mercredi 23 juin 2010

Être neutre, c'est déjà faire un choix

Article très intéressant du professeur Zucchi, père d'un élève du collège Loyola et un des plaignants dans l'affaire qui oppose Loyola au Monopole de l'Éducation.

Extraits :
The trial and judgment raise a deeper issue, however, than the points of law resolved by Charter argument. The proceedings dug into the possibility of the state acting in a "neutral" fashion when it is mandating a very specific perspective for even private institutions.

In his closing comments at the trial, our lawyer Mark Phillips asked just how far the state was prepared to go with its program. If it was telling a private religious institution that it could no longer teach a program from its own perspective, what was next? Would the state enter our churches and synagogues and tell preachers what they can or cannot preach?

Dugre understood the implications of this when he asked at mid-trial with what seemed to me a hint of frustration: "What does neutral mean? Is neutrality really neutral? Neutrality involves a choice. For example when Pontius Pilate washed his hands in front of the crowd he chose to send Jesus to his death."

I must think his example was chosen quite deliberately, given the subject of the trial. I believe, as well, that fair-minded Canadians of all religious persuasions would agree with him.

In education, a neutral position is not neutral. Neither is a secular position, nor a liberal one. Even neutrality involves a choice. The proponents of neutrality are advancing their own liberal perspectives as simply one more perspective out there in a plurality of positions.

Yet the dogged insistence of the forces of secularization in advancing their project to remove religion from the public forum in Quebec in recent years has made it plain that they bear their own version of religious zeal.

Lire l'article en entier

Soutenons les familles dans leurs combats juridiques (reçu fiscal pour tout don supérieur à 50 $)

Aucun commentaire: