Here's a snippet of the Supreme Court's ruling on parental requests to remove their children from state-mandated religious education, which prompted the discussion: the suggestion that exposing children to a variety of religious facts in itself infringes their religious freedom or that of their parents amounts to a rejection of the multicultural reality of Canadian society and ignores the Quebec government's obligations with regard to public education. (emphasis mine) Stackhouse criticizes the EFC and Cardus for "arguing quite wrongly" about the case. Putting aside the fact that Cardus has, to date, not published anything official on this case, I want to query John on two matters in his argument which I think will help the discussion along. After reviewing the curriculum, John says that it is a bona fide effort to educate its citizens about the religious realities on the ground in Quebec and should be understood as such. Specifically he says, The curriculum does not say anything one way or another about whether one religion is better than another, whether one particular religion is the best of the bunch, or whether only one religion is valid . . . The state here takes the common-sense approach that there are in fact lots of religions in Quebec and that the state will not privilege one religion over another -- not in terms of access to power, nor in terms of pedagogical endorsement. There are various religions in Quebec, and the state's interest lies in acquainting its citizens with the facts