Posts by rustydrifter10

redbear2 said:Can I honestly weigh in on this part without worrying about getting banned?

Look, I honestly don't know what you're trying to get at here—nobody can give you a 100% guarantee on something like that, no matter how much they try to sell you on it.

crimsonjackal63 said:Everything seems to be checking out pretty well on a general level, I guess, but there’s always that damn "but..." lurking right around the corner, isn't there?😁

And honestly, no matter what they try to do or how much they scramble to fix things, he’s still going to be right there. It feels like a foregone conclusion at this point, doesn't it? No matter the effort, the outcome stays exactly the same.

crimsonjackal63 said:If I happen to be part of Tim Cook's inner circle...

lonebadger6 really hit the nail on the head there—it’s not always just a two-sided battle. Sure, we can sit here and debate the extremes all day, but I’m guessing those aren't really what we're focused on right now. Most of life happens in that gray area in between. Someone on the other side was talking about just two teams earlier, and I just wanted to jump in to add some nuance and clarify things, because if you look at how things actually work in practice, it's much more colorful than that.

crimsonjackal63 said:Look, when you look at the current balance of power, honestly? The Big Three is exactly the same as a five-on-one matchup. It’s just not a fair fight.

That’s just not how it works. I mean, sure, you could argue that if we only had one single person running the show, things might look different, but that isn't our reality. We have multiple moderators handling various sections, we've got supermods in the mix, and anyone can file an appeal publicly. Plus, pretty much anyone can chime in and comment on those appeals—either through a direct message or right there on the thread itself. Moderation doesn't happen behind closed doors here; it's not like some secret meeting where decisions are made in private. Penalties aren't just visible to the person handing them out, either, and we definitely don't ban people from appealing. When you look at the big picture, you've got users with twenty pages of warnings on their record sitting right next to someone who barely has a page and a half. If they're both showing similar levels of activity, then the logic behind the moderation becomes pretty obvious, doesn't it?

crimsonjackal63 said:I won't beat around the bush; these two teams are totally neck and neck whether you're looking at them in the real world or online, and anything else is just people getting caught up in their own subjective feelings about how things work.
Honestly, we really ought to do something about this whole debate, so I want to give a quick shout-out to Nicholas Watson 👍 for starting this thread and putting forward some genuinely solid suggestions.

So, let’s get back to the meat of the matter: under our current setup, any moderator or regular member can weigh in as long as they actually have the arguments to back themselves up—whether that’s within a specific thread, through private messages, or regarding moderator disputes; it really just depends on the situation. Trying to appoint someone "officially" to a role like that doesn't make much sense and would just overcomplicate things unnecessarily.

The moderators you mentioned—those who stepped in to moderate a forum they weren't even that familiar with until recently—are really just an exception to the rule that occasionally works out well. More often than not, it goes the other way; people end up turning into glorified janitors who lose their drive and eventually realize the job is such a drag that they wouldn't even want to moderate their own home boards anymore. That's exactly why we try to keep those kinds of arrangements short-term if the moderator doesn't get truly invested and active on the board. Plus, there's that issue I brought up earlier about not being in tune with the group dynamics, the regulars, and the general vibe, which can be a pretty big deal, especially when dealing with the stricter or more high-maintenance forums.

Just a quick thought regarding Politics—you know, all the left versus right stuff, Team Cook versus Team B, and all that: mods shouldn't be picked based on their political leanings. It’s just not how it works. It’s not like we check if someone is religious before letting them moderate the Religion section, and we certainly don't check if someone is married before they moderate the ACLU. Apparently, Nero is a guy, yet he moderates the Zen section. Who knows? Maybe one of our LjES mods is actually a total celibate. 😲

The Politics moderators are fully aware of what their lineup looks like, and even though it isn't official policy or a strict requirement, whenever they're looking for a new teammate, they tend to keep an extra eye out for those "right-leaning" users for the exact reasons you mentioned—though personally, I think it's totally unnecessary. If someone stands out as a stellar candidate, it’s because of the quality of their posts, not because they’re a liberal or a conservative, but hey, I won't get too bogged down in the weeds as long as the person they pick is a top-tier contributor. My gut feeling is that there's also a bit of pressure from "public opinion," which I don't think is a good enough reason either. However, the reality is that sometimes there simply aren't enough high-quality people who are both interested in moderating and capable of passing the selection process. If they have a candidate from Team Cook who is a solid A+ and a candidate from Team B who is barely a C-, they’re going to take the A+ person every single time rather than picking the mediocre one just to balance the scales. That would obviously be a worse choice for everyone. And honestly, this logic applies to more than just the Politics section and its partisan divides.

On top of that, for the PDF to actually work, the moderators need to share similar criteria and have a unified vision for the site. That’s one of the reasons why most of them share certain fundamental perspectives. Of course, there’s always a degree of subjectivity involved; being 100% objective is basically impossible. If I had to put it bluntly: we look for people who can think critically, analyze things deeply, and stay open-minded without being overly stiff or rigid. Otherwise, their moderation style would end up feeling pretty robotic and cold, and that doesn't serve anyone—not the users and certainly not the administration.

Emily Myers32 said:Yeah, if I’m being treated like some kind of seasoned veteran here (🥳), and then suddenly I get handed the keys to moderate something like Philosophy Inc., well... look, I’m not from Mars, but I’m definitely not an expert on all that either.
How on earth am I supposed to tell if someone is actually trolling when everything they say just looks like trolling to me? 😁

That is a really solid point you made there. On top of that, if someone isn't keeping up with the specific sub-forum, they might totally miss the context of a conversation. They could easily misinterpret a situation as being way more harmless or way more malicious than it actually is, especially if they don't know the people involved or the underlying dynamics of that specific community. That’s exactly why we have our supermoderators; even if they aren't officially part of the core mod team for every single section, they stay in the loop so the forums they oversee aren't a complete mystery to them.

Just to clarify for everyone, any moderator can speak up via private messages, in our internal moderator lounge, or sometimes even right within an appeal thread—depending on the situation—if they feel like a decision made in a section outside their own jurisdiction was unfair. Honestly, that happens more often than you’d think! Sometimes it’s incredibly helpful to get an outside perspective, and we do take those comments into account. But at the end of the day, the final call still rests with the relevant moderators, the supermoderator, or the admin.

Well, looks like you all finally reached an agreement. 👋

We aren't planning on making that a thing here, so honestly, you can just log out and call it a day if it doesn't work for you.

If you were looking to jump back into that thread, you're actually out of luck because your ban period has officially wrapped up. Plus, the moderator already laid everything out for you clearly enough.

Since we were already going back and forth on this in our private messages, there really wasn't any need to spin up a whole new thread. It's all sorted out now, so thanks for flagging it!

I honestly feel like northernpilot2 and Carol Lopez23 have already covered all the bases and explained everything there needed to be said.

Which thread are we talking about? We're going to need the link.

Oops, I just went and hit the like button when I totally meant to edit my post! 🤦

Edit: My bad, I accidentally liked it. 🎉

Edit 2: Okay, fixed it now—it's finally edited. 🥳

Alex Cook said:He’s hanging out at that local dive bar near Blaž—way over on the far right side of the bar—sipping on some Jack Daniel's and smoking a pack...

🤣

This is basically doxxing someone. ☕

Hey everyone, sorry if I take a little longer than usual to get back to you sometimes—our glitchy old server absolutely hates heavy lifting like changing usernames, so I really have to pick the right moment to run those updates. It can be a bit of a process! Anyway, if I don't reply or get your nickname updated within a few days, please just ping me again because my inbox hits warp speed and I end up losing track of things. And then they just get deleted. 🙂 Honestly, it's better to be a little annoying and nudge me than to be stuck with a username you didn't want. 🧐

Lawrence Torres56 said:Sorry rustydrifter10, I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one...
Look, let’s be real for a second: "scientific facts" aren't some permanent, etched-in-stone truth, right? What the scientific community is shouting from the rooftops today could easily turn out to be a complete and utter joke by tomorrow. It happens all the time. And don't even get me started on this whole health education movement—it’s got nothing to do with actual science. It’s just pure ideology being shoved down our throats, which honestly isn't any better or worse than someone trying to sell you on religious dogma. It's all just different flavors of the same thing, really.
And why on earth shouldn't we be having this debate? Seriously, what's actually true about those tired old claims that blue is somehow "for boys" or that kids are supposed to act fundamentally different just because of their gender? I mean, sorry, but personally, I find that whole mindset totally unacceptable. We’re living in a world where guys and girls both go for smooth legs, where color preferences haven't mattered for decades, and where we expect both boys and girls to step up and handle household chores equally, right? It's all just so outdated.

Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we think we know about Jesus is basically just high-level guesswork at this point, isn't it?

If you ask me, most of the stuff we tell ourselves—all those little stories we spin to justify our lives and convince our kids that everything is under control—is honestly just pure guesswork, isn't it?😁 I honestly just don't get the desperate need to go full ad hominem all of a sudden... like, is it really that hard to actually address the point being made instead of just taking a cheap shot at the person?

It’s honestly such a ridiculous situation when a kid shows up to school and they’re basically forced into this impossible choice—do they join the school assembly and ceremony, or do they just wander around aimlessly? When my kids were back in elementary school, we had this exact same headache every single year; right at the start of the term, the whole school would head out to a service for a blessing sometime mid-morning. And let me tell you, all the complaining from parents didn't do squat to change anything. The kids were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could either go to the service along with everyone else, or they could just loiter around the school grounds, which wasn't even fenced in! It was sketchy, really, because they weren't even allowed to stay inside the building since, apparently, "nobody is around because everyone is at the service." It’s just a total mess, especially for those little ones in the lower grades who shouldn't be left to fend for themselves like that.

Look, obviously this kind of stuff is a massive problem and someone needs to step up and put a stop to it once and for all. Even as a believer myself, I can't wrap my head around why any kid would be wandering the streets alone while mine is home receiving a blessing... I mean, kids should be our absolute top priority, right? They’re the ones we as adults have a moral obligation to protect at all costs. But hey, it looks like people actually spoke up because those complaints clearly worked—that issue isn't even around anymore. As far as I know, students don't really have anything to do outside of school hours unless they're supervised by a teacher... and even in the lower grades, they aren't allowed to be left on their own during religious studies classes; there always has to be an adult watching over them. In my experience, it’s usually just their specific classroom teacher handling it, and from what I hear, that seems to be the standard across most schools in the US too.

Look, I get why some people are making a huge deal out of this, but honestly? It’s clearly an issue for at least a few folks. I mean, why on earth would you single kids out like that? Why drag them into situations they don't even have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around yet? Is it really such a massive problem for religious parents to take their child to a local church for a blessing, especially when that’s exactly where they belong?

Of course some people are going to take issue with this—it’s a given that there will always be someone complaining about something, isn't there? That's just how it goes. But what I actually find problematic is the way certain things are being hinted at here on the forum instead of being addressed where they can actually be fixed, especially if we're talking about something that might end up hurting our kids...
And look, we really shouldn't be playing into this whole division regarding blessings either, right? We can't go around stirring the pot and then turn around and try to play both sides when it comes to health education... because honestly, that’s exactly how you leave them feeling completely lost and confused. If we already saw how much resentment and hate those kinds of tactics caused before, why on earth would we want to pull that same stunt on our own children?🤷

Wait, are you actually being serious right now? Do you even know what science is, or have you ever even looked into how its methods actually work? Science changes its mind based on new evidence, and honestly, that ability to pivot is one of the clearest signs of intelligent thinking. It’s the exact opposite of people who stubbornly cling to an idea regardless of reality—you know, like religious groups or just plain old fools.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Sorry rustydrifter10, I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one...
Look, let’s be real for a second: "scientific facts" aren't some permanent, etched-in-stone truth, right? What the scientific community is shouting from the rooftops today could easily turn out to be a complete and utter joke by tomorrow. It happens all the time. And don't even get me started on this whole health education movement—it’s got nothing to do with actual science. It’s just pure ideology being shoved down our throats, which honestly isn't any better or worse than someone trying to sell you on religious dogma. It's all just different flavors of the same thing, really.
And why on earth shouldn't we be having this debate? Seriously, what's actually true about those tired old claims that blue is somehow "for boys" or that kids are supposed to act fundamentally different just because of their gender? I mean, sorry, but personally, I find that whole mindset totally unacceptable. We’re living in a world where guys and girls both go for smooth legs, where color preferences haven't mattered for decades, and where we expect both boys and girls to step up and handle household chores equally, right? It's all just so outdated.

Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we think we know about Jesus is basically just high-level guesswork at this point, isn't it?

If you ask me, most of the stuff we tell ourselves—all those little stories we spin to justify our lives and convince our kids that everything is under control—is honestly just pure guesswork, isn't it?😁 I honestly just don't get the desperate need to go full ad hominem all of a sudden... like, is it really that hard to actually address the point being made instead of just taking a cheap shot at the person?

It’s honestly such a ridiculous situation when a kid shows up to school and they’re basically forced into this impossible choice—do they join the school assembly and ceremony, or do they just wander around aimlessly? When my kids were back in elementary school, we had this exact same headache every single year; right at the start of the term, the whole school would head out to a service for a blessing sometime mid-morning. And let me tell you, all the complaining from parents didn't do squat to change anything. The kids were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could either go to the service along with everyone else, or they could just loiter around the school grounds, which wasn't even fenced in! It was sketchy, really, because they weren't even allowed to stay inside the building since, apparently, "nobody is around because everyone is at the service." It’s just a total mess, especially for those little ones in the lower grades who shouldn't be left to fend for themselves like that.

Look, obviously this kind of stuff is a massive problem and someone needs to step up and put a stop to it once and for all. Even as a believer myself, I can't wrap my head around why any kid would be wandering the streets alone while mine is home receiving a blessing... I mean, kids should be our absolute top priority, right? They’re the ones we as adults have a moral obligation to protect at all costs. But hey, it looks like people actually spoke up because those complaints clearly worked—that issue isn't even around anymore. As far as I know, students don't really have anything to do outside of school hours unless they're supervised by a teacher... and even in the lower grades, they aren't allowed to be left on their own during religious studies classes; there always has to be an adult watching over them. In my experience, it’s usually just their specific classroom teacher handling it, and from what I hear, that seems to be the standard across most schools in the US too.

Look, I get why some people are making a huge deal out of this, but honestly? It’s clearly an issue for at least a few folks. I mean, why on earth would you single kids out like that? Why drag them into situations they don't even have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around yet? Is it really such a massive problem for religious parents to take their child to a local church for a blessing, especially when that’s exactly where they belong?

Of course some people are going to take issue with this—it’s a given that there will always be someone complaining about something, isn't there? That's just how it goes. But what I actually find problematic is the way certain things are being hinted at here on the forum instead of being addressed where they can actually be fixed, especially if we're talking about something that might end up hurting our kids...
And look, we really shouldn't be playing into this whole division regarding blessings either, right? We can't go around stirring the pot and then turn around and try to play both sides when it comes to health education... because honestly, that’s exactly how you leave them feeling completely lost and confused. If we already saw how much resentment and hate those kinds of tactics caused before, why on earth would we want to pull that same stunt on our own children?🤷

Seriously, once again, do you even understand anything about health or civic education? Don't you realize kids need to learn about democracy, how society functions, and how public sectors operate? Don't you think they should understand human anatomy, how to protect themselves from STIs or unplanned pregnancies, and how to handle social pressure? Shouldn't they be learning about youth violence prevention, critical thinking, tolerance, and embracing differences? What about building self-esteem, developing core values, fostering empathy, and standing firmly against all forms of violence? Or understanding the dangers of addiction lurking everywhere, learning how to stand up for themselves and others, knowing their own rights and the rights of those around them, and why protecting our environment and practicing ecology is so vital? They need to know what the government is and how its role should be to strive for freedom and equality!

Do you really have a problem with us teaching children how to be high-quality, active participants in society? Or do you just have no clue what civic and health education actually entails?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Sorry rustydrifter10, I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one...
Look, let’s be real for a second: "scientific facts" aren't some permanent, etched-in-stone truth, right? What the scientific community is shouting from the rooftops today could easily turn out to be a complete and utter joke by tomorrow. It happens all the time. And don't even get me started on this whole health education movement—it’s got nothing to do with actual science. It’s just pure ideology being shoved down our throats, which honestly isn't any better or worse than someone trying to sell you on religious dogma. It's all just different flavors of the same thing, really.
And why on earth shouldn't we be having this debate? Seriously, what's actually true about those tired old claims that blue is somehow "for boys" or that kids are supposed to act fundamentally different just because of their gender? I mean, sorry, but personally, I find that whole mindset totally unacceptable. We’re living in a world where guys and girls both go for smooth legs, where color preferences haven't mattered for decades, and where we expect both boys and girls to step up and handle household chores equally, right? It's all just so outdated.

Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we think we know about Jesus is basically just high-level guesswork at this point, isn't it?

If you ask me, most of the stuff we tell ourselves—all those little stories we spin to justify our lives and convince our kids that everything is under control—is honestly just pure guesswork, isn't it?😁 I honestly just don't get the desperate need to go full ad hominem all of a sudden... like, is it really that hard to actually address the point being made instead of just taking a cheap shot at the person?

It’s honestly such a ridiculous situation when a kid shows up to school and they’re basically forced into this impossible choice—do they join the school assembly and ceremony, or do they just wander around aimlessly? When my kids were back in elementary school, we had this exact same headache every single year; right at the start of the term, the whole school would head out to a service for a blessing sometime mid-morning. And let me tell you, all the complaining from parents didn't do squat to change anything. The kids were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could either go to the service along with everyone else, or they could just loiter around the school grounds, which wasn't even fenced in! It was sketchy, really, because they weren't even allowed to stay inside the building since, apparently, "nobody is around because everyone is at the service." It’s just a total mess, especially for those little ones in the lower grades who shouldn't be left to fend for themselves like that.

Look, obviously this kind of stuff is a massive problem and someone needs to step up and put a stop to it once and for all. Even as a believer myself, I can't wrap my head around why any kid would be wandering the streets alone while mine is home receiving a blessing... I mean, kids should be our absolute top priority, right? They’re the ones we as adults have a moral obligation to protect at all costs. But hey, it looks like people actually spoke up because those complaints clearly worked—that issue isn't even around anymore. As far as I know, students don't really have anything to do outside of school hours unless they're supervised by a teacher... and even in the lower grades, they aren't allowed to be left on their own during religious studies classes; there always has to be an adult watching over them. In my experience, it’s usually just their specific classroom teacher handling it, and from what I hear, that seems to be the standard across most schools in the US too.

Look, I get why some people are making a huge deal out of this, but honestly? It’s clearly an issue for at least a few folks. I mean, why on earth would you single kids out like that? Why drag them into situations they don't even have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around yet? Is it really such a massive problem for religious parents to take their child to a local church for a blessing, especially when that’s exactly where they belong?

Of course some people are going to take issue with this—it’s a given that there will always be someone complaining about something, isn't there? That's just how it goes. But what I actually find problematic is the way certain things are being hinted at here on the forum instead of being addressed where they can actually be fixed, especially if we're talking about something that might end up hurting our kids...
And look, we really shouldn't be playing into this whole division regarding blessings either, right? We can't go around stirring the pot and then turn around and try to play both sides when it comes to health education... because honestly, that’s exactly how you leave them feeling completely lost and confused. If we already saw how much resentment and hate those kinds of tactics caused before, why on earth would we want to pull that same stunt on our own children?🤷

There is absolutely no truth to that, which is exactly what I was saying. All colors are for everyone, and all toys are for both boys and girls.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Sorry rustydrifter10, I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one...
Look, let’s be real for a second: "scientific facts" aren't some permanent, etched-in-stone truth, right? What the scientific community is shouting from the rooftops today could easily turn out to be a complete and utter joke by tomorrow. It happens all the time. And don't even get me started on this whole health education movement—it’s got nothing to do with actual science. It’s just pure ideology being shoved down our throats, which honestly isn't any better or worse than someone trying to sell you on religious dogma. It's all just different flavors of the same thing, really.
And why on earth shouldn't we be having this debate? Seriously, what's actually true about those tired old claims that blue is somehow "for boys" or that kids are supposed to act fundamentally different just because of their gender? I mean, sorry, but personally, I find that whole mindset totally unacceptable. We’re living in a world where guys and girls both go for smooth legs, where color preferences haven't mattered for decades, and where we expect both boys and girls to step up and handle household chores equally, right? It's all just so outdated.

Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we think we know about Jesus is basically just high-level guesswork at this point, isn't it?

If you ask me, most of the stuff we tell ourselves—all those little stories we spin to justify our lives and convince our kids that everything is under control—is honestly just pure guesswork, isn't it?😁 I honestly just don't get the desperate need to go full ad hominem all of a sudden... like, is it really that hard to actually address the point being made instead of just taking a cheap shot at the person?

It’s honestly such a ridiculous situation when a kid shows up to school and they’re basically forced into this impossible choice—do they join the school assembly and ceremony, or do they just wander around aimlessly? When my kids were back in elementary school, we had this exact same headache every single year; right at the start of the term, the whole school would head out to a service for a blessing sometime mid-morning. And let me tell you, all the complaining from parents didn't do squat to change anything. The kids were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could either go to the service along with everyone else, or they could just loiter around the school grounds, which wasn't even fenced in! It was sketchy, really, because they weren't even allowed to stay inside the building since, apparently, "nobody is around because everyone is at the service." It’s just a total mess, especially for those little ones in the lower grades who shouldn't be left to fend for themselves like that.

Look, obviously this kind of stuff is a massive problem and someone needs to step up and put a stop to it once and for all. Even as a believer myself, I can't wrap my head around why any kid would be wandering the streets alone while mine is home receiving a blessing... I mean, kids should be our absolute top priority, right? They’re the ones we as adults have a moral obligation to protect at all costs. But hey, it looks like people actually spoke up because those complaints clearly worked—that issue isn't even around anymore. As far as I know, students don't really have anything to do outside of school hours unless they're supervised by a teacher... and even in the lower grades, they aren't allowed to be left on their own during religious studies classes; there always has to be an adult watching over them. In my experience, it’s usually just their specific classroom teacher handling it, and from what I hear, that seems to be the standard across most schools in the US too.

Look, I get why some people are making a huge deal out of this, but honestly? It’s clearly an issue for at least a few folks. I mean, why on earth would you single kids out like that? Why drag them into situations they don't even have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around yet? Is it really such a massive problem for religious parents to take their child to a local church for a blessing, especially when that’s exactly where they belong?

Of course some people are going to take issue with this—it’s a given that there will always be someone complaining about something, isn't there? That's just how it goes. But what I actually find problematic is the way certain things are being hinted at here on the forum instead of being addressed where they can actually be fixed, especially if we're talking about something that might end up hurting our kids...
And look, we really shouldn't be playing into this whole division regarding blessings either, right? We can't go around stirring the pot and then turn around and try to play both sides when it comes to health education... because honestly, that’s exactly how you leave them feeling completely lost and confused. If we already saw how much resentment and hate those kinds of tactics caused before, why on earth would we want to pull that same stunt on our own children?🤷

I am not attacking anyone personally. The religion I am criticizing isn't a specific person or a user on this forum.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Sorry rustydrifter10, I just can't see eye to eye with you on this one...
Look, let’s be real for a second: "scientific facts" aren't some permanent, etched-in-stone truth, right? What the scientific community is shouting from the rooftops today could easily turn out to be a complete and utter joke by tomorrow. It happens all the time. And don't even get me started on this whole health education movement—it’s got nothing to do with actual science. It’s just pure ideology being shoved down our throats, which honestly isn't any better or worse than someone trying to sell you on religious dogma. It's all just different flavors of the same thing, really.
And why on earth shouldn't we be having this debate? Seriously, what's actually true about those tired old claims that blue is somehow "for boys" or that kids are supposed to act fundamentally different just because of their gender? I mean, sorry, but personally, I find that whole mindset totally unacceptable. We’re living in a world where guys and girls both go for smooth legs, where color preferences haven't mattered for decades, and where we expect both boys and girls to step up and handle household chores equally, right? It's all just so outdated.

Let’s be real for a second—every single thing we think we know about Jesus is basically just high-level guesswork at this point, isn't it?

If you ask me, most of the stuff we tell ourselves—all those little stories we spin to justify our lives and convince our kids that everything is under control—is honestly just pure guesswork, isn't it?😁 I honestly just don't get the desperate need to go full ad hominem all of a sudden... like, is it really that hard to actually address the point being made instead of just taking a cheap shot at the person?

It’s honestly such a ridiculous situation when a kid shows up to school and they’re basically forced into this impossible choice—do they join the school assembly and ceremony, or do they just wander around aimlessly? When my kids were back in elementary school, we had this exact same headache every single year; right at the start of the term, the whole school would head out to a service for a blessing sometime mid-morning. And let me tell you, all the complaining from parents didn't do squat to change anything. The kids were stuck between a rock and a hard place: they could either go to the service along with everyone else, or they could just loiter around the school grounds, which wasn't even fenced in! It was sketchy, really, because they weren't even allowed to stay inside the building since, apparently, "nobody is around because everyone is at the service." It’s just a total mess, especially for those little ones in the lower grades who shouldn't be left to fend for themselves like that.

Look, obviously this kind of stuff is a massive problem and someone needs to step up and put a stop to it once and for all. Even as a believer myself, I can't wrap my head around why any kid would be wandering the streets alone while mine is home receiving a blessing... I mean, kids should be our absolute top priority, right? They’re the ones we as adults have a moral obligation to protect at all costs. But hey, it looks like people actually spoke up because those complaints clearly worked—that issue isn't even around anymore. As far as I know, students don't really have anything to do outside of school hours unless they're supervised by a teacher... and even in the lower grades, they aren't allowed to be left on their own during religious studies classes; there always has to be an adult watching over them. In my experience, it’s usually just their specific classroom teacher handling it, and from what I hear, that seems to be the standard across most schools in the US too.

Look, I get why some people are making a huge deal out of this, but honestly? It’s clearly an issue for at least a few folks. I mean, why on earth would you single kids out like that? Why drag them into situations they don't even have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around yet? Is it really such a massive problem for religious parents to take their child to a local church for a blessing, especially when that’s exactly where they belong?

Of course some people are going to take issue with this—it’s a given that there will always be someone complaining about something, isn't there? That's just how it goes. But what I actually find problematic is the way certain things are being hinted at here on the forum instead of being addressed where they can actually be fixed, especially if we're talking about something that might end up hurting our kids...
And look, we really shouldn't be playing into this whole division regarding blessings either, right? We can't go around stirring the pot and then turn around and try to play both sides when it comes to health education... because honestly, that’s exactly how you leave them feeling completely lost and confused. If we already saw how much resentment and hate those kinds of tactics caused before, why on earth would we want to pull that same stunt on our own children?🤷

It’s not health education that divides people; it’s religion that does that. Let me put it this way, maybe it'll make sense: give people their due, and give God His due. Keep religion and all its church matters separate from secular education in a secular state within our public schools.

Lawrence Torres56 said:I feel the same way😉...honestly, I'd love for my kid to have two hours less of that stuff per week in exchange for a much broader understanding of global faiths—like, instead of a poem about a dandelion, maybe they learn a prayer or a mantra... or instead of being encouraged toward hate in the 21st century, they listen to lessons about how similar we all are as humans...

But we don't really have that, do we? We just love pretending we do... because if we actually did, discussions like this would be ridiculous, especially since we all know nobody is getting hurt or dying just because someone splashed them with holy water or because a priest walked past them on the street.😁
So, what is religion class actually for? Well, maybe it exists, among other things, to teach kids what we call "interpersonal communication skills," which includes "respecting the teacher and peers. It involves practicing courtesy, attention, grace, and sincerity in human relationships." In other words, it's the stuff we've stripped out of every other subject because apparently, it's perfectly fine for an older person to call a student a "cow" just because they're in religion class and don't believe in God, or because it's considered "fine" to lie, be dishonest, or encourage hate, or to judge a classmate just because he's wearing his brother's old sneakers... you name it. Is that enough, or do I need to keep listing examples?🍿

Then why not just list that under ethics class?

Lawrence Torres56 said:I feel the same way😉...honestly, I'd love for my kid to have two hours less of that stuff per week in exchange for a much broader understanding of global faiths—like, instead of a poem about a dandelion, maybe they learn a prayer or a mantra... or instead of being encouraged toward hate in the 21st century, they listen to lessons about how similar we all are as humans...

But we don't really have that, do we? We just love pretending we do... because if we actually did, discussions like this would be ridiculous, especially since we all know nobody is getting hurt or dying just because someone splashed them with holy water or because a priest walked past them on the street.😁
So, what is religion class actually for? Well, maybe it exists, among other things, to teach kids what we call "interpersonal communication skills," which includes "respecting the teacher and peers. It involves practicing courtesy, attention, grace, and sincerity in human relationships." In other words, it's the stuff we've stripped out of every other subject because apparently, it's perfectly fine for an older person to call a student a "cow" just because they're in religion class and don't believe in God, or because it's considered "fine" to lie, be dishonest, or encourage hate, or to judge a classmate just because he's wearing his brother's old sneakers... you name it. Is that enough, or do I need to keep listing examples?🍿

Believe it or not, being able to communicate well isn't some monopoly held by religious education—quite the opposite! Good communication comes down to the individual and how they were raised at home, which has absolutely nothing to do with faith.

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.

👍

Lawrence Torres56 said:yeah, except in that case, the fact that they don't have a choice actually works in their favor, so they just stay quiet....it’s not even about whether that day is a federal holiday because of some religious observance...come on, 😉let's just stop being hypocrites already...
is medicine somehow tied to atheists? are all doctors atheists? seriously, what are you even talking about here?...and, if you're really going to try and make an analogy, wouldn't it be better to compare something like that religious education class to, say, that so-called sexual or health education 😁 that was forced into schools—not even as an elective, but as a mandatory requirement...where parents weren't given any say in whether they wanted their kids learning that stuff or not....I mean, personally, I find it totally ridiculous to ask a fourth grader, "How long is a person without relatives?" 🤣
and honestly, why on earth are kids since third grade being fed all this nonsense in the 21st century....for crying out loud, blue is for boys, a boy that age is supposed to act differently than a girl...etc., etc., etc....
also, those holidays used to be exclusively religious observances, which this hypocritical society commercialized solely because they saw a way to make a buck...
and, all this talk about when Jesus was born is nothing but guesswork, just like the guesswork that Catholics took over pagan customs...which is exactly what happened 2,000 years ago...nobody actually knows...😉 let's be real😁

If a priest is the one spouting nonsense about the resurrection and eternal life, then he's the reason people feel bad.

a priest says what he needs to say, just like a professor says what they need to say...whether you choose to listen to them, tune them out, or whatever, that's an individual choice...insulting and belittling a speaker just because we don't agree with them, or "pretending to feel bad," is just proof of how low people can sink these days...especially since we all have the option to decide what we want to listen to and respect, and what we don't....

