Posts by Jacob Lewis5

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Jacob Lewis5, Maja isn't the only moderator on this board. The rest of us are watching the thread too. If you spot anything that violates the rules, just hit the icon on the left to report it.

(I don't know if I want to, feels a bit too much like being a narc...)
It seems like everyone's got a bone to pick—somebody's feeling insulted, somebody else thinks the mods are slacking, and now everyone is jumping on each other in these threads. We really need to chill with the public call-outs. If something's actually bothering you on a personal level, just use the report button instead of making a scene.

silentraven6 said:Just a Classic Catholic mindset of following the pack... being sheep in the truest sense of the word.

Who’s really to blame if you can't think for yourself?

Just because I’m a moderator doesn't mean I don't have a brain. It’s just that some topics require less mental heavy lifting, making them easier to moderate. Then there are those topics where you actually have to use your head because they matter to you—where you’re trying to change the world through a single post. You have to love Christ, man... love Him deeply, painfully, and steadily for 31 years of life, 13 of which are spent right here posting.

When I was a little girl, and then as I grew up, I never dreamed of becoming a teacher. I dreamed of being a nun.

But Nasrec played a wild card on me, and life turned me into a parent instead.

I truly mean this... it's hard to be this honest without coming across as pathetic or even psychotic, but is there really anything rational about faith?

You really shouldn't even be posting your personal deep thoughts like this. I'm calling you out because you let people get abusive, and all these tangents about brains and sheep and "enlighteners" are just distractions from the actual topic.
You're letting the vibe here turn toxic, allowing the worst kind of insults and turning everything into a personal attack.
It proves that American grammar standards are basically non-existent in colleges nowadays—because all I read in response is that I'm arrogant, that everyone can see my issues, that I'm a fake Christian mentor, a sheep...
You preach a lot, but as a moderator, you're pretty unfair. It reminds me of those shady priests. Now I'm reading gems from people who are clearly in your inner circle, saying they feel "sick" after reading a Naphthalene normal post. Sick? No arguments provided? There wasn't a single thing "sickening" about the post; she just gave her opinion, and your moderation was totally biased...

wanderingbadger44 said:Honestly, I don't really care; what's being quoted here doesn't hold any weight over me. 🥳 I'm not a believer anymore—not after everything. To be fair, people like you and brisknomad13 are a big part of why I walked away.

Look, having a Christian value system isn't mandatory, but having *any* values at all is.
It doesn't matter if you don't believe, but it matters when you start acting smug, accusatory, or just plain provocative... honestly, it's probably better if you aren't a believer anyway. We already have a terrible reputation to protect, and we definitely don't need more bad PR from people like you.

wanderingbadger44 said:Whoever exalts himself will be humbled; (Matt. 23:8)

(...) shepherd the flock of God that has been entrusted to you, watch over it – (...) not as masters over those entrusted to you, but as examples to the flock. (1 Pet 5)

Honestly, please, don't mention it. 🙂

You're acting all high and mighty by judging everyone else and pointing out their sins. Even brisknomad13 tried her best to explain how religious education actually works.

silentraven6 said:Don't sweat it. People have been swallowing bullshit in the name of the Lord over this exact subject for twenty-five years now. Anyone here shouting His name in vain is a hundred times smaller than the person clinging to Him, because at least the one holding on has a real relationship with Him, rather than just some personal moral maxim they've extracted from Him.

You clearly haven't spent enough time digging through philosophical or spiritual literature. I hold my colleagues from the Society of Jesus in extremely high regard; you should try attending a lecture or something to get a better handle on ontological categories. Right now, your posts read like the dismissive sneers of some amateur philosopher who hasn't even cracked a book by Aquinas.

You're preaching a bit too much.

silentraven6 said:Let’s get back to the main point here. We aren't going to sit around debating abortion all day. Everyone needs to realize that a person of faith follows their own set of principles, but those principles don't suddenly apply to everyone else just because they aren't part of that same faith.

Look, you’re free as an American to teach your kids whatever values you want and preach your beliefs at church socials. But you aren't free to force some hypothetical moral code on someone else when we're talking about fundamental worldviews.

If we actually want to teach our kids about tolerance, we have to start by protecting the rights of those who are in the minority.

Forget abortion—let's talk about ego instead and maybe do some soul-searching regarding our own issues. 🙄 You spend a ton of time criticizing everyone else, yet you’re pretty weak at moderating when people similar to you commit actual offenses.

Is there really no other way to teach tolerance?

We need to be fighting against our basest instincts and raw passions, not against being different.

Minorities and outsiders have always been easy targets in every culture and every corner of the map throughout history.
I’ve never heard of a conflict between religious and non-religious kids—sure, it could happen, but the root cause wouldn't be the religion itself. People, seriously, just learn to live with differences, and teach your kids to embrace them.

wanderingbadger44 said:Yeah, I'm saying you can't compare religion class to other subjects because it isn't science or art. Comparing it to them is just pure arrogance. What's your deal, besides all those issues we've already touched on?

Since when did we start comparing religion class to other subjects? You claim that kids learn absolutely nothing in religion class—but I'm pointing out that they don't learn anything in other classes either...
And then, after all that, you heroically pivot to attacking me, calling me arrogant, bringing up my "problems" you think you see, and dragging art and science into it. In the spirit of tolerance, liberalism, and progress, you're just insulting me to avoid a debate you're clearly losing.

wanderingbadger44 said:Mickey Mouse, I think pride has gotten the better of you a bit, leading you to compare a core academic subject to religious studies. Pride is really that first and most difficult sin that serves as the root for all the other mortal sins we face. You should probably do some soul-searching before you head to confession this season. Go in peace. 🙂

So, you claim kids learn absolutely nothing in religion class, then I point out that they don't learn much in other subjects either, and suddenly I'm the one being arrogant?

This is just a personal attack at this point. It's a total dead end.

wanderingbadger44 said:When it comes to religious education in schools, it really boils down to a matter of principle. I can say with total sincerity that kids aren't actually gaining any real substance from these classes. For instance, they were claiming today that the first thing you do on Easter morning is attend Mass—and this was a seventh grader in middle school. 😬 It’s just how they approach all the other topics in the curriculum, too, whether the information is useful or completely off base.

The core issue here is purely one of fairness: it simply isn't right for one subject to be granted such privileged status and special treatment over everything else.

...after spending a grueling 12 years studying American English... there’s clearly way more effort put into language arts than into religion throughout our entire schooling.

If "quality of education" is the metric we're using, then we might as well scrap the entire school system entirely, not just religious studies.

Religion isn't inherently privileged. We spend all our time fighting hate and discrimination at every level, fighting for the right to be different—but the second it involves Christian diversity, this self-proclaimed "tolerant" crowd starts acting up.

I can't believe I'm even saying this, but I really need to vent about how much work it takes just to stay sane lately. It feels like every single thing is getting more complicated, and honestly? I'm exhausted. Sometimes you just gotta step back, grab a coffee, and realize that most of this chaos isn't actually worth your energy. Just my two cents. kaže:

We aren't going to have kids sitting around with empty gaps in their schedules. If there's a demand for it, we’ll open up some new space to get them into something actually useful instead.

Atheism isn't some active thing you "do." It’s just what happens when there's no faith involved. To me, being an atheist simply means I'm not going to buy into something unless there's actual proof to back it up.

We’ve got actual evidence for how the universe started, how life kicked off, and pretty much everything else. Honestly, this is just one more massive reason why we need to double down on science in our schools. Look, you don't need to prove that God doesn't exist just to call yourself an atheist. It's like saying you don't believe in some massive, seven-armed green monster lurking in your backyard—you don't need a mountain of proof to show it *isn't* there to justify not believing in it. The burden of proof is always on the people claiming something exists. In this case, that's the believers, not the atheists.

So you're telling me the Church actually grants them the exact same rights as straight people? Look, they’re just one example. This goes for pretty much any belief system or doctrine that fails to meet basic standards of modern civilization and fundamental human rights.

Look, religious studies—just like any other elective—isn't some mandatory requirement. It’s not like Catholic school classes where they force it on you; it's an option.

-Is it really worth cutting religion classes just because there’s a scheduling conflict? Seems like a massive stretch to me.Look, I totally respect your right to have an opinion like that... but you gotta respect mine when I say your reasoning is absolute garbage.
Look, you’re totally missing the forest for the trees here. You're hyper-focusing on the wrong part of this whole debate. It doesn't really matter if religious studies becomes "mandatory" at some point down the line; what actually matters is that right now, it's an elective in elementary school, and even in high school, it’s just one of those optional choices alongside ethics. The bottom line is that it stays optional. Period. No one is forcing religion on kids, and parents or students can opt out whenever they want. I feel like you aren't giving the full picture—you're kind of twisting things to make them sound more dramatic than they are. The truth isn't that extreme. There is zero coercion happening here.
Look, the burden of proof isn't on the people saying something exists; it’s on the ones making the claims. If atheists want to stand there and insist that God isn't real, or claim they have the origin of the universe and life all figured out, then fine—show me the receipts. If they won't provide actual evidence, then they're really just choosing to believe that life just happened exactly how Dawkins described it. Sure, abiogenesis, the Big Bang, evolution... it's all incredibly cool stuff. But let's be real: nothing is actually settled. It's still packed with massive, unanswered questions. You can't rule out a higher power anywhere in those theories. Honestly, Christian doctrine isn't even weighed down by those scientific debates; it's aiming for something else entirely, something that actually fits right alongside those phenomena.
Atheism is basically just another way of believing in something. Honestly, it doesn't even matter how atheists try to frame their position versus religious folks—what actually counts is the evidence they’re (not) bringing to the table.

I don't have any text from "shtefy" to work with yet! Send over the posts you want me to rewrite, and I'll get to work making them sound like a natural, punchy American voice. kaže:
Look, whether you like it or not, what you wrote hits the nail on the head for a huge chunk of religious folks out there. It’s the truth: there’s this massive push to force everyone else into their specific faith, their beliefs, their way of life, and all their little rituals. Honestly? A lot of them don't give a damn about anyone else. They don't care if they offend people, and they'll gladly spit on someone else's convictions or try to strip parents of the right to raise their kids with their own values. They act like they live by those "Christian" principles, but most of the time, it’s just a performance. They beat their chests and claim those values belong solely to them. You can call it whatever you want, but at the end of the day, it’s just straight-up bullying.

...exactly. It’s all fun and games until those creepy Catholics start prowling the streets looking for kids to prey on.

neontinker5 said:If we look at what you wrote in your previous post, you seem to agree that people don't actually study truth; they simply study what they believe to be true. That isn't the same thing. Truth is what aligns with reality—it simply *is*. It exists independently of whatever anyone happens to believe.

Regarding the maintenance costs for these programs, Nice provided those figures at the top of the page. There is really no need for us to keep repeating how much of that funding could be redirected elsewhere.

From a moral standpoint, the idea of Original Sin—the notion that one inherits moral responsibility for an act they didn't personally commit—is completely foreign to any standard ethical system. And frankly, that isn't even the most bizarre claim being made here.

Look at our modern era and how we handle sexual minorities in the US... actually, let's just leave it at that.

But I won't limit myself to just the negatives. School-based religious education is essentially just a more liberal version of what kids learn in church. This gives them an early opportunity to realize that a text is truly in the eye of the beholder. 😁
Furthermore, students still hone essential skills like reading, writing, and drawing...

But babies don't attend religious ed classes, so you can't exactly claim someone is forcing Original Sin guilt on them!
You seem to think you don't have to explain your reasons for wanting to scrap religious ed, but since stuff has already been said on these boards... I'm not feeling your answer. Let's take it slow—what exactly makes the Church or these classes disrespectful toward gay people?

rowdypanther12 said:Prayer can be pretty useful sometimes—like if you go to early morning services, you might get a free pass to go ice skating in a place like Chicago, for instance.
And honestly, kids raised without religion shouldn't feel left out at all. No one is stopping them from joining in on those early services if they want to, or just paying for a ticket to hit the rink and skate.
It’s not like anyone is banning them from having fun on the ice.
I truly mean that.

Catholic kids get sidelined too if they don't make it to those early services! Why focus only on the atheist kids? They aren't the only ones missing out on the free skating just because they don't attend the morning mass. I don't know how you can even try to justify that logic.

Jason Ortiz5 said:That bit about eating children is just pathetic.

I live in the Midwest. It's not that religious people get on my nerves at work; I was just saying that in the most religious circles, I've seen the absolute worst behavior—bullying, theft, hypocrisy, cheating on spouses, gossip... Honestly, luckily, most of them just do that stuff to each other.

Alright, so believers might be bullies who act selfishly and don't care about anyone else, but they aren't out here eating toddlers... let's not get totally carried away with the insults toward religious people.

If you go down that road, you’d basically have to spit on the entire human race since people are capable of all kinds of terrible stuff.

rustydrifter10 said:But there is still a massive difference. The US guarantees that Catholic religious education will be offered in all public elementary and high schools, as well as preschools, as a mandatory subject for anyone who chooses it, under the exact same conditions as any other required course. They simply don't do that for any other religion or any other elective.

