Posts by Jacob Lewis5

I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

Jason Ortiz5 said:The only way you could even compare job competition here is if someone was actually getting passed over because of their religious beliefs. And that just isn't happening. Everything else is just cheap political theater.

So, let me get this straight... now teaching religion in schools is being framed as a public safety issue for kids on the road? :hvatasezaglavu: Good grief, what more are we supposed to sit back and ignore? (Honestly, this whole list of "reasons" is such a joke, it’s almost not even worth a response...)

Please quote the specific part you’re responding to—don't go twisting my words into something they aren't. I honestly can't tell what you're even talking about.

Look, when you're applying for a job, you have to meet certain qualifications. If you want to teach religion in public schools, you need to meet specific requirements. My point is that meeting those standards and rules is the connection I'm making. Everyone who meets the exact same criteria should be treated equally. That's what equality means. It doesn't mean handing everything out to everyone regardless of merit. We clearly aren't on the same page; you're nitpicking things I didn't even say.

Jerry Anderson87 said:http://www.foxnews.com/us-news/religious-education-debate
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/religion-in-schools
http://www.wsj.com/articles/faith-based-learning-impact

Are we actually seeing any real impact from religious education in schools?...

Look, you're basically just reposting one single news story from three different outlets. The people behind this study are actually from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I mean, a crew whose whole mission is pushing atheism is obviously going to get these kinds of results when they go poking around conservative communities. It was all debunked a few days later anyway. Misrepresentation, hiding the full truth, cherry-picking data... honestly, where did these researchers—and the media outlets that blindly swallowed the story—even learn those dirty tricks?

Jason Ortiz5 said:The rules aren't equal for everyone, though. They'd only be "equal" if little kids from religious families spent two hours a week wandering the hallways while kids from non-religious families sat through an hour of lessons on why God isn't real or why faith is pointless—all wrapped up in this condescending tone that makes believers feel second-class. But atheists don't want that. Atheists just want schools to stay places where we teach scientifically proven facts. Personal beliefs? Those belong in their own space.

Keeping religious ed in our public schools actually hurts human rights—specifically children's rights and basic values. Who loses? Everyone who is tolerant, reasonable, and civilized. People who believe in respecting others rather than forcing their views on everyone else. You said it yourself: believers lose nothing by keeping their religious studies in the church. So, if that's the case, what's the point of having it in schools other than just imposing it on people?

This is total nonsense. By that logic, every job interview, government contract, college entrance exam, or corporate hiring process is basically fascism and discrimination because we don't just hand out jobs or university spots to everybody—we pick people who actually meet the qualifications.

Equality means giving everyone the same rights and equal standing under the law. It doesn't mean handing everything to everyone right this second. If enough students sign up for an atheist philosophy elective, they'll get that option, just like any other religious group gets their choice. Religion classes teach about faith and values; they don't teach anything "wrong" or "bad."

Jason Ortiz5 said:The rules aren't equal for everyone, though. They'd only be "equal" if little kids from religious families spent two hours a week wandering the hallways while kids from non-religious families sat through an hour of lessons on why God isn't real or why faith is pointless—all wrapped up in this condescending tone that makes believers feel second-class. But atheists don't want that. Atheists just want schools to stay places where we teach scientifically proven facts. Personal beliefs? Those belong in their own space.

Keeping religious ed in our public schools actually hurts human rights—specifically children's rights and basic values. Who loses? Everyone who is tolerant, reasonable, and civilized. People who believe in respecting others rather than forcing their views on everyone else. You said it yourself: believers lose nothing by keeping their religious studies in the church. So, if that's the case, what's the point of having it in schools other than just imposing it on people?

Repeating a lie a thousand times doesn't make it true. Religious studies isn't being forced on anyone. Reasonable, tolerant, good-hearted people don't care about having it as an elective. People who actually teach their kids to embrace diversity, accept differences, and live peacefully with others won't have an issue with a religion class, whether it's for atheists or believers. It's just the people full of prejudice and zero arguments who keep trying to force their narrow views on the vast majority of Americans.

Jason Ortiz5 said:Equality doesn't mean everyone has to be identical. It means everyone gets the same treatment and the same rights, without one group being elevated over another (and let's not go down the rabbit hole of debating minority rule over the majority again).

I would love to get one single, meaningful, logical, and well-reasoned answer: what exactly do religious parents lose in their children's upbringing if religious education moved back into the churches? And please, don't just say "convenience." ☕

I honestly don't get it. I don't see any "dominance," any special privileges, or anyone getting a leg up at someone else's expense. What's this talk about different rights or better treatment? If the rules are actually the same for everyone and nobody is being forced into anything, then there’s no issue here. Period.

Look, believers aren't losing a thing by keeping religious education in schools. I’m a regular at my local church myself, and honestly, what's the harm?
So, here’s my take on this one: Who would actually lose out if religious education stays in public schools? Honestly, I think the biggest loser would be the students themselves. It’s not even about whether you believe in God or not—it’s about the conversation. If we strip that out, we’re basically cutting out a massive chunk of history, art, and culture that shaped how people think and act. You can't really understand Western civilization without understanding the stuff that drove it. I remember back in high school, even though my family wasn't exactly "church-going," those classes gave us a window into why certain traditions exist and how they influence everything from politics to literature. Without it, school starts feeling a bit more like a sterile factory and less like a place where you actually learn how the world works. It’s a loss for critical thinking, too. Being able to engage with different belief systems—even just academically—helps kids develop some perspective. Take it away, and you're just narrowing the scope of what they're allowed to ponder. To me, that feels like a step backward for a well-rounded education.

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.

I think we've finally hit the core issue here—what we actually mean when we say "equality."
Are you seriously suggesting we achieve equality by just erasing or hiding away... every single difference?

Look, working out or praying isn't "hidden" just because it happens at a fitness center or a church. But the real question is: why limit those things strictly to those specific places? I don't get it. Who is religion or exercise actually bothering in a public space if it’s done respectfully and in moderation, especially if nobody's getting offended?

Susan James said:Most of our holidays are really just excuses to get a day off work.
I mean, what are we actually celebrating on December 26th? Is it just a day to celebrate gift receipts?
And what about the Fourth of July? Usually, it’s just a reason to head to the coast and combine it with a long weekend to clean up the beach house.

Regarding school assemblies, I’m not really a fan of them at all—they always feel a bit tacky to me. Back when my kids were in preschool, we didn't do any of that.🙏 🙏 🙏

A school could easily organize an event for "School Spirit Day," which they pick themselves, maybe based on the school's name or some local history that isn't tied to religion or war.
They could also celebrate Teacher Appreciation Day, which is also secular.
Or they could highlight student competitions and achievements, provided those successes aren't tied to anyone's faith or their family's service during the American Civil War.
I’d actually love it if schools celebrated Labor Day properly too.

For all those kinds of events, you don't need Jesus to show up and bless the teachers' hard work or the students' success. Those things depend on skill, motivation, and effort, not faith.
Setting up a Nativity scene, acting out the birth of Jesus, or doing a Three Kings procession... that isn't really something a school should be putting on for an audience. I think those things are perfectly suited for churches and family gatherings.

Decorating trees or dyeing Easter eggs isn't strictly a religious requirement, either.
But I suppose most practicing Catholics know that.🥳

Personally, I think it's fine if a school puts up some lights or lets kids do crafts to help develop their fine motor skills and teamwork. We want school to be more than just endless memorization and misery.
And all of that can happen without having children blessed inside the school building.
While I personally find blessings to be quite lovely and appreciate that expression of faith, I just don't think the school setting is the right place for it.

That sentence is highly indicative.

decorating trees and dyeing eggs isn't exactly a Christian tradition.
but I guess the Catholics in the room know all about that. 🥳

Fun fact: atheists actually picked up those customs from the ancient Germans and their deep cultural roots in Western civilization.
😁

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?

The government (the community) exists to serve its people, not the other way around. There's no such thing as a "state culture" that requires anyone to sacrifice themselves for the sake of the nation. We should be free to organize our society however we see fit. I don't see any reason why anyone should have to hide who they are from their community. If there's actually a huge interest in Catholic/Islamic/Orthodox religious studies, then I don't get why that wouldn't just be handled through an elective class for an hour a week.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:I’d suggest you actually read through this thread—maybe even scroll back a few pages—so you can wrap your head around why anyone would actually oppose religious education in schools.

Yeah, I really am.

Our school system is already struggling with basic character building—there’s zero focus on spiritual values or teaching kids how to actually respect diversity. Honestly, I think if we just gave in to the demands to scrap religious education entirely, we'd be making a huge mistake. Most people pushing for that are just motivated by nothing but old-school prejudices against the Church anyway.

Jason Ortiz5 said:I live in a super religious area. My boss at work is constantly scattering crucifixes and holy pictures everywhere; she and the other managers won't stop talking about God, the church, and holiness... I sit right next to two women in my office who are incredibly intense about their faith. And yet, for all that "holiness" and devotion, I haven't seen a single ounce of actual tolerance or basic human decency from them.

I already dropped my take on people like this on this thread at 11:55.
Here's the deal: I have a cousin who is clearly a believer—rosary, religious bracelets, you see her at church all the time—but she mostly just kept her head down at her job because she works in a super liberal environment. There was this one colleague, totally radical, who used to look right at her and say stuff like he wanted to break the bones of anyone voting for traditional marriage. It’s a joke. Your own side is just as infected by this stupidity; I've personally witnessed how intolerant people on your side can be, too.

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.

Christianity is all about being tolerant toward people who are different. Being intolerant is actually anti-Christian. Most of the intolerance you see associated with Christianity comes from people who don't even step foot in a church. We can pull religious ed from schools or slash government funding to the Church for all I care... I’m not worried about Christianity itself, but it bugs me when people push their own prejudices against Christians as a reason to strip the Church of its role in society. I actually appreciate having a strong religious institution in our community, unlike some of you folks who let people fill your heads with this nonsense. You guys are seriously stressing me out.

slybison88 said:I’ve actually been avoiding your posts lately because I can see how hardcore you are about Christianity, and honestly, I wasn't asking for religious advice, nor am I really interested in that perspective.

But look, I’ve got an argument.
Do you seriously believe the Holy Spirit impregnated the Virgin Mary? Like, you think that’s actually possible?
And that Moses split the ocean right in half... c'mon now.
I'm just not buying it.

edit: And before anyone starts, I’m not looking to get into a whole debate about whether I’m a believer or not. I’ve already made up my mind on that.

My point was strictly about those Christian songs they play in preschools and elementary schools.

What makes you think I'm some fanatic? Just because I think religious studies belong in school? You're labeling and basically bullying me just because we don't see eye-to-eye. Most people would call that kind of behavior low-key fascist. And newsflash: you don't have to take the Old Testament literally (sorry, but you can't really bash Christianity when you clearly haven't grasped the basics). Those Old Testament stories aren't the whole faith; they're symbolic, meant to carry a message. They're everywhere. The heart of Christianity is Jesus's philosophy. Yeah, I believe in the resurrection too, but it all comes down to faith—there isn't "proof" for faith (and being emotional doesn't count as proof, unfortunately). There are logical arguments, sure, but they won't explain everything. The real focus of the faith isn't some dense theology; it's Jesus's core message, which is pretty hard to find fault with.

slybison88 said:I grew up in the Catholic faith and I know it well, but I have no intention of teaching my child those things. I took religious ed and I've had all the sacraments, which is exactly why I don't want my kid believing in that stuff.

And I'm definitely not forcing Christmas two months early; I don't even have decorations up right now.
I might put up a tree just for the atmosphere. If I want it for the vibes, then that's that! I've got nothing against snowmen, ornaments, reindeer, or Santa Claus... I don't want to live in a bubble.
But I'm not teaching my kid about the Virgin Mary or Jesus.

If they want to choose for themselves one day, let them.

As an American, I should probably be offended since you're calling something I hold dear "nonsense." But hey, at least you're being honest. Personally, I think atheism is just as nonsensical as Christianity—honestly, it takes more faith to be an atheist—but I bite my tongue because of political correctness. Anyway, that's not really the point. I'm responding because I wanted to call out your reasoning for ditching religious education—you're basing it on it being "stupid"! That's weak. Seriously, come on, can you find a better argument than that?

slybison88 said:I honestly don't mind Santa Claus at all! 😁 I mean, let's be real—that's not even a religious thing! 😬

I honestly don't get it—what on earth does talking about love have to do with Moses?
Honestly, you don't even need Moses to have a deep conversation about friendship and love!
You could even draw parallels from classic friendships, like Mickey and Minnie, or Winnie the Pooh and his buddy Eeyore... things like that!

Look, the link is the Bible; that's where love and Moses meet. Some folks find their answers in the Old Testament, others in the New—basically sticking to the core ideology of Christianity—but it all traces back to the Bible and religious studies. It's tough to find things like love and friendship in our public school system, even though they really should be at the heart of everything we teach. Parents ought to be the ones teaching their kids about spiritual values through faith, rather than relying on scripts from Walt Disney.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Nobody is trying to stop them. They can listen to him at church just like they did back in the '90s.

Look, diversity is actually a good thing. We just need to learn how to coexist with it. You aren't going to "win" against diversity by trying to sterilize public or government spaces. If we start purging our own Christian identity from the public square, then we might as well just kick every other kind of difference out too. Right?