There is pressure on children; many comments have been made about this on this thread.

ninety percent of this thread is just insinuations based on hearsay meant to incite hate...why do I think that? because, from what I can see, it's more important here to bash believers and the church based on personal prejudices than to constructively bring up actual potential issues regarding that religious curriculum in schools...I asked once, and I'll ask nicely again: how can anyone force my child into receiving a blessing in this situation if neither they nor I want it?
I mean, we all know how it goes when there's a prayer or a blessing scheduled during a school assembly, right? But is it really such a huge deal to just pull the teacher aside and let them know you’d rather your kid sit this one out? Like, is it actually a crime to tell your little one to just hang back for a minute while the other kids participate? Or even better, why can't you just show up for the actual performance and then head out before the whole religious thing starts—especially if you only showed up to see the kids perform anyway? It seems totally reasonable to me.🤷

@proab...look, you can't exactly go around calling someone a provocateur just because they're dropping some cold, hard truths and facts that you happen to be uncomfortable with....😁
Just take this as some friendly advice, okay?😉

I really feel like health education in our schools is absolutely essential, but it needs to be grounded firmly in actual scientific facts. Honestly, I don't think we should be getting bogged down in endless debates over what specific parents might want or dislike; at the end of the day, this curriculum should just provide truthful, practical information that actually helps kids. It’s pretty simple when you think about it—we don't see people protesting against math or history classes because they contain necessary, factual data, so why should health education be any different? It should serve the same purpose: giving students the real tools they need to navigate life based on reality, not opinion.

"Quote:"

I honestly don't think people realize how much weight goes into these discussions, but I wanted to jump in here because Lawrence Torres56 really hit on something profound that I've been chewing on all morning. It’s one of those things where you think you understand the landscape, and then someone drops a truth bomb like that, and suddenly everything looks different. I was sitting there with my coffee, reading through the thread, and I just had to pause and reflect on how we approach these big, messy life questions. It isn't always about finding a quick fix or a simple answer, is it? Sometimes, it's more about the journey of understanding the nuances, much like how we try to navigate the complexities of our own lives here in the States. I'm curious to see where everyone else lands on this, because I feel like we're just scratching the surface! kaže: I honestly can’t wrap my head around it—it just feels so pointless. We're living in the 21st century, yet we're still filling third graders' heads with this absolute nonsense. I mean, seriously, blue is for boys, right? At that age, a boy should be encouraged to act like a boy, distinct from how a girl acts, and so on and so forth. It’s just frustrating to watch.

I’m right there with you on that—it honestly feels like such a massive blur. It’s like they try to make everything "for everyone," which usually just means nothing stands out and the whole thing becomes a total mess.

"Quote:"

Lawrence Torres56 said:yeah, except in that case, the fact that they don't have a choice actually works in their favor, so they just stay quiet....it’s not even about whether that day is a federal holiday because of some religious observance...come on, 😉let's just stop being hypocrites already...
is medicine somehow tied to atheists? are all doctors atheists? seriously, what are you even talking about here?...and, if you're really going to try and make an analogy, wouldn't it be better to compare something like that religious education class to, say, that so-called sexual or health education 😁 that was forced into schools—not even as an elective, but as a mandatory requirement...where parents weren't given any say in whether they wanted their kids learning that stuff or not....I mean, personally, I find it totally ridiculous to ask a fourth grader, "How long is a person without relatives?" 🤣
and honestly, why on earth are kids since third grade being fed all this nonsense in the 21st century....for crying out loud, blue is for boys, a boy that age is supposed to act differently than a girl...etc., etc., etc....
also, those holidays used to be exclusively religious observances, which this hypocritical society commercialized solely because they saw a way to make a buck...
and, all this talk about when Jesus was born is nothing but guesswork, just like the guesswork that Catholics took over pagan customs...which is exactly what happened 2,000 years ago...nobody actually knows...😉 let's be real😁

If a priest is the one spouting nonsense about the resurrection and eternal life, then he's the reason people feel bad.

a priest says what he needs to say, just like a professor says what they need to say...whether you choose to listen to them, tune them out, or whatever, that's an individual choice...insulting and belittling a speaker just because we don't agree with them, or "pretending to feel bad," is just proof of how low people can sink these days...especially since we all have the option to decide what we want to listen to and respect, and what we don't....

There is pressure on children; many comments have been made about this on this thread.

ninety percent of this thread is just insinuations based on hearsay meant to incite hate...why do I think that? because, from what I can see, it's more important here to bash believers and the church based on personal prejudices than to constructively bring up actual potential issues regarding that religious curriculum in schools...I asked once, and I'll ask nicely again: how can anyone force my child into receiving a blessing in this situation if neither they nor I want it?
I mean, we all know how it goes when there's a prayer or a blessing scheduled during a school assembly, right? But is it really such a huge deal to just pull the teacher aside and let them know you’d rather your kid sit this one out? Like, is it actually a crime to tell your little one to just hang back for a minute while the other kids participate? Or even better, why can't you just show up for the actual performance and then head out before the whole religious thing starts—especially if you only showed up to see the kids perform anyway? It seems totally reasonable to me.🤷

@proab...look, you can't exactly go around calling someone a provocateur just because they're dropping some cold, hard truths and facts that you happen to be uncomfortable with....😁
Just take this as some friendly advice, okay?😉

Let’s be real for a second—all those stories we hear about Jesus are basically just educated guesswork at this point.

"Quote:"

Lawrence Torres56 said:yeah, except in that case, the fact that they don't have a choice actually works in their favor, so they just stay quiet....it’s not even about whether that day is a federal holiday because of some religious observance...come on, 😉let's just stop being hypocrites already...
is medicine somehow tied to atheists? are all doctors atheists? seriously, what are you even talking about here?...and, if you're really going to try and make an analogy, wouldn't it be better to compare something like that religious education class to, say, that so-called sexual or health education 😁 that was forced into schools—not even as an elective, but as a mandatory requirement...where parents weren't given any say in whether they wanted their kids learning that stuff or not....I mean, personally, I find it totally ridiculous to ask a fourth grader, "How long is a person without relatives?" 🤣
and honestly, why on earth are kids since third grade being fed all this nonsense in the 21st century....for crying out loud, blue is for boys, a boy that age is supposed to act differently than a girl...etc., etc., etc....
also, those holidays used to be exclusively religious observances, which this hypocritical society commercialized solely because they saw a way to make a buck...
and, all this talk about when Jesus was born is nothing but guesswork, just like the guesswork that Catholics took over pagan customs...which is exactly what happened 2,000 years ago...nobody actually knows...😉 let's be real😁

If a priest is the one spouting nonsense about the resurrection and eternal life, then he's the reason people feel bad.

a priest says what he needs to say, just like a professor says what they need to say...whether you choose to listen to them, tune them out, or whatever, that's an individual choice...insulting and belittling a speaker just because we don't agree with them, or "pretending to feel bad," is just proof of how low people can sink these days...especially since we all have the option to decide what we want to listen to and respect, and what we don't....

