Posts by Alexander Ortiz3

So, what you're saying is public schools shouldn't observe federal holidays at all? Should they just go out and invent their own arbitrary days off instead? I don't see any issue with having a blessing for students and faculty during a school assembly held for a religious holiday, provided that attendance isn't mandatory for anyone involved.

Jason Ortiz5 said:It's not like anyone is stopping parents from teaching their kids spiritual values through Christianity. It would actually be pretty great if that kind of teaching happened where it belongs—in churches and at home. ☕

Personally, I'm not looking for my kid to learn specific Christian "values." I just want her to grow up to be a tolerant person who respects everyone.

And how exactly do you respect the believers and the faculty at the school your child attends? ☕

Jason Ortiz5 said:Look, faith is a deeply PERSONAL thing. It belongs to the individual. I don't see why personal beliefs need to be shoved into public schools, especially when there are perfectly good churches right down the street built specifically for that purpose.

At the end of the day, it’s really about funding, treating all kids equally, and just being decent humans. Isn't the "Golden Rule"—you know, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you—one of the most fundamental ethical principles we have?

Amendment 1.
Freedom of conscience and religion is guaranteed, along with the free exercise of religion or any other belief.
Amendment 1.
All religious communities are equal before the law and are separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, academies, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities.
http://www.congress.gov/Default.aspx?art=1841

How exactly is faith a private matter?

Regarding "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"—nobody is forcing you into religious education. But you *are* trying to force religious education out of the school system.

Jason Ortiz5 said:Two hours. That's what we're talking about. An "elective" course that gets special treatment compared to everything else on the schedule.

The government is meant to be a community for EVERY resident, and its whole job is to guarantee equality for ALL citizens. That's literally what the Constitution says. Also, having a personality doesn't mean you're being "hidden" just because you aren't shoving it in everyone's faces or being loud about it. Why would faith be considered hidden if people practice it in churches or mosques? It's like saying someone is hiding their love for fitness just because they go to a gym instead of working out at City Hall.

So, what’s your actual take here? Are you arguing that the government should force religious education on everyone, or is your stance that a minority should dictate terms to the majority by forcing religious studies out of schools entirely? Which side are you actually pulling for?
Personally, I believe in the freedom of choice for every single individual.

P.S. I honestly find the complaints from atheists—specifically regarding how much influence religion teachers have over school assemblies—to be quite baffling. The reality is that most school events are centered around holidays rooted in Christian traditions. If we wanted to truly "level the playing field" by making non-religious events equal to religious ones, we’d have to start hosting celebrations for things like a dear friend's birthday or commemorating days tied to the American Civil War. In the US, our major holidays fall almost exclusively into two buckets: they are either Christian-based or they are secular holidays established during or after the struggle for our nation's independence. Out of our twelve major holidays, ten of them fit perfectly into one of those two categories. It follows logically that when an assembly is held to celebrate a religious holiday, the religion teacher is going to play a leading role.

brightheron64 said:I ran into them today and we ended up talking about this all over again.

Since the teacher had another outburst, this time targeting homosexuality, the mother finally hit her breaking point; she went straight to the principal's office and demanded that her son be withdrawn from the religion classes immediately.

When the principal told her it wasn't possible to make changes like that in the middle of the semester, she threatened to call the Child Advocate, which caught the principal totally off guard and left him promising he'd figure out some kind of workaround.

I am honestly so curious to see how this whole thing plays out... 🍿

Either we're looking at uneducated parents who are clearly disinterested—sending their kids to religious studies with a community whose values they don't even share—or the instructor is teaching material that deviates from the actual curriculum set by the church. If it's the latter, then the Vatican needs to get involved.

wanderingbadger44 said:Everything you just laid out is spot on.

But I’m still struggling to see why you think this automatically makes these non-religious students the responsibility of the teacher, the librarian, the homeroom instructor, or the principal. Can you actually point me to a source where that is explicitly stated in black and white?

Maybe you're interpreting it this way because the school functions more as a Christian institution than the Church itself does, stepping in to look after the kids who were essentially pushed out of the classroom when religious studies was slotted in as an elective.

Think about it—any teacher, librarian, or administrator who finds a gap in their schedule caused by religious classes could just as easily say, with a straight face, that looking after those kids isn't part of their job description.

So, we end up in this scenario where, legally speaking, neither the Church nor the State—the actual signatories of these agreements—is responsible for those children.