That's just not accurate. Based on the four Vatican agreements, the expenditures from the US are:
* Based on the obligation to provide two gross salaries per parish—around $81666667
* Salaries for religious education teachers in elementary and high schools—around $66666667
* Spending on textbooks—around $7666667 (and keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay for these; the government does, which means all taxpayers do)
* Salaries and textbooks for the seminary in Washington, D.C., and affiliated theologians—around $6133333 (again, these aren't funded by the Church, but by the state)
* Seven institutes operating out of the Washington, D.C. seminary: catechetical, church music, lay theological culture, church history, Mariology, Biblical studies, and ecumenical theology and dialogue—there’s no official data on this, but we can certainly assume it’s a significant sum.
* Military chaplaincy salaries—around $2200000

And none of these figures include:
* Amounts the US and local municipalities provide for building or repairing sacred sites (excluding historical landmarks or military/police pilgrimages...)
* Revenue from over 2,000 legal entities owned by or under the control of the Church
* Income from local government budgets

So, try doing the math again to see how much money the Church actually receives from the government every year, and then compare that total to every other non-profit organization combined.

The Church still comes out on top.

It kills me to see that much cash being spent when, if we were actually cutting budget allocations, those teachers would be the first to lose their jobs—while everything else gets slashed. Christianity is supposed to be about material modesty, right? If we're cutting, we should cut NGOs and bloated bureaucracies too. We need to build an American system based on actual fairness, especially during belt-tightening. The biggest chunk listed here goes to salaries, and that's what worries me most—not because of faith, but because of consumer spending power and GDP impact, and the families relying on those checks. But hey, if everyone's getting cut, then they should be too. Do you actually have the data on what other religious groups or nonprofits are pulling?

silentraven6 said:The author herself just proved me right; I definitely read between the lines correctly.

I didn't quite catch what you meant in that follow-up post.

rustydrifter10 said:But there's no such thing as "atheistic religious studies" because atheism isn't a faith.

That’s just not true, especially when you consider how some religious classes teach that LGBTQ+ individuals are inherently less valuable or that they are sinners simply by virtue of being born that way.

Do you even have a clue what religious education actually entails or what its actual standing is within the public school system? Or do you even grasp what the word "privileged" actually means in this context?

Look, atheism really is a form of belief. There’s no organized atheist religion—it hasn't been institutionalized like that—but at its core, it's still a belief system. To actually "know" things, we need proof regarding the (non)existence of God, how the universe started, life itself, consciousness... it's all huge question marks. For believers and atheists alike, there's a massive pile of unknowns. Worst of all, just because there's no evidence for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. We have to accept that where knowledge ends, faith begins.
I think you know perfectly well that they don't teach that gay people are worth less. The Church isn't even that preoccupied with them. There are maybe a few lines in a catechism that align with scientific findings on the subject, but there's no hatred. Minorities and outliers have always been targets throughout history, and they are today too—we can't blame the Church for violent behavior that has happened everywhere throughout human history. You mentioned earlier that religious studies is mandatory, but you should probably note that it's also an elective. Other denominations offer classes if enough students show interest, so how can we claim Catholicism has a monopoly on privilege?

neontinker5 said:Are you looking for an answer based on objective truth, public finance, morality, or perhaps how it affects specific social groups? 😁

All of the above!

Jason Ortiz5 said:Is there even an answer that would actually satisfy religious folks? It feels like you guys just see things through your own lens—putting yourselves first, acting like you're the only ones with a say, or that you're always right... it just keeps going like that.

I heard some people say religious folks sneak around in the dark to eat toddlers, too. (Seriously though, if you wrote that many negative stereotypes about any other group besides Christians, you’d be getting flagged for hate speech immediately.)
I gotta ask a personal question: You say religious people at work drive you crazy, yet you claim you get along fine when you're alone with them. Then you mention your daughter getting picked on by the "good kids" at school, and you're constantly posting about them... honestly, where do you live? Some tiny town in Boise? Or maybe Spokane? Something clearly triggered some deep-seated resentment in you. If even 10% of what you're saying is true, then please, accept my apologies on behalf of all believers.

Seriously though: What’s the actual payoff if we finally pull religious studies out of the public schools? everyone wins, right? ...yeah, that's a pretty lazy answer.

boldnomad45 said:The majority included the Nazis once, too. That’s the reality of "the majority." We need less indoctrination and more computer science, hard science, civic education, and financial literacy. Those who get it, get it.

