"Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe."

[stopbush]

At least they understand this in Canada:

Students must learn about other religions: judge
by Graeme Hamilton, National Post

MONTREAL -- Christian parents who objected to their children being taught about other religions in a mandatory new Quebec school course have suffered a serious setback with a ruling this week that the teachings do not infringe their religious freedoms.

Quebec Superior Court Justice Jean-Guy Dubois dismissed a bid by parents in Drummondville, Que., who said the course on ethics and religious culture introduced across the province last year was undermining their efforts to instill Christian faith in their children.

"In light of all the evidence presented, the court does not see how the ... course limits the plaintiff's freedom of conscience and of religion for the children when it provides an overall presentation of various religions without obliging the children to adhere to them," Judge Dubois wrote.
...
"What parents were demanding was the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions," he said. "This right to ignorance is certainly not protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Freedom of religion does not protect the right not to know what is going on in our universe."

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1956333

[BOSSHOG]

1. "The right to ignorance"

Its how conservatives involve themselves in the pursuit of happiness.

[treestar]

2. I always wondered about that

The kid will grow up and the results of when he finds out what they hid from him are not going to do these parents any good.

Why do people think it works? Aren't they just saying they know that their own religion is lame - it can't withstand even knowing about other religions? People are morans. It is medieval to still think you can make an idea go away by silencing it and all talk about it.

[brendan120678]

3. The funny thing is that I know of many atheists who....

would be equally upset here in the States if a public school tried to teach about Christianity or the Bible, even in a comparative manner.

[endarkenment]

6. This atheist is fine with a comparative religions course.

Not fine with ID bullshit in biology class.

[Creena]

11. This atheist agrees with you.

In fact, this atheist is also planning a double major with Religion as the secondary subject. However, if they want to bring religion to a science discussion, I'll also start hollering.

[bigmonkey]

26. Just had an argument with a Dawkins follower about this.

They believe, evidently, that being taught religion is to be considered virtually child abuse. I was unable to convince them that learning about religion, and other people's religious beliefs, would be useful. I was quite disappointed that Dawkinsism can shade off into quasi-eliminationism.

[Ladyhawk]

30. Excuse me? Dawkins is fine with comparative religion classes.

It's indoctrination of small children he has a problem with. And so do I. I'll never, EVER get over being brought up as a fundamentalist.

I believe Dawkins covers his views on comparative religion either in The God Delusion or his documentary Root of All Evil? I can't remember which.

This is the only quote I could find on short notice:

"Dawkins agreed that he could possibly be convinced of that, but he thinks other things deserve higher priority, like his proposal to teach comparative religion to children in schools."

http://thatatheistguysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/double-dose-of-dawkins.html

And what the hell is Dawkinsism? I agree with Dawkins most of the time, but as a freethinker I reserve the right to disagree.

Your post is both ignorant and a bit hateful. All you've done is create a few strawmen to knock down, QED.

[Creena]

31. I believe he mentions it in both.

[bigmonkey]

36. Then perhaps you could recommend one book or the other?

I'm looking for an overview of what he has to say. Don't mean to burden you, just asking.

[Creena]

37. The God Delusion is a book, The Root of All Evil is a documentary.

The Root of all Evil is almost like an introduction to The God Delusion. The latter delves deeper into the idea of a supernatural being and its positive/negative influence of humans.

You can see The Root of All Evil - Part 1, here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4321574955310561251

Part 2, here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8210522903232438954&hl=en

Hope that helps!

[bigmonkey]

41. Thanks!

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[bigmonkey]

32. I'm sorry you see what I wrote as offensive.

I was only reporting the behavior of the person I was having the argument with. I'm perfectly happy to be informed that Dawkins himself is of the opinion you cite, but the person I was arguing with was definitely not, quite the contrary. I am ignorant of what he's actually written in that sense. Unfortunately, "followers" of a thinker don't always take on board the niceties that the original text includes. Look at fundamentalists of any sort for that behavior.

By Dawkinsism, I meant to point to behavior that turns what Dawkins has written into a militant ideology. I did not mean to disparage Dawkins, nor his readers per se. Sorry if you felt offended, but I experienced something that I can't deny. I'm not blaming Dawkins necessarily. I'm glad to hear that he's more nuanced.

If you could find out which book discusses comparative religion, I'd appreciate you passing that on. I've been looking for which of his books to read - I don't have time for all of them. Thanks for the criticism.

[Mythsaje]

38. There are many, many different flavors of dumbassery... n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. I doubt it.

I know atheists who be skeptical of claims that the class would be truly secular, with good cause, but I doubt any would have a problem with such a class hypothetically.

[stopbush]

12. I would only object if the myths were taught as facts.

I'd be fine with a comparative course that was taught from a historical perspective.

I have no problem with a course that taught that people believed that Jesus lived...as long as the same course taught that there is absolutely no evidence to show that he ever existed. I have no problem with a course that taught that people believed Jesus was god...as long as it also taught that people have believed fervently in thousands of other gods. I have no problem with a course that talked about the Exodus or the town of Nazareth...as long as the same course taught that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, that the Exodus ever occurred or that the town of Nazareth physically existed before it was created in the 4th century by a religious group offering tours of the Holy Land.

I'm fine with any course that teaches the Bible while simultaneously pointing out the rampant bullshit in the same. Ditto for any other religion.

[kimmylavin]

14. This atheist voluntarily took several of those classes.

Fascinating.

I probably read more about religion than a whole bunch of religious people.
Christianity taught as part of a class about world religions? Fantastic class.
The Bible as literature? I've taken several of those, and loved 'em.

But like the other posters said, its not science.
Teaching religion as fact? That "upsets" me.