You’d think a person would expect more Christian compassion from the Church than from the government, but it seems the Church isn't losing any sleep over it, and they aren't particularly concerned with their neighbors. So, the burden falls on the schools and the state. It's like trying to drive a bull that refuses to move.

That is precisely why I maintain that the Department of Education must organize the supervision during these free periods and allocate specific funding for it.
For the Department of Education to actually step up, they need to be pressured by the very people for whom these empty slots are a headache. Instead, they are just "treading water" by demanding that an entity with zero jurisdiction solve a problem that isn't theirs.

James Alvarez2 said:Look, I'm with everyone else on this, but you're dead wrong here. Faith is just like anything else in life—it's something you're taught. You can sit a kid down at home and teach them their ABCs, math, or how to read a map... same goes for teaching them how to pray or use a rosary. But just like the English language is way more than just letters, and math is much more than just numbers, religion is about a hell of a lot more than just saying grace before dinner...
Yeah, should be.
But not at school, definitely not in the middle of class, and certainly not while people are actually paying attention...
First things first—been getting this stuff at home since forever...

After all that nonsense about collecting points, it’s not even about some kind of penalty. It's just how she lives out her faith through the core of it... attending Mass with her local parish.
Nobody ever admits that kids just don't always feel like showing up. I used to love my martial arts classes, but there were days I just couldn't deal because I was wiped out or my friends were all hanging out at the mall... Same thing with church. Sometimes I’d rather just sit there watching cartoons in the morning. It wasn't like I thought Mass was some kind of punishment. If you actually grew up with your faith, following tradition isn't a chore. If it feels like a punishment, then fine—don't bother with Sunday school, Mass, or First Communion. Just skip it. It's totally fine to miss service if you're not feeling it or if the timing just sucks. Look, instead of counting down to one single ceremony, there are basically fifty-seven different chances throughout the year to show up and get those points...
Not even a thing. My training sessions are always at the same damn time, too. Besides, there are plenty of masses throughout the week and on Sundays. If your church doesn't work for you, just find another one...

Look, you gotta be careful when you're talking about those little "plus" marks or moving up levels. It’s not just some participation trophy. If I sign up for an intensive language course to hit the next level, I actually have to pass an exam. Same thing with Taekwondo—you don't just get a new belt; you earn it. You want to move up a grade in school? You need solid grades. You want to play in a varsity basketball game? You better show up and grind at practice first. Even with stuff like a baptism, your parents and godparents are basically testifying for you... but once it comes to things like First Communion or Confirmation, that responsibility falls squarely on your shoulders. That’s why you need real prep work. And at the end of the day, it all goes back to the parents being the foundation of everything...

Not cool, man. You’re quoting another one of my posts where I said I wouldn't send my kid to Islamic school just to end up living in a country that's already mostly Muslim...

I don't see how you can even call yourself a believer, let alone a parent, sending your kid to Sunday school...
Are you teaching a kid to completely lose their sense of self just because of where they happen to be living?
Doesn't matter if it's religion or whatever else.
Waving faith around isn't actual faith.
But faith isn't just "I'll teach them what everyone else learns."
And look, this is basically the whole problem with religious ed in public schools. You’d send your kid to a Catholic class just because everyone else is doing it. Someone else does the same with a different denomination just to fit in. I don't get how you guys don't see the issue here.

Look, YOU—and no other parent for that matter—aren't dragging 19 kids to school. You're only responsible for your own kid (or two, or three...). So technically, it's the exact same deal for you as it is for the parent whose kid isn't taking the class: coordinating an afternoon arrival for any elective. You aren't the majority since you don't have 10 kids in the class. Not all parents in a grade work at the same company, take the same bus, or even live in the same neighborhood. You're acting like an individual. It's pretty embarrassing to preach a faith that's supposed to promote equality, caring for neighbors, and loving your friends while holding these kinds of views.

Are you some religious ed teacher terrified for your job because fewer kids are showing up, and the ones who do are only there because they have to be?
Asking because I don't see any other reason for this kind of talk.

Exactly, most religious ed teachers do cover several schools. Wouldn't it be easier to just bring the kids from the same district to a church and knock out a solid 6-7 hour block? No driving between schools, no sitting in traffic, no 19 miles idling in the car between campuses and home? I don't get it, common sense says that's the easier way.
Even if it wasn't at a church, even if it was at the school during an off-shift like every other elective, wouldn't that still be easier to organize?

Why even bring up Ethics?

1. Yeah, true. I'm one of those people. No one in my house goes to church—honestly, I don't even think they know how to make the Sign of the Cross properly. I went to religious ed because I chose to. I did my First Communion and Confirmation because I wanted to. I stayed in the community by choice. I never told my friends they had to cross themselves before eating, and I never told anyone they were going to hell just because they didn't pray with me. I never spoke ill of anyone at home either.

2. It's not some trend. I don't think we're anywhere near that. There's nothing "trendy" about kids doing religious ed. They go because they just go. Because their friends go. Because the older folks went. They go so they aren't stuck in the hallway, or because their best friend is enrolled. It's easier to just drift with the current than fight it. And then you get the double lessons, the Masses where participation is forced, sacraments that the parents don't even understand...

3. Let me give you a different perspective. I worked on the 2010 Census. I wasn't just crunching numbers behind a desk; I was out door-to-door, actually talking to people. I talked to about 1,100 people. Want to know how people answer questions about religion?
"Write whatever you want." (And since I can't do that, I just write 'declined to state')
"Uh... just put Catholic."
"Just so they don't think we're [Group X]."
"Write whatever everyone else writes."
"Wait, what's the deal with the President?"
I'll be listing their kids (who aren't there) and asking if they want me to include them. Parents will say, "Put Catholic for him too, he doesn't care..." Then the kid pops up at the door (even though I hadn't written anything yet) and says, "Put agnostic."

Honestly, I'm embarrassed by those Catholics, by believers in general. It's embarrassing that they claim to belong to the same community I do.
And no, statistics like that aren't a real reflection of what's happening in the country.

4. As for the "extra Mass," that's for me. My main Mass is the youth Mass held in our parish in the evening. But I want to help these little kids see Mass the way I saw it—the reason why I decided to stay. (I don't have kids of my own). So I show up to the extra 9 AM Mass to project song lyrics on the wall, to help the teachers engage the kids, to help with the music and the new altar servers... You know why so many people show up to that specific Mass (besides the ones who attend for themselves)? Because parents just drop their kids off in the church parking lot and pick them up after.
My parents (people who don't even know how to cross themselves) were at almost every Sunday Mass with me. They didn't get why I cared, but they saw I was interested in something, and they backed me up. Just like they showed up to my soccer games even though they didn't know a single rule of the sport.

That bolded part right there? That’s the whole reason parents sign their kids up for religious ed in the first place. If a parent doesn't see the point of Mass, Sunday school, First Communion, or all those Holy Week services—what's the kid even supposed to get out of religious class? Or the stuff they do at school? Look, if they can't wrap their heads around the logic, fine, they don't have to "get" it... but if they see their kid finding meaning in it, why fight it? Just let them be.
If you're a religious education teacher, I'd love to see some actual stats or even just what parents really think about everything their kids are forced to go through before receiving their sacraments.

I don't have anything to do with religious education in that sense. Nor am I out here spinning yarns about changing bike chains or whatever.
There was some chatter early on regarding whether the students who skip these classes—and have zero connection to the subject—were actually causing issues, and we eventually concluded the main concern was simply student supervision during free periods.

I’ve posted the international treaties that clearly outline the status of religious education and the role of instructors, which should address several of the questions raised here.
As for the number of students attending, those figures are actually quite steady. If enrollment were to drop, there are plenty of ways to make the program more engaging. For now, providing high grades to most participants is sufficient, as it helps boost the overall school GPA.
Across every region in America, there are shrines, historic Catholic Church buildings that serve as cultural landmarks, and monasteries. We could always organize one-day youth retreats, social gatherings, sports events, or cultural tours of monasteries for anyone interested—the kind of stuff regular school curriculum doesn't bother providing. Think of it like little weekend field trips. Do you really think that wouldn't make attending these classes more appealing?
The idea that students in these classes are only there to hang out can pretty much be applied to almost any subject in any school.

James Alvarez2 said:And you're telling me the Church isn't to blame? Like they aren't just playing blind to the fact that there's one elective stuck right in the middle of the daily schedule?
How can the Church claim to promote values that would actually give ALL kids TWO HOURS back in their week, or let the kids who want religion class take it during a different shift?

Hold up, hold up. What about the other electives?
Is it fair to the kids taking Computer Science? Or English? Or extra Math?
Why wouldn't switching shifts work for the religion students?
I get home at 1 PM, grab a snack, knock out some homework, chill for a bit, and then at 4 or 5 PM I head to religion class. I'll go with my buddy from down the street who's in the same boat. We'll walk, hang out, talk about homework...
Where's the actual problem here?
Meanwhile, our friend who isn't in religion might be in Computer Science then. Or English. Or soccer. Or just hanging at the park.

It's not one hour. It's two hours a week. Multiply that by the number of school weeks. If I'm not mistaken—that's 70 school hours.
Someone's kid could have spent those 70 hours sleeping, staring at a wall, knitting, or fixing bike chains with all the neighbors on the block. That's not my business and yours. You chose what you wanted your kid to do for those 70 hours. Why shouldn't another parent have the right to choose for their kid?

You want to hear something even funnier?
Kids—both the ones in class and the ones out of it—wouldn't give a damn if we called the subject Eating Ice Cream Until We Feel Sick or Playing Ball Until It Gets Dark, Even Though Half the Class Can't Even Spell the Letter R... which we don't teach because, well, obviously.
But parents? They’d probably have a massive problem with that.

Look, personally? I wouldn't care.
But I know my own faith inside and out, so nothing else feels like a threat to me.
Actually, my teacher taught me that we all pray to the same God, just in different ways. That other faiths are just more stuff to discover, not some threat you gotta wipe out.

(Sorry mods for the double post, couldn't fit it all in one)

I honestly don't understand how some of you struggle with such straightforward concepts.
There is an established agreement between the Church and the state (and it wasn't just the Catholic Church; other religious groups have signed agreements too).
From that legal framework, specific rights, obligations, and jurisdictions are derived.
The Church has neither the right, nor the obligation, nor the authority regarding students who choose not to attend religious studies. It certainly doesn't have the power to dictate their supervision or their programming during their free periods.

rowdypanther12 said:What do you mean by "THEIR" school plays? It's all the same school, isn't it?

By "their," I'm referring to the school play in Gunston. In that specific district, they offer both Catholic and Islamic religious education classes. As for what the Gunston school play actually looks like, I honestly have no idea—I've never attended one.
P.S. My apologies to everyone, my internet connection is acting up, so posts are duplicating and things like that...

silentraven6 said:Let’s look at it this way, then. How many teachers have actually brought an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest—literally anyone from a different faith tradition—into their classroom just to help students grasp the concept of ecumenism?

Each religious community sets its own curriculum for religious education, which is then approved by the Department of Education.
If you really want to find out how and when ecumenism is covered in the Catholic Church's curriculum, you should get in touch with the local Chancery.
Just like any other teacher, those teaching religion follow a specific, pre-approved lesson plan and syllabus.

silentraven6 said:Let’s look at it this way, then. How many teachers have actually brought an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest—literally anyone from a different faith tradition—into their classroom just to help students grasp the concept of ecumenism?

The religious community sets the curriculum, and then the Department of Education approves it.
I assume you're specifically talking about the Catholic Church's religious education program. If you want to know how they handle the topic of ecumenism or the specific methods they use, your best bet is to reach out to the Archdiocese.
A teacher follows the established curriculum, just like any other teacher in the school system.

rowdypanther12 said:Yeah, obviously.
And I guess you wouldn't mind one bit if kids had to listen to a sermon during their school plays 😁
Sure, sure 😁

In a school in Gunz, they actually teach both Catholic and Islamic studies. I have no idea what their school assemblies look like, though. Why don't you ask around and let me know when you hear something back?😉

Kevin Bennett2 said:The issue here isn't about believers expressing their faith in public; it's about how one specific religion clearly holds an advantage over others, even if the Constitution says otherwise.

If you're going to cite the Constitution, then actually read it:

Article 41.
"All religious communities are equal before the law and separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, colleges, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities."

Schools are state institutions. If this article of the Constitution is interpreted correctly, then religious education in schools should at least be modified—so that teachers of other religions in America get an equal number of hours—or moved to churches entirely.

Has anyone even tried to check the constitutionality of bringing religious instruction into schools (and had the Supreme Court reject it)?

Any religious community that has a contract with the government can organize religious education in school, provided they meet the same standard requirement: there must be at least 7 students in a group. Teachers from any religion with a government contract can teach 2 hours a week, as long as they gather a minimum of 7 participants.
Are you really suggesting that a teacher whose religion has no followers in the school shouldn't be allowed to teach? Who would even attend that class? Is the teacher just supposed to sit there by themselves?

Jason Ortiz5 said:Honestly, I don't even care who she works for. She isn't a teacher, a professor, a psychologist, a principal, or even a janitor. She isn't even a full member of the school staff. She isn't there for the kids; she's there specifically to divide them, separate them, and teach intolerance and hypocrisy... By the way, she isn't even officially on duty; she's just playing "authority figure" in the hallways. It’s already too much how they push certain kids—like the ones in choir, drama, or dance—to participate in everything. They don't even ask if the kids actually *want* to join in on stuff with religious themes... Honestly, it's just classic aggressive behavior from the church and its people in our society... 😢

You're spreading falsehoods, to put it mildly.
Religious instructors are full members, with all the rights and responsibilities, of the teaching faculty in elementary and high schools, or the educator staff in preschool institutions.
http://www.congress.gov/legislation/...
Religious instructors are full members of the teaching faculty just like any other teacher or professor in an American school. There is no difference! There is nothing stopping a religious instructor from becoming a principal or a homeroom teacher. In fact, there are plenty of principals who started out as religious instructors.
As for the rest of that post, which is just filled with hate, I won't even dignify it with a response. I can only feel sorry for a child growing up in such an atmosphere.

wanderingbadger44 said:It’s funny how you’re linking to things that actually prove your point wrong. If you look at what’s linked, it’s crystal clear that religious education is an elective subject with a special status, and according to that agreement, it MUST take place during regular school hours. It MUST.

Then you bring up Section 13, which states that all issues arising from this are negotiated between The Cabinet and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

And then you wrap it up by saying people should just talk to the school about their problems. 🤦

The school didn't sign these Vatican agreements. They were imposed by the state and the Church. To be perfectly precise, the Church imposed them on the state.

And now the Church wants absolutely nothing to do with it—yeah, right. Let the teachers deal with it however they can manage. The Church couldn't care less, and these agreements basically give them a legal hall pass to act like they don't care.

Honestly, you're right from a strictly legal standpoint. But from a moral perspective? It's disgusting.

What exactly is "tripping me up" or "disgusting"?
Religious studies isn't the issue here. The issue lies with the people who want absolutely nothing to do with religious education or the Church.
Who exactly is supposed to solve the supervision issue during free periods?
Not to mention, there haven't been any issues regarding free periods in twenty-five years of religious education, but fine...

Michelle Nelson4 said:Is there actually any proof for that...?

PS, I’m getting some serious "mathematical epiphany" vibes here—kind of like those wild theories you hear on late-night cable news.🍿
Or is it just a tall tale?

I went through the last two or three pages of posts, looking specifically for anyone who mentioned they haven't enrolled their kids in religious education classes or simply don't plan to. My impression is that those people make up the bulk of this specific thread, even though in reality, they're probably a small minority when you look at actual behavior. Maybe my math is off... 😁
If someone tells me they aren't sending their child to religious ed, I take them at their word; I'm not going out looking for proof.

It’s honestly quite funny how the people who never step foot in a church—and don't even bother enrolling their kids in religious education—seem to be the loudest voices complaining about it online. 😕
Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it’s a bit strange to see such intense interest in something they’ve explicitly chosen to opt out of. Still, to each their own; we live in a free country after all. 🙂
Regarding the concerns about supervision during those free periods, neither the Church nor the families enrolled in religious classes have any control over that. If you have complaints about supervision, the Church isn't the authority to contact.
I’d suggest looking at this link if you want the full picture, specifically sections 1.1, 1.4, and 13. You'll find answers to most questions there regarding those attending religious studies. As for the supervision issue during free hours, like I said, please direct those inquiries to the school district instead. 😉

Nancy Kelly31 said:That is a truly insightful perspective on this current topic. Furthermore, one must consider that the individual is a religious studies teacher... which likely means they possess a much deeper understanding of these complexities than any of us here. 🤷

Great read 👍
I’d specifically highlight this part:

And there we have it. Of course, religious education is an eyesore for all those rigid atheists who spend their time rambling online about how believers and their priests should just be wiped out or sent to Alcatraz to perish—the usual kind of bile from people who claim to be so "tolerant."

I’d also add that for everyone who finds religious studies so offensive—especially those spewing such hateful rhetoric—nobody is actually forcing them to participate. Honestly, nobody is even remotely interested in trying to coerce anyone into religion.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Robert Rodriguez9 It’s not about kids doing something else during religious studies; it’s the lack of supervision that’s the issue. We’ve already seen this play out before—some school had students who weren't in religion class practicing math with their teacher instead, and suddenly parents of the religious students were up in arms because they felt their kids were being left behind. All that leaves the other kids with is staring at a wall or wandering off somewhere they shouldn't be.

This isn't right at all. If organized supervision and curriculum have already been arranged for the non-religious students, then the parents of the kids attending religious studies shouldn't be allowed to interfere. This kind of thing simply shouldn't be permitted.

silentraven6 said:It feels like you're trying to burn every single bridge between believers and non-believers, not to mention tearing down the whole idea of equality.

All it takes is one single incident to start a massive outcry, especially since we're talking about kids here—children who have been thrown into this, who can't fight back or defend themselves.

They don't need these divisions. They shouldn't be taught to fear the majority. They deserve to be treated equally within the system, yet having religious studies in school just creates inequality.

Equality doesn't actually exist; what we really have is equality of opportunity...
We aren't all built the same way. Some people are taller, some are heavier, others rock short hair... So what’s the deal with this whole "celebrate diversity" mantra? Or better yet, can we at least try to show some basic respect for it?
When it comes to religious education, everyone should be on equal footing. Every student deserves the freedom to participate or opt out under the exact same terms, without facing any repercussions for their choice.
The majority wants religious education included. The minority has every right to opt out. So, what else is there to discuss? Everyone should be treated equally, but apparently, that equality only counts if it’s defined entirely by the minority's terms. What would happen if someone actually advocated for equality based on the majority model? I'm sure they'd be screaming about discrimination immediately...
I agree completely; having an hour of unstructured, unsupervised time is a massive issue. If we want to actually address this problem, the responsibility lies squarely with the Department of Education...

Michelle Nelson4 said:LOL, oh, I'm the selfish one because I find it unacceptable that my child is officially—and very soon, practically—being ignored by everyone, essentially wasting time at school. But no, it isn't selfish for the people who designed this system to carry it out, right?

If nothing else, I'm glad these debates always end up exposing the hypocrisy. Apparently, the "poor little feet" of children who would need to switch shifts are somehow more important than my children's rights. It’s equality, American style! You really have to be born and raised here, living this specific "American Dream," to truly grasp the depths of the twisted logic used in our little corner of the world just to flatter a hypocritical, narrow-minded, and xenophobic society. 🙂

Anyway, like I mentioned before, the moment a situation arises where kids are left unsupervised, things will escalate. Then we’ll see if religious education really can't be scheduled as either the first or last period of the day. ☕

The fact that a child is unsupervised during a free period is a legitimate issue, and the responsibility lies squarely with the Department of Education or whatever governing agency is in charge.
Religious studies has nothing to do with that. Should the Church be responsible for organizing free periods too?

We're looking at a conflict between one person's extra commute to a different shift for religious studies versus someone else sitting in a school building during a free period. It's not a conflict between someone taking a walk and someone else's life; there's no need for these dramatic posts. Honestly, I'd argue it's more dangerous walking from home to school than sitting inside a building, if only because of the traffic.
And that's where my comment about selfishness comes in, because the solution shouldn't be forced onto the shoulders (or
feet) of other people's children, who aren't responsible for this problem in the first place.
This needs to be addressed with the Department of Education without making life harder for everyone else.

If things escalate, the government will be forced to fix the supervision issues and the curriculum for these free periods. I don't know what could even escalate within a school setting, but in any case, it's better to prevent it...

Susan James said:Selfish? 🥳

That hour is just one small part of a child's day. After school, during the second shift they might be heading to ESL classes, soccer practice, drama club, or just running around at the local park enjoying some fresh air...
Instead, they’re stuck sitting in a quiet classroom, staring at the ceiling, all because someone was too lazy to show up for their preferred subject during the later shift.
Who’s actually being selfish here?

The real issue is that the Department of Education hasn't addressed the gaps regarding free periods, supervision, or what students are actually doing during those hours.
Religious education isn't the culprit here, nor is it the responsibility of anyone attending those classes to fix systemic issues that should be handled by the Department of Education.
Trying to solve the "free period" dilemma by making things harder for those enrolled in religious studies is the wrong way to go about it.