Posts by Jason Ortiz5

Maria Fowler39 said:They weren't even attacking you personally, just your OP on the forum, and man, they really went for the throat there.

Oh, please. So, does moderation only apply when someone disagrees with an opinion, rather than actually policing insults and stuff? Good to know.

Because when I shared a very specific take on the school system—which wasn't even aimed at any particular moderator, specifically you—you basically gave me the cold shoulder and handed out warnings for every single post. Then later, you were sliding into my DMs acting all sweet, like, "I can't believe it, things are different with you, honey, etc." It was such a trip.

By the way, does this mean I'm allowed to talk to people using that kind of language too, or are mods just exempt from being polite?

Is this really how a moderator is allowed to talk to people? Seriously, major props to whoever decided this guy belongs in charge here. I’ve been slapped with warnings and even full bans for way less than this, which honestly makes most of us just bite our tongues to stay out of trouble. But apparently, a moderator can just act like he's running a dive bar in the middle of nowhere?

Just get him out of here... Ugh...

It’s more than just that, though. People are straight-up being insulting now on a regular basis.

A handful of handles—probably just clones, if you ask me—are acting like total jerks at a dive bar, and even some folks who used to be decent have lost all their manners once they realized they could get away with it.

Self-censorship is totally fine as long as the mods stay neutral and actually do their job checking the posts.

Lately, I’ve been getting insulted so many different ways that I honestly feel like a doormat. And man, when I think about all the ridiculous nonsense I've had to swallow just to keep things chill... I probably would've ended up getting banned too if I'd actually fired back at some of these trolls right now...

Susan James said:Right, viruses don't spread through Sunday school. And they certainly don't spread through church services or holiday celebrations either.

In this specific situation with the scheduling overlap, I’m actually feeling pretty frustrated with the parents and students in those religious classes. It feels like they should be speaking up about how some other kids basically popped their bubble.🤔

By the way, why isn't the idea of teaching ethics at the exact same time as religious ed? Otherwise, what's really the point of having an extra subject at all?

Wait, didn't they say all elective courses are moving online? Except, of course, for the untouchable religion classes.

Actually, this setup kind of works out fine. Religion is the last period, so the kids just head straight home and can spend their evening catching up on some Zoom.

Sarah Hall53 said:Wait, so can they just mix people together for religion class? 😂
A friend of mine is dealing with this mess where they're grouping fifteen kids together for German class—including just ONE student from a different section who takes German—and because of that one kid, the entire group has to jump online instead of being in person. It’s wild. Cheers.

See, I totally missed that part. But hey, it is religious education. They probably have some kind of special oversight from the higher-ups for stuff like that... 😉

In my class, we've got 20 kids heading to ethics and just 4 going to religion. Honestly, it doesn't matter much—ethics is being held online in the evenings, while the religion class stays on the regular daytime schedule.

I mean, at least those four had the decency to be tucked into another religion class. It’d actually be pretty great if their teacher could get a full course load out of it, kind of like how a physics or math professor gets a decent schedule working with a group of 24...

rowdyjackal56 said:Him? Honestly, what an absolute chauvinist.😁

John Doe! 😬

Nancy Kelly31 said:It truly warms my heart to see that there are still people out there who understand that sheer intelligence isn't everything; one must also nurture a student's growth in other vital areas... specifically within their social, artistic, and spiritual development... It simply isn't all about intellectual capacity. It really isn't. And for those children growing up in households that might not have the means to enroll them in elite music academies, competitive sports leagues, or even local youth community programs—school still serves as the fundamental bedrock for everything. A little bit of everything. Both in terms of character building and academic instruction. Thank God for that.

I'm with you on the social and artistic stuff, but spirituality? That doesn't belong in a public school building. Spirituality is deeply personal—it belongs in someone's own private life, not a classroom.

Intelligence isn't everything. It really isn't. Even for kids coming from families that can't afford music lessons, elite sports clubs, or church youth programs—school still provides the foundation for everything. A little bit of everything. It's about character and education combined.

Music school, sports leagues, and church volunteers all in one sentence. That's hilarious.

School is primarily an educational institution. Even "character-building" subjects like art or music have a core academic component where kids learn about art history, how instruments work, specific techniques... Religion class is the only subject where the direct goal feels like ideological indoctrination.

Thank God for that.

That's not really what this is about. We can just thank the idiots who signed the Concordat.

Daniel Chase13 said:I’ll say it again—based on my conversations with several different teachers—math might still have one period too many, but honestly, the actual number of hours isn't even the biggest issue here. The real headache is how packed the curriculum is; it's just way too much material for most kids to digest properly.

Then you have principals and parents unfairly blaming the teachers, claiming they aren't "reaching" the students. I mean, how are they supposed to succeed when they're being crushed under the weight of a syllabus designed this way?

A good chunk of what kids are expected to learn in math today really should be pushed back by at least a year. Instead of this frantic race to cover everything, we ought to focus on building a rock-solid foundation for those advanced topics later on. For instance, some of the stuff taught in fifth grade really belongs in sixth grade—we should trim the volume of topics and make sure they actually stick.

As for that small group of high achievers who need more, we can always provide extra challenge problems or supplemental advanced sessions to keep them engaged.

Oh, absolutely. Kids are just clueless. Who needs math in the real world anyway? They won't get why it matters regardless. As long as they can say three Hail Marys in a row, they'll be just fine for the rest of their lives.

Susan James said:Let's not get carried away.
Why should we cram kids' schedules full when other students are praying or learning about mythology? Plus, why pay for extra classes just to keep kids entertained while others genuinely need space for religious expression?
Just let them sleep or go play outside! Honestly, I don't think everyone would be interested in extra lessons anyway.

By the way, I almost forgot—during something like a pandemic situation, religion class could easily be moved to a zero period for certain grades. Having two or maybe three religion teachers at a school could cover about 10 to 15 different classrooms.
If they can schedule extra math for 7:00 AM, why not religion? Especially since some important services (for true believers) start at 7:00 AM too.

Look, my daughter used to take French back in the day, until their teacher left. She didn't find it stressful at all; she actually treated it like a fun hobby. She loved the small group setting because the teacher actually had time to explain things properly and answer questions...

But hey, my kid is a total overachiever. A straight-A student through and through. She isn't exactly the "chill" type.

Daniel Chase13 said:😁

I don't think so—mostly because we already have plenty of alternatives available in high schools. In fact, about 82% of students in American high schools choose religious studies as their elective, while only 18% opt for an Ethics course instead.

So, if you look at what's actually happening on the ground, there isn't really any fear surrounding religious education in our schools. Honestly, I’m all for introducing more diverse elective options.

Ethics isn't really a subject; it’s just a necessary evil.

If they actually tried offering something useful and high-quality—like advanced math, chemistry, physics, or French—then we'd see some real interest.

Joseph Sanchez10 said:After eight years of kids going to religious studies in elementary school just because "that's what everyone does," or "I don't want them to be different," or "I don't want my kid unsupervised"...
it's kind of weird, I guess

Does anyone know if there's a way to check the average final grades by high school class for both religion and ethics courses? 😬

Even asking that feels kind of ridiculous, since teachers are allowed to teach both anyway. It's enough to make your head spin.

Matthew Kim88 said:If we're talking about something like a Christmas pageant, why is it such a big deal if there's religious content in it?
If your kid was happy participating in the play, why did you stop her?

The thing is, it was never actually a Christmas pageant—it was just a mid-year school assembly. And by the way, every single student was forced to attend. If the whole school has to be there, regardless of faith, then why force all that religious content on everyone?

I didn't take anything away from her. What happened was she got kicked out of the group by people who wouldn't even let her participate in parts that had nothing to do with Jesus Christ. I never told her she couldn't dance, or sing, or recite poetry...

Luckily, she hasn't let it get to her for a while now. She caught on pretty quick.

Joseph Sanchez10 said:I honestly wonder how many kids would actually show up for religion class if it was just another elective offered during the afternoon shift instead of the morning one.
Or, you know, if getting access to sacraments wasn't tied directly to whether they sat through those classes.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard parents say, "Ugh, let them just power through this year since they need their First Communion... once that's out of the way, we're done."

Like, imagine if they organized some really solid alternatives instead—you know, maybe a foreign language course, advanced math, or something actually useful.

Susan James said:Hey everyone, let's dive into some deeper discussions and philosophical dilemmas here, but please save the heavy religious and political debates for those specific subreddits.
Since we're on Reddit, let's keep it focused on the student experience—specifically regarding religious education classes. I’m curious about how this affects you or your kids at school. Whether it’s the teachers, the other staff, the students themselves, or the parents, I want to hear the good and the bad from both the kids taking the class and those who opt out.
I’m open to all kinds of stories, but honestly, amidst all the endless debates about the Vatican or money in the North America, the practical questions often get lost. I want to talk about things like scheduling first and last periods, study halls, parental consent forms, and how students are treated in school depending on whether they attend these classes or not.

And speaking of current events, check this out:

If classrooms aren't supposed to be mixed, and if these specialized subjects are held right in the middle of the school day, where are the students who don't participate supposed to go? Unless they just skip the first and last periods entirely?

Whether this fits here or not, the way religious instructors are hired and how irresponsible they can be toward principals really bugs me.

We had a situation once where a very "pious" instructor teaching religion would punish kids running in the halls by banning them from going to snack time. Since she didn't target my little girl, there wasn't much I could do, but it was such a dirty move to deny a kid a meal that, by the way, parents are paying for. Only two or three parents complained, and even then, it was pretty weak because they cared more about keeping good relations for the sake of grades. That instructor only left once they found her a "proper" replacement.

On top of that, school assemblies have turned into religious services. Half the content—choirs, short plays, essays, whatever—mentions Isis, deities, angels... My daughter used to love participating in school events, but since I forbade her from being involved in anything religious, her teacher just stopped letting her participate in anything at all.

I've already posted about kids being stuck hiding in the bathrooms during religion class. They got kicked out of the library because it was small and needed space for the younger grades. Then the principal chased them off the hallway because "there's a draft, they'll catch a cold." They couldn't go to Van because leaving campus during class is banned, the cafeteria was closed, and they weren't allowed in the locker rooms either. So, they were just left to spend 45 minutes enjoying a smelly restroom.

My girl is in high school now, but there's no way I'd let her sit in a classroom during religion class. There's always an alternative, and I truly believe the health guidelines and the SEC mandates are just convenient excuses for some principals to get rid of non-religious kids the easiest way possible.

rowdypanther12 said:So, are they basically teaching them things that contradict what's actually in the textbooks?

I mean, can you even imagine?

Nobody ever picked on my daughter for skipping religion class, but man, she definitely heard some weird stuff. Half the blame goes to those classes and the other half goes to the parents, honestly. She’d get questions like, "Wait, if you don't go to church, what do you do with your grandparents when they pass away?" (We just eat them, obviously 🤦), or all those little warnings like, "You better believe, just to be safe."

Richard Fowler13 said:I can't exactly provide direct quotes because we already turned all the books back into the school library.
Though, honestly, I don't think a verbatim quote is even necessary here; what actually matters is the core substance of what the teacher is imparting—the actual topics being discussed in the classroom.
And, naturally, those lessons are always going to be intertwined with whatever perspectives and values are being reinforced at home.
But let’s be clear: that reality applies equally to the students attending religious education classes and those who aren't.

Nah, teachers are required to stick to the official curriculum for their subject. Their personal opinions should stay at home, just like any other teacher's should.

Home life is a whole different ballgame. But honestly, kids often forget everything they learned at home because they're so busy trying to fit in with their friends or they're scared of being teased by the crowd.

Richard Fowler13 said:Well put—concise and straight to the point.

In reality, that is precisely what they are supposed to be teaching, though unfortunately, there is always going to be a Sunday school teacher who fails at their job, much like there are teachers in any other subject; the problem is that we rarely hear about the ones doing an excellent job, whether it's a religious instructor, a high school teacher, or even a principal...

Can you please, just for me, quote an actual American religious studies textbook—any of them—that explicitly states people who don't believe in God can be just as good as anyone else, and that we should respect their lack of faith? I don't really care about teachers giving their own little "free interpretations," whether they're being helpful or just plain wrong.

On a side note, one of the religion teachers at my old high school was actually one of my favorite instructors. Meanwhile, there was this other guy—just a total, stubborn jerk who was impossible to deal with. It had absolutely nothing to do with the curriculum itself, though.

Matthew Kim88 said:We should be teaching kids to respect differences and other people's faiths, rather than labeling everyone with a different opinion as a pathology.

So, does that mean religious education classes should also teach respect for everyone, including atheists?

Because right now, it feels like they're being taught that non-believers are worse than the devil itself, and it almost encourages the kids in those classes to go out and pick on anyone who doesn't join in.