Prayer Request On Monday, March 24, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear the case of Loyola High School, a private Jesuit school in Quebec, against the Quebec government over Loyola’s freedom to teach ethics and world religions in a manner faithful to its mission and character as a Jesuit school. The government of Quebec has denied Loyola this freedom. Quebecs Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sports introduced a compulsory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) program in 2008 intended to foster dialogue and community life in a pluralistic society. Loyolas request to teach its own functional equivalent was rejected because, unlike the governments program, it was deemed confessional in nature. How the Supreme Court of Canada resolves this case is of great importance to religious organizations across Canada because this Court’s decisions are binding on all other courts. Eleven organizations have been granted permission to intervene in the Supreme Court hearing. Pray that wisdom will prevail in this important case. For more details on the background of this case, implications for religious freedoms throughout Canada, and the arguments of the intervening parties, please see the attachment. (source CARDUS) Quebec A MOMENTOUS CASE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN EDUCATION On Monday, March 24, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) will hear the case of Loyola High School, a private Jesuit school in Quebec, against the Quebec government over Loyola’s freedom to teach ethics and world religions in a manner faithful to its mission and character as a Jesuit school. The government of Quebec has denied Loyola this freedom. In 2010, Loyola obtained a favourable ruling from Justice Dugré of the Quebec Superior Court, whose ruling described the Minister of Education, Recreation and Sport’s (Minister) refusal to allow Loyola to teach its curriculum instead of the government’s as “totalitarian in nature”. Justice Dugré observed that parents’ rights with respect to the religious and moral education of their children is not limited to their home or church. In fact, Justice Dugré understood that the pursuit of the common good, which is the ministry of education’s stated curriculum goal, “necessarily enshrines, from the Catholic perspective, a central place for God and Faith.” “In short,” he concluded in his judgment, “the ERC program established by the Minister requires of Loyola a pedagogy contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church.” The government appealed Justice Dugré’s ruling, however, and the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled in the government’s favour, reasoning that it was an insignificant infringement of religious freedom to require Loyola teachers to teach a course from a “neutral” standpoint and refrain from expressing religious convictions during that particular course. Following this loss in 2012, Loyola appealed to the SCC. How the SCC resolves this case is of great importance to religious organizations across Canada because this Court’s decisions are binding on all other courts. As the SCC official website states: “The importance of the Court’s decisions for Canadian society is well recognized. The Court assures uniformity, consistency and correctness in the articulation, development and interpretation of legal principles throughout the Canadian judicial system.” Eleven organizations have been granted permission to intervene in the Supreme Court hearing. “Interveners” are not parties to the case itself, but may bring the Court’s attention the potential impact of the Court’s judgment on those who are not parties to the case and even introduce legal arguments for or against a particular approach to or resolution of an issue that is before the court. The written arguments of the interveners, which have already been submitted to the SCC, are summarized below, following a review of the background of Loyola’s case and the arguments of the parties to the case: Loyola and the Attorney General of Quebec. A MOMENTOUS CASE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN EDUCATION | BACKGROUND OF LOYOLA HIGH SCHOOL’S CASE The law in Quebec states that a private school “shall be exempt” from compulsory public school curricula provided the school teaches programs “which the Minister of Education, Recreation and Sports judges equivalent.” Loyola never asked to be exempt from teaching students about ethics and world religions, courses which the provincial government requires, but only to be allowed to continue to teach this required content through its existing program. Loyola has offered its students an in-depth ethics and world religions course for twenty-five years. The school teaches this subject, as it teaches all subjects, from a Roman Catholic perspective, using Jesuit pedagogy. This is, of course, the school’s raison d’être. Loyola, like other private schools, had long relied on the exemption that allowed it to use its curricula in place of government curricula without issue. What changed? In 2005, Quebec’s Legislative Assembly passed Bill 95, An Act to Amend Various Legislative Provisions of a Confessional Nature in the Education Field, which moved to eliminate from the public school curricula “all provisions of a confessional nature as of July 1, 2008,” replacing them with the Ministry’s new compulsory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) Program. As part of the public system’s compulsory curriculum, a private religious school could only teach its own curriculum in place of the ERC Program with the Minister’s approval. The ERC Program has as its stated goals the recognition of others and the pursuit of the common good. According to the Ministry of Education, the Program intends to foster “dialogue and community life in a pluralist society” and therefore “does not espouse any particular set of beliefs or moral references.” Loyola’s request for an exemption was supported by expert opinions on the merits of its program and an explanation of how it is equivalent to the Ministry’s ERC Program, pursuing the Program’s goals, and covering its substantive content. But its request was rejected because, as one public servant in the Ministry of Education determined, Loyola’s program—unlike the government’s—is confessional in nature.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 19:30:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015