[Creena]

17. Ooh, fun!

When I go back to school next year, I plan on taking Bible as Literature, as well as Biblical Art, for GE requirements.

[kimmylavin]

20. Oh, Bible as literature classes are awesome!

They literally use ALL of the good plot elements! :)

I don't need to accept the divinity (or even existence) of Jesus Christ in order to learn from his teachings.
And I don't need to be religious to enjoy the stories.

I would recommend taking some comparative classes as well: once you start comparing the Epic of Gilgamesh with Noah's flood, its pretty mind-blowing!

[Warpy]

16. If it were taught in a comparative manner, it would bother few

Unfortunately, given the vast majority of believers, it would hardly be taught in a comparative manner.

[wuushew]

18. Learning about religion is pointless in K-12

The U.S. is way behind in math, literacy and science. Why foster any unnecessary subjects to an otherwise captive audience?

Adults can study the philosophical and anthropological aspects of religious myth in college.

Why offer courses in religion over civics, psychology or finance?



The utility of religious knowledge is at the bottom of the heap.

[Chulanowa]

19. Really?

Because every Atheist I know thinks that a comparative religions course is a good thing - and actually helps the idea of atheism.

"Wait, so, you can get killed for eating lobster in this one, this one demands that a widow burn herself when her husband dies, and this one says I HAVE to wear a beard or someone can beat me with a stick? I'll take none of the above"

[endarkenment]

4. I support the right of parents to raise their kids stupid.

However they may not impose their idiocy on the rest of us. If they want to keep their kids out of science classes, I think they have the right to do that. They cannot change those science classes to fit their idiotic belief systems.

[mike_c]

10. I do not....

I'm willing to let the parents remain as stupid as they want, but their children are among "the rest of us" that you mention should not be forced to share their willful ignorance, at least until they are old enough, and educated enough, to choose ignorance themselves.

Good lord, I think I just argued for "informed ignorance...." :rofl:

[endarkenment]

25. 1st amendment issues make that problematic

most school systems allow parents to pull their kids out of bio and sex ed etc. as otherwise they would be in court fighting over religious freedom issues.

I'm not saying it is a good thing, I am saying that they have the right and I support that right. It is in my opinion bordering but not constituting child abuse. Over the line is refusing life saving medical care for your children.

[Toasterlad]

29. Deliberately Raising Your Child to Be Ignorant Is Child Abuse.

As far as I'm concerned, any parent who refuses to have their child learn about evolution...or any other science...should have their children taken away from them, and given to someone less insane.

[sinkingfeeling]

5. And I missed be born in Canada by a couple of hundred miles!

[dhpgetsit]

7. I though this was interesting...

Thom Hartmann cited a study thet found that only 2% of scientists describe themselves as Republicans! You could almost say Republicans = People who can't deal with reality.

[mike_c]

8. enthusiastically recommended....

"...the right to ingnorance." I'll be using that phrase in class in future, I suspect! Kudos to the judge!

[Libertas1776]

13. I went

to Catholic school through Jr. High, and as part of our religious studies class, we had to learn about other faiths as well, from Judaism, to Islam, Hinduism, to Buddhism etc. There was even a small section on atheism in our Catholic textbook which stated that not all atheists were "bad people" as long as they lived a good life, respected and helped others (You know, being human to each other which shouldn't require joining some organized religion) etc. We were even tested on these subjects. That is why I can never understand the resistance of people to learn other religions in cultures. Granted, it appears this is taking place in a public school, so you think people would be complaining over a separation of church and state thing. But as far as I can tell, from the comments left under the article, they're just upset because their children aren't just being taught Christianity. They don't want their kids to have an open mind about the world; either its the Christian way or the highway. Typical.

[juno jones]

15. K&R!

Cuts to the heart of this issue.

[Festivito]

21. Do the Amish have the right to their own school system?

They pay for it, they keep to themselves and get along among themselves. Must they be taught things their parents do not want them to be taught?

I like a comparative religion class, had them myself. But, mandatory, or with what sanctions taken upon the school system or students.

[stopbush]

22. This ruling was specific to the school system in Quebec

which mandated the course. It doesn't even apply to all of Canada.

I don't know. How many Amish live in Quebec?

[Festivito]

23. I meant the question for the US, we discuss the US a lot here.

I'm sure some people can handle a tangent to the parallel.

[ret5hd]

24. Why do you ask about a private school?

[Festivito]

34. I find it offers and interesting perspective. /nt

[Toasterlad]

28. The Amish Admirably Do Not Force Their Religious Views On Others.

If other chrisitians are willing to withdraw from society, cease their meddling in politics, and in general stop trying to cram their religious quackery down America's throat, I'd be all in favor of them not having to learn a thing. As it is, I think that every single child in this country should be taught the history of religion from the dawn of history, with a strong emphasis on how much of each was stolen from the others.

[Festivito]

33. So, you would impose this on an Amish kid?

"I think that every single child..."

But, not on currently quack Christians as long as they met the criteria you listed.

[ret5hd]

35. Are you a dullard? Private schools are free to teach as they wish, in their own interests.

Public schools are designed to benefit the public as a whole.

[Festivito]

40. Not as much as some. Private schools follow certain rules. /nt

[Vidar]

27. I took comparative religion in high school. Furthermore, the Lutheran

Church I grew up in had a Sunday School feature for highs chool students that involved other attending the services of other Churches. I found both experiences invaluable.

[elleng]

39. I took Comparative Religions in college,

and fortunately my daughters took a similar course in Catholic high schools. I was pleased about that. If they had attended public schools, they wouldn't have had the opportunity. GOOD NEWS about Canada! Imagine the uproar in the U.S.