We should teach our children the Christmas story

We go to extreme lengths to avoid the religious aspects of Christmas in the public sphere.  Christian beliefs about Christmas might offend someone in our secular and multicultural society, so we ignore its religious and historical background.

The reluctance to mention the origins of this much-loved holiday permeates early childhood learning programs and public schools. Although I support the neutrality of religion in public institutions, there are, in my view, some good reasons to introduce children to the Christmas story.

Today's children are the unlucky beneficiaries of a shift in the way we approach the celebration of Christmas

My children were on the cusp of a shift in society’s approach to the celebration of Christmas. Within a generation, the emphasis on the secular side of the holiday has virtually drowned out its religious origins.

Nativity scenes, for example, were not uncommon in public spaces, and on the personal level, many families still attended a church service on Christmas Day.  In the classroom, the Christmas story, carols and art had a cultural place. A babe in a manger and three kings co-existed with Santa Claus and Frosty the Snowman.  While the secular themes of Christmas had begun to dominate, most schools still included at least a couple of religious carols in their annual Christmas concerts.

My grandchildren are the unlucky beneficiaries of the legacy of this shift. At an early childhood literacy program that I attend with my two-year old grand daughter, the leaders have been very careful to avoid the religious side of Christmas, restricting songs and stories to its secular manifestations.

The nativity story has much to offer

Yet, the story of Christmas has a lot to offer our children. It is beautiful in both its simplicity and message. As long as educators present it in a neutral manner, we should not be afraid of exposing our children to the origins of the season.

Lynn Proulx, a veteran early childhood educator, thinks that the story of the nativity resonates at a deep level with children. She said that it is wonderful to watch children as they listen to the story.  They feel sad when no one will help Mary and Joseph; then they feel happy when Jesus is born. Feelings of love and peace replace their feelings of anxiety and worry.  The story, said Proulx, provides an excellent opportunity to teach empathy and to help children learn the values of kindness, helping and sharing. 

The story of the nativity raises questions for children about the manner in which we treat one another.   It should raise the same sort of questions for us.  As Quaker theologian Parker J. Palmer framed it,  “What good works wait to be born in us?”  

Our country is rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition

Of course, there are other stories that teach these same values, and that have nothing to do with religion. However, the story of the nativity should hold a special place within our society because it is part of our collective patrimony.  Our country’s roots go back to the Judeo-Christian tradition. This tradition has shaped our culture, values, social institutions and judicial system.  Our heritage includes centuries of religious art, music and literature that drew (and continues to draw) inspiration from a babe in a manger. Exposure to this cultural canon makes for a well-rounded education and a better understanding of our self as a nation.

There is also a historical background to the holiday traditions that we continue to hold dear.  Children may wonder why we put up lights, decorate trees, and give one another gifts. These traditions are part of the history of Christmas and western culture.

The Christmas message is universal

Our children intuit the universality of the Christmas message.  It is summed up in the very first Christmas greeting, “peace on earth and goodwill towards men”.  It is in the air and in our greetings to one another over the holiday season, which encourages and inspires us to act with greater generosity.  While everyone does not believe in “the reason for the season”, there is something transcendent about Christmas.

It is shortsighted to restrict children (and ourselves) to a candy cane diet of Christmas cuteness.  There are meat and potatoes on the table, too. Christmas is a celebration of substance. Its Christian origins have a place alongside the magic of Santa Claus and his flying reindeers.  Knowledge of the Christmas story, with its universal message of goodwill towards all people, may actually be in the best interest of a secular and multicultural society.

Loyola decision protects religious freedom

"Church and state can work together for the common good"

In 2008, as part of the continued secularization of the Quebec school system, the province adopted a mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) Program to replace religious education in schools. A statutory provision gives Quebec’s Minister responsible for education the discretionary ability to grant an exemption from the ERC program if a school offers an alternative, equivalent program. Loyola, a private Catholic high school run by the Jesuit order for over a century, applied for and was denied an exemption because the proposed program would be taught from a Catholic standpoint and not from a neutral position.

The objectives of the ERC program are the “recognition of others” and the “pursuit of the common good”.  Through the program’s three components - world religions and religious culture, ethics, and dialogue - students are expected to develop attitudes of openness, diversity, tolerance and respect. They are to learn the skills necessary for engaging in respectful dialogue with others who hold differing views. Loyola had no quarrel with the goals and competencies of the provincially mandated ERC program but wanted to teach from the Catholic perspective that animates the school.

The Court found that the minister failed to proportionately balance the objectives of the ERC program and the religious freedom of the individuals of Loyola’s faith-based community. The minister erred in her presumption that the ERC program could only be taught from a secular, neutral stance. Loyola’s version of the curriculum could achieve the goals and the competencies of the ERC program.

While the justices of the Court ruled unanimously in Loyola’s favor, they were split 4-3 on the remedy. The majority referred the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration, while the minority recommended that Loyola be allowed to proceed with its proposed program.

In the majority decision, Justice Abella writes, “Preventing a school like Loyola from teaching and discussing Catholicism, the core of its identity, in any part of the program from its own perspective, does little to further the ERC Program’s objectives while at the same time seriously interfering with the values underlying religious freedom.”

At the same time, the decision reaffirms the role of the state in administering education in religious schools. The state does not have “to abandon its objectives by accepting a program that frames the discussion of ethics primarily through the moral lens of a school’s own religion.”

Writing for the minority, Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Moldaver did not see a problem with the discussion of ethics occurring through Loyola’s Catholic lens. “Loyola’s teachers must be permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way. Loyola’s teachers must maintain a respectful tone of debate, but where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.”  To prevent them from doing so would render Loyola’s teachers “mute.”

I welcome the Supreme Court decision from my perspective as a Catholic who supports faith-based schools and the rights of individuals who choose those schools. I welcome it, too, as a former teacher with experience in both the Catholic and public school systems, and as a Canadian who values the freedoms of our secular democracy. 

Lauded as a victory for religious freedom, in my view, this decision strikes a balance between religion and secularism. On one hand, the Court affirms the legitimacy of the state in prescribing and regulating curriculum in religious schools. State oversight helps to prevent religious indoctrination and the intolerance that accompanies it. On the other hand, the decision protects freedom of religion. A religious school may teach from the perspective of its tradition and doctrines provided its beliefs or practices do not “conflict with or harm overriding public interests.”

At a time in Canadian history when the courts are frequently asked to rule on cases that pit religion and secularism, Loyola serves as a reminder that church and state can work together for the common good.