Kudos to the atheists if they actually pull off forcing their worldview on everyone else and blocking 85% of kids from taking religion classes. Honestly, learning about Moses and having actual conversations about love and friendship is way more important in school than just mindlessly memorizing facts without understanding a thing, which is how most other subjects go anyway.

Rebecca Roberts3 said:I am unsure what Scholl is reading, but he either fails to grasp the content or chooses to misinterpret it with malicious intent.

Scholl agrees that "no sane person denies ecological issues," yet he immediately aligns himself with the irrational by branding environmental protection as a "dangerous new ideology," "esotericism, mythomania, and misanthropy," and a "global leftist mutation." Either Scholl is ignorant or he is intentionally ignoring conservative environmental schools and organizations. He feels the need to "explain" to the average American reader that the "leftists" are responsible for all evil. It is as if he would prefer we all perish in a poisoned wasteland rather than concede any ground to the left.

It is quite a spectacle. One is expected to ignore the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below those of animals—especially since access to water is no longer treated as a fundamental right (while factory chickens are guaranteed minimum living space, displaced workers have nothing).

By the way, to be fair, the initiative to protect monkeys predates the Great Recession and the subsequent surge in unemployment.

Well, obviously you're gonna be against him if you didn't actually catch what he said. He never claimed conservation was a dangerous ideology. What you're doing is like if Scholl brought up cases where criminals used humanitarian charities as a front for child trafficking or terrorism—you can't turn around and blame him for being "rude" for pointing out the truth about bad actors.

Quincy:

Just imagine. You aren't bothered by the fact that globally, human rights are being downgraded below animal rights, especially since access to water isn't even treated as a basic human right anymore (I mean, factory chickens get guaranteed floor space while displaced people have absolutely nothing).

How do you know I'm not bothered? Why are you even bringing this stuff up in this thread? You totally missed my point...

ruggedscout98 said:Am I offending someone by calling them a clerical right-winger?

You brought up radical Liberals on page three of this thread... but in your very first post, you lumped Liberals in with radical leftists... to me, that's just basic ignorance. Though, honestly, my apologies if I offended you.

...as for wars, do I really need to list every single conflict fought over territorial expansion, religious differences, or ideological divides? That's why wars happen. For cheese? Sure, wars are fought over cheese too, but even then, it boils down to ideology—one side thinks the cheese stinks, the other thinks it smells great.

I actually brought up radical Liberals in the very first sentence of my opening post.
Don't worry about apologizing, I was just messing with you.
There aren't any wars fought for the reasons I listed—starting with the Crusader States, which were sparked by plagues, difficult trade routes through North Africa, or just the rich wanting to grab more land. Nothing exists that is inherently "bad." Religion, ideas, nations, smartphones, the internet, cars—none of it is good or bad on its own. We can make all of those things great or turn them into poison, but as far as I'm concerned, every single human invention is totally neutral.

ruggedscout98 said:That is a fundamental misunderstanding of political science and social movements... Joe Biden can claim to be a liberal all he wants, but his actual actions completely contradict him... if we're talking about true liberals, even Rod Blagojevich fit the bill better... it's just a matter of the centrist voters deciding the outcome (I mentioned this in another thread), which is why both Rod Blagojevich and Joe Biden tried to carve out space in that center. Joe Biden failed, Rod Blagojevich was slightly more successful, whereas someone like Bill Clinton actually pulled it off relatively well... in America, the Election Commission usually hands the win to whichever party manages to swallow the liberals more effectively.

Man, you think everyone else is just politically illiterate? Get real. There’s economic liberalism, social liberalism, bioethical stuff... there's layers to this. Blagojevich was a straight-up conservative, while Biden claims to be a liberal by declaration and acts like one socially. (By the way, since you were acting so high and mighty with those little smiley faces earlier, maybe you could tell me which specific wars were fought over those issues? You claimed the opposite, so I'm waiting.)

ruggedscout98 said:Right, so we went from "liberals" straight to "radical liberals"... what does that even mean? Left? Right? What's the actual foundation of this "radical liberalism"? Who even coined the term?... Let me give you a quick answer to those questions: "radical liberals" don't actually exist. It's just an insulting, manufactured label mostly used by the religious right.

And is "religious right" supposed to be an insult?
So what, are conservatives claiming everyone is equal now?
Just to be clear, I haven't changed my stance on radical liberals at all during this debate.

ruggedscout98 said:There you go again with the liberals... speciation isn't about liberals, it's about radicals...

...and saying not a single war was fought over nation, religion, or ideas is 🤣

So you think radical liberals are just the next step in the long history of liberalization?
No war fought over those things has ever happened like this before...