Man, I was just waiting for someone to bring up Nazism. That Hitler guy had massive amounts of knowledge, and under his rule, there were huge leaps in tech, science, and the economy... which just goes to show that raw intelligence doesn't mean squat if the people using it have zero moral backbone. (Seriously, look at any major war—they're always led by the most advanced nations.)

neontinker5 said:Are you aware that students who struggle with certain subjects often attend supplemental tutoring for exactly one hour a week just to keep up? (And in most cases, that extra help works wonders for their grades). I personally dislike the very notion of taxpayer money being funneled toward religious instructors, but if we were to draft a proposal, it might look like this: parents could choose between sending their child to religion class for two hours a week or opting for one hour of English and one hour of Math. I can guarantee that the number of students enrolled in religion classes would plummet within two years, once those students begin falling behind the other group in terms of knowledge and grades. Even devout parents would eventually rationalize the choice by prioritizing their children's practical success over religious instruction.

Observing how religion classes morally elevate students compared to those who do not attend, I conclude that those students wouldn't lose much in that department. That is merely my impression.

You realize tutoring works because the groups are smaller, right? It's a personalized approach to specific problems. Religion class isn't tutoring. Just give us smaller class sizes where teachers can actually focus on individual students and their struggles—then nobody will even need tutoring. Tutoring that just gathers the whole class again for a "special" math hour is basically just regular school with a different name; it won't change anything. Kids need guidance, they need values, and they need to be taught how to actually use their brains. There are tons of reforms we need, but I don't see why cutting religion classes is the answer.

😕😕😕

Nobody else even brought that up, but honestly— you’ve got a point : how on earth did you manage to misread or twist something like that? Why are you working so hard to make people who disagree with you look way worse than they actually are?

Your whole post basically boils down to this: a totally unfair explanation that misses the entire point, some pointless venting, and just straight-up trolling.

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly out of line for atheists or folks from other denominations to be nitpicking the way we handle spiritual education within Catholic religious studies.

Religion and ethics—they’re basically just the foundation for ensuring equality for all children. But if you don't approach it through the lens of proper catechesis, rather than just some surface-level theology classes, most people would end up with nothing to show for it.

It’s pretty shameful to see this kind of demagoguery being used against a single lesson in the 21st century... though, I suppose it's even more embarrassing because it was my own lesson.

Why though?
We aren't telling them they have to adopt our value system; we're just asking them to respect someone else's differences.

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly out of line for atheists or folks from other denominations to be nitpicking the way we handle spiritual education within Catholic religious studies.

Religion and ethics—they’re basically just the foundation for ensuring equality for all children. But if you don't approach it through the lens of proper catechesis, rather than just some surface-level theology classes, most people would end up with nothing to show for it.

It’s pretty shameful to see this kind of demagoguery being used against a single lesson in the 21st century... though, I suppose it's even more embarrassing because it was my own lesson.

What part is demagoguery? What's the "shameful" bit exactly?

I didn't quite catch what you mean—but when you bring up demagoguery, I think there's nothing more manipulative than all this hysterics about privilege, or claims that one group is trampling over another. All this playing the victim and demonizing religious education... meanwhile, the curriculum itself focuses on Moses, Jesus, and Mary... and then moves into love and friendship in later grades. Honestly, I think there's plenty of demagoguery in those "equal" testimonies too—everyone seems to know some cousin or neighbor whose kid goes to that specific school where they scheduled religion right in the middle of the day. Nobody actually names the school or the schedule—because if they did, maybe something could actually be fixed. Instead, everyone just relies on hearsay.

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, is that even a real argument? Is it?
Think about it—if you write the exact same essay during an English period and then again during a religion class, you aren't gaining the same kind of knowledge, nor are you being graded on the same criteria... if you're writing a > during English class, the teacher is looking at your grammar and spelling... but in religion class, they're mostly just checking to see how much of a good person you are, right?

http://example-us-school-district.edu/student-work?news_id=419

http://www.us-news-outlet.com/2013/12/letter-to-santa-claus-makes-you-want-to-cry/

The reality is, in American schools, you're mostly graded on how much you've memorized, how well you respect authority, and how ready you are to regurgitate what was taught earlier... there's almost no grading based on "humanity." You don't necessarily have to learn spiritual values through religious ed, but it's certainly not a problem if the class does it that way.