without it. But I think your stance is quite a bit more extreme. I wouldn’t say what you said in the affirmative, but would say that it’s a very exploitable vector to mobilize society for irrational actions. I think saying that religion is inherently anti-rational-thinking and anti-science is a stretch, though less so for the latter.
Faith is simply a double-edged sword. There were those who used it for social good, and there are those who used it for social bad. As with any systems that we humans come up with, once they’ve been around long enough, we as a species know more about the system we’ve made to both streamline and exploit it. Tribal hierarchy, royalty, religion, gangs, town councils, and as we would all know well, governments, and if you allow me to use non-political systems, trade, finance, insurance, even healthcare. Any system initially made with good intentions to serve humanity can end up being exploited by certain people for bad, and the longer its around, the more people who know how to exploit these systems. That’s why I have no qualms about your stance, but I wouldn’t say I fully support it, because all I see is that we’re simply stuck in this cycle, where we only try to tear down what ends up being broken, but never addressing why we tend to exploit them. I digress.
I think my comment is getting too long and Lemmy isn’t happy about it, so I’m going to cut it out into a separate reply.
Yeah this is a big philosophical discussion lol. I understand your point of view. Regarding religion, I think it’s just slightly different than mine.
And regarding wearing religious clothing/symbols, I also agree with most of what you say. It shouldn’t become banned to a point that people can’t participate in society. I think right now we hit the sweet spot (my opinion) where there’s very select roles where it applies, school teachers being one of them, to avoid any influence. But as you said, and as we saw with the Bedford school case, that won’t stop people from imposing their religious morals on anyone. So yeah, I’m kind of on the fence there, but I’d rather not have any religious symbols in class than to allow some and influence young kids in any way.
Yeah, sorry lol. I definitely went on a big tangent there with human-created systems for humanity. It’s what I constantly think of though, whenever I look at recent events.
Going back to religious symbols, I think enforcing it on teachers was particularly controversial because 1) it’s a very common profession for people to go into, and so it becomes a strong point of institutional discrimination (if that’s not something that already raises eyebrows even for those other professions), and 2) that it’s arguably ineffective, as is the case in Bedford (and I’d argue it so for other professions too). IMO, if they are allowed to wear those symbols, at least it’d be a bad look for their religion if they made a clearly bad decision if and when it’s based on their religious knowledge. And it’s easy enough for kids to pick up on that, especially if we do them right by instilling them with critical thinking.
Kids aren’t stupid. They don’t look at a crucifix on the wall and just think “that’s cool, imma follow it”. They’ll most likely think nothing of it, but will be curious about it. They’ll wonder what it is and ask. Teachers should be prepared to answer the questions that follow. (Eg) “This used to be a Christian school,” “Why’s it not one anymore?” “Because some not so great things happened all across Quebec and people realized that it’s most probably not a good idea for schools to be tied to religions,” “What wasn’t so great?” “While Quebec was doing well, its people were not, and unfortunately, the people who were in control of schools were not preparing children to be smart enough to do difficult work that’s needed to become successful. We decided that we’ve had enough of that, and so schools have changed to become what they are today. We want our new generation to be smart, independent people who can do amazing things with their lives.”
Of course, there’s going to be those who are overtly against secularism, or those who wish to go back to those times, who would pass to become teachers. While the state cannot outright ban such people from becoming teachers, there are many ways to make it clear that schools are secular spaces, and the state will exercise its power within secular rules to uphold them. For example, spreading religion in schools can be made strictly forbidden. To go one step further, ban talking about religions in schools, and only allow them be mentioned within the context of history, and as factually possible and without using strong words. Banning the topic on school grounds is also good for avoiding conflicts between religious groups, at least within schools. Have control over the approval of history and moral teachers and make it fair by excluding those who would have a conflict of interests: both religious and anti-religious people wouldn’t be allowed to teach these subjects. That way, you can still have those who are religious become teachers without robbing them of a chance of a decent job (arguable given the current state of things, but I meant a “job” more so in the general sense, so not just teachers), ie without closing off a potential future for a large group of people, with some sacrifices. This is something that I think is a practical solution (though not entirely original, I must admit).
I can understand your frustration of having to deal with the fact that kids would have to be in contact with religious teachers, but I’d argue that a heavy-handed approach, while it may satisfy you currently, is not beneficial in the long term for yourself or society as a whole. Once again, you may win the war, but you can’t win their hearts. Discrimination breeds hatred, and hatred brings about the worse in people. We see this everywhere, and throughout time. Sweep it under the rug, and one day it’ll grow large enough to swallow us all along with the rug.
It needs to be shown as clearly as possible by neutral parties that secularism is good for everyone, including those who are religious, and show concrete results, while we keep training the next generation to have the ability to think for and by themselves, instead of having someone else think for them. This extends to a lot of things, though it can be summarized as a better chance at life for everyone, and an actually-better life for everyone.