There is pressure on children; many comments have been made about this on this thread.

ninety percent of this thread is just insinuations based on hearsay meant to incite hate...why do I think that? because, from what I can see, it's more important here to bash believers and the church based on personal prejudices than to constructively bring up actual potential issues regarding that religious curriculum in schools...I asked once, and I'll ask nicely again: how can anyone force my child into receiving a blessing in this situation if neither they nor I want it?
I mean, we all know how it goes when there's a prayer or a blessing scheduled during a school assembly, right? But is it really such a huge deal to just pull the teacher aside and let them know you’d rather your kid sit this one out? Like, is it actually a crime to tell your little one to just hang back for a minute while the other kids participate? Or even better, why can't you just show up for the actual performance and then head out before the whole religious thing starts—especially if you only showed up to see the kids perform anyway? It seems totally reasonable to me.🤷

@proab...look, you can't exactly go around calling someone a provocateur just because they're dropping some cold, hard truths and facts that you happen to be uncomfortable with....😁
Just take this as some friendly advice, okay?😉

It’s really not much of a choice when a school holds an event like that; it’s more like an ultimatum for the kids. When my little ones were in elementary school back in the day, we had this tradition where at the start of every year, the whole school would head out for a blessing mass around mid-morning. People complained about it constantly, but honestly, those complaints didn't change the reality for the students. You either went along with the group to the service, or you were just left wandering around aimlessly. Our school didn't even have a fenced-in playground, which made things even trickier. You couldn't even stay on campus because, well, there was nobody left to supervise them—everyone was away at the service! It creates such a massive logistical headache, especially for the younger kids who really need that structure and supervision.

Lawrence Torres56 said:yeah, except in that case, the fact that they don't have a choice actually works in their favor, so they just stay quiet....it’s not even about whether that day is a federal holiday because of some religious observance...come on, 😉let's just stop being hypocrites already...
is medicine somehow tied to atheists? are all doctors atheists? seriously, what are you even talking about here?...and, if you're really going to try and make an analogy, wouldn't it be better to compare something like that religious education class to, say, that so-called sexual or health education 😁 that was forced into schools—not even as an elective, but as a mandatory requirement...where parents weren't given any say in whether they wanted their kids learning that stuff or not....I mean, personally, I find it totally ridiculous to ask a fourth grader, "How long is a person without relatives?" 🤣
and honestly, why on earth are kids since third grade being fed all this nonsense in the 21st century....for crying out loud, blue is for boys, a boy that age is supposed to act differently than a girl...etc., etc., etc....
also, those holidays used to be exclusively religious observances, which this hypocritical society commercialized solely because they saw a way to make a buck...
and, all this talk about when Jesus was born is nothing but guesswork, just like the guesswork that Catholics took over pagan customs...which is exactly what happened 2,000 years ago...nobody actually knows...😉 let's be real😁

If a priest is the one spouting nonsense about the resurrection and eternal life, then he's the reason people feel bad.

a priest says what he needs to say, just like a professor says what they need to say...whether you choose to listen to them, tune them out, or whatever, that's an individual choice...insulting and belittling a speaker just because we don't agree with them, or "pretending to feel bad," is just proof of how low people can sink these days...especially since we all have the option to decide what we want to listen to and respect, and what we don't....

There is pressure on children; many comments have been made about this on this thread.

ninety percent of this thread is just insinuations based on hearsay meant to incite hate...why do I think that? because, from what I can see, it's more important here to bash believers and the church based on personal prejudices than to constructively bring up actual potential issues regarding that religious curriculum in schools...I asked once, and I'll ask nicely again: how can anyone force my child into receiving a blessing in this situation if neither they nor I want it?
I mean, we all know how it goes when there's a prayer or a blessing scheduled during a school assembly, right? But is it really such a huge deal to just pull the teacher aside and let them know you’d rather your kid sit this one out? Like, is it actually a crime to tell your little one to just hang back for a minute while the other kids participate? Or even better, why can't you just show up for the actual performance and then head out before the whole religious thing starts—especially if you only showed up to see the kids perform anyway? It seems totally reasonable to me.🤷

@proab...look, you can't exactly go around calling someone a provocateur just because they're dropping some cold, hard truths and facts that you happen to be uncomfortable with....😁
Just take this as some friendly advice, okay?😉

Of course it's going to be a problem for some people! Honestly, why should we be singling kids out like that, or putting them in situations they don't even grasp yet? On the flip side, though—is it really such a big deal for families who are active in their faith to take their child to a local church for a blessing, since that's where they feel most comfortable and at home?

Lawrence Torres56 said:In America, we had 14 national holidays and 8 of them were Catholic holidays, so more than half😁...Three Kings, Easter, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, Christmas, and St. Stephen's... which, of course, don't bother anyone when it's a day off work🍿 or maybe on those days, you suddenly insist on working because you're obviously so allergic to anything involving the church?

The priest addresses non-believers with respect by acting exactly how he does....which means, he isn't addressing you and isn't imposing anything on you....he's addressing the people he specifically mentioned....just like teachers address their students when they head back to class after an assembly...when they say "Class 2A, let's go," only 2A follows, not 2B.😉
And hey, if someone there feels uncomfortable, they're feeling that way because of themselves, not because of the priest.😉

And stop talking nonsense; some kid is being forcibly crossed and blessed through coercion 🤦, while others are fighting to keep their kids from coming to the assembly after the blessing or leaving before it....😲....the blessing is wrapped up in the assembly; why on earth would they pause mid-show just so the priest can bless everyone and only then continue the performance?🤦

And who even are you guys?😕

Look, plenty of people don't even have a choice because their offices or businesses are closed anyway. Besides, does anyone actually tell believers they should go pray at a cathedral instead of seeking help from modern medicine? By the way, if Jesus actually existed, he was born in early autumn; all this decorating evergreen trees, the December celebrations, coloring eggs, and so many other traditions are just pagan customs that Christianity co-opted over time. These holidays haven't been strictly religious or ecclesiastical for ages—I mean, we don't even have a "little Jesus" bringing us presents, we have Santa Claus.

Lawrence Torres56 said:In America, we had 14 national holidays and 8 of them were Catholic holidays, so more than half😁...Three Kings, Easter, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, Christmas, and St. Stephen's... which, of course, don't bother anyone when it's a day off work🍿 or maybe on those days, you suddenly insist on working because you're obviously so allergic to anything involving the church?

