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.
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.