September 5, 2009

Supplementary: Uh-oh, someone's words got misrepresented again.

This is a supplement of sorts to my previous post, it kinda deserves it's own little spotlight~*

Sing it everyone! Eeevrryyybooody waaants tooo beee oooppreeeeessed


'Misrepresenting my views'

Re: Judge Refuses To Let Pupils Drop Religion, Sept. 3.

It was somewhat with dismay that I read in this story a description that radically misrepresents my views and the reasons I went to court so that my children could be exempted from the new course on ethics and religious culture recently imposed in Quebec.

Read: Wait wait I didn't mean it like that now that I've been called on my dumb assery!

The article allows Sebastien Lebel-Grenier, a law professor at Universite de Sherbrooke, to characterize the grounds of my court challenge as "demanding ... the right to ignorance, the right to protect their children from being exposed to the existence of other religions."

Yeah that was the gist of it. Oh, it's worse than that you say?

This is obviously false and paints me unfairly as an obscurantist.

*sips tea* If "obscurantist" is now code for "dumbass". Let's look.

Obscurantism 1. opposition to the increase and spread of knowledge.

Sounds about right to me. Any obscurantists want to chime in?

My husband and I have no problem about our children knowing about other religions -- they already freely discuss religious diversity.

Like the difference between American Christians and all those other people who are inferior?

Our grievances are elsewhere: We object to the fact that our youngest child, then aged 6, should be taught that all religions have the same value.

Okay pause. Lady, let me get unfriendly here: shut the fuck up and sit down. All religions do have the same value. I know you'd like to think your brand of Christianity is superior but it's not. EVERYONE wants to think they're the best and they're philosophy is the WINNAR (which sounds vaguely familiar) but face it, we're all on the same plane of reality. Your child doesn't deserve your obscurantism. So unless you're secretly Azathoth or something, please step aside.

See, it's shit like this that makes folks atheists. Just sayin'.

I object to the textbook my child had to use where all stories, be they Biblical (the Nativity), aboriginal (Big Hare) or animal tales (The Mice X-Mas), are told as tales of equal value and truth.

I object to being told the Bible is truthfully the word of god at all. How about that? You're afraid of your child seeing that your precious religion has a lot in common with different cultures--creationist myths for example? I'm glad we got that definition of obscurantism out from you first, at least.

It is important to note that the factual content taught in primary school is rudimentary; facts are not the real objective of the course. It is about instilling a pluralistic vision of religion: All religions are nice, more of them is better than one, all have truth in them and none are therefore really true because they contradict each other.

....*sips tea*

As far as the ethics component of the course is concerned, we decided to ask that our eldest son be exempted after he approached us and told us how he felt very ill at ease about "ethical" discussions and debates which dealt with sex in what he found to be an intrusive and indecent fashion.

Okay, I got "omg sex ed HOW DAAAAAAAAaRE YOU".

You make it sound like the teacher threw in Real Sex 98.

We think readers should have access to both sides of the story.

Thank you, now we all have no doubt in our minds that the opposing side is correct.

S. L. Drummondville, Que.

blog comments powered by Disqus