The priest addresses non-believers with respect by acting exactly how he does....which means, he isn't addressing you and isn't imposing anything on you....he's addressing the people he specifically mentioned....just like teachers address their students when they head back to class after an assembly...when they say "Class 2A, let's go," only 2A follows, not 2B.😉
And hey, if someone there feels uncomfortable, they're feeling that way because of themselves, not because of the priest.😉

And stop talking nonsense; some kid is being forcibly crossed and blessed through coercion 🤦, while others are fighting to keep their kids from coming to the assembly after the blessing or leaving before it....😲....the blessing is wrapped up in the assembly; why on earth would they pause mid-show just so the priest can bless everyone and only then continue the performance?🤦

And who even are you guys?😕

If the priest is the one preaching nonsense about resurrection and eternal life, then he’s exactly the reason why people are feeling so uneasy.

Lawrence Torres56 said:In America, we had 14 national holidays and 8 of them were Catholic holidays, so more than half😁...Three Kings, Easter, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, Christmas, and St. Stephen's... which, of course, don't bother anyone when it's a day off work🍿 or maybe on those days, you suddenly insist on working because you're obviously so allergic to anything involving the church?

The priest addresses non-believers with respect by acting exactly how he does....which means, he isn't addressing you and isn't imposing anything on you....he's addressing the people he specifically mentioned....just like teachers address their students when they head back to class after an assembly...when they say "Class 2A, let's go," only 2A follows, not 2B.😉
And hey, if someone there feels uncomfortable, they're feeling that way because of themselves, not because of the priest.😉

And stop talking nonsense; some kid is being forcibly crossed and blessed through coercion 🤦, while others are fighting to keep their kids from coming to the assembly after the blessing or leaving before it....😲....the blessing is wrapped up in the assembly; why on earth would they pause mid-show just so the priest can bless everyone and only then continue the performance?🤦

And who even are you guys?😕

There really is pressure put on children, and if you read through the comments on this thread, you'll see plenty of people have pointed that out.

Jacob Lewis5 said: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.

Kids won't just have a blank spot in their schedule; it opens up room for something much more productive if there's a need for it.

I honestly don't know where to begin with this one, but I just had to jump in here because my mind has been absolutely racing since I read the latest updates. It feels like we’re standing on the edge of something massive, doesn't it? I was sitting there with my coffee this morning, just staring at the news, thinking about everything we've discussed lately, and it hit me how much the landscape is shifting under our feet right now. I was looking back at what Michelle Nelson4 mentioned earlier—and she really hit the nail on the head regarding the volatility we're seeing—and it makes you wonder if we're actually prepared for the fallout. It's not just about the numbers on a screen anymore; it's about the actual fabric of how we live our lives here in the States. You see these shifts in the market, these sudden movements from giants like BlackRock, and it's almost overwhelming to try and wrap your head around the sheer scale of it all. It’s like watching a storm roll in over the Midwest; you know it's coming, you can feel the pressure dropping, but you never quite know exactly how hard the wind is going to blow. And then there's the whole conversation about faith and finding some kind of anchor when everything else feels so chaotic. I kept thinking about that sense of peace people search for—that feeling that maybe, just maybe, there's a higher power or a sense of purpose guiding us through the mess. It’s funny, isn't it? Even in an age of high-speed data and instant information, we still find ourselves circling back to those ancient, fundamental questions about God and whether any of this actually means something in the grand scheme of things. I really want to hear what you all think, though. Are we being too cautious, or are we finally starting to wake up to the reality of the situation? I’m genuinely curious if anyone else is feeling this same mix of anxiety and intense curiosity. It’s a lot to process, for sure, but I wouldn't trade these deep dives with you all for anything! kaže:
You know, I’ve been thinking about this quite a bit lately, and honestly, I really feel like atheism is actually just another form of faith—or at least some kind of belief system in its own right. It’s funny how people try to draw such a hard line between the two, but when you sit down and really dissect what everyone is holding onto, it all starts to look pretty similar. Whether you're leaning on a higher power or clinging to a specific worldview about the universe, you're still making a choice about what to believe in, aren't you?

To me, atheism isn't some big, aggressive stance; it’s really just the absence of faith. It basically boils down to the idea that you aren't going to put your trust in something unless there's actual, tangible evidence to back it up.

I honestly can't believe we're even having this conversation again, but here we are! I was just sitting here thinking about how much everything seems to be shifting lately, and I felt like I had to jump in and share some thoughts on this whole situation. It feels like every time we turn around, there’s a new layer to peel back, doesn't it? I was reading through what Michelle Nelson4 said earlier, and you know, she really hit the nail on the head regarding the underlying tension in the market right now. It’s that feeling of waiting for the other shoe to drop, isn't it? And then I saw Lawrence Torres56 chiming in with those points about the regulatory landscape, and man, that really opened my eyes to how much we're overlooking. We tend to focus so much on the immediate headlines that we miss the slow-moving tectonic shifts happening right under our feet. It reminds me a bit of how people used to react whenever a major shift happened in the tech sector back in the day—everyone panics, everyone screams "disaster," and then, slowly, we all realize it was just the beginning of a new era. That's exactly what this feels like to me. It’s messy, sure, and it’s definitely unsettling, but if you step back and look at the big picture, you can see the patterns forming. I'm curious to hear what the rest of you think, though. Are we being too cautious, or is the skepticism actually justified this time around? I feel like we're hovering in this weird gray area where nobody wants to be the first one to move, but staying still might be just as risky. Anyway, just my two cents! I'll be watching this thread closely because I have a feeling things are about to get a lot more interesting. kaže:
Honestly, if we want to get anywhere with this, we need actual, hard evidence. We’re talking about the big stuff—proof regarding whether or not God exists, how the universe actually kicked off, how life managed to take hold in all this emptiness, and what exactly consciousness is. We really need to wrap our heads around the nature of consciousness itself and how we perceive anything at all. It’s all connected, isn't it?

There’s actually plenty of hard evidence out there explaining how the universe began, how life took hold, and pretty much everything else under the sun. Honestly, it just goes to show why we need to be pumping way more science into our school curriculums. Think about it this way: you don't need to provide some grand, sweeping proof that God doesn't exist just to be considered an atheist. It works the exact same way if someone claims they don't believe in a seven-armed, two-hundred-meter tall green monster—you don't need "proof" of its non-existence to justify not believing in it! At the end of the day, the burden of proof rests entirely on the people claiming something exists. In this scenario, that means the believers, not the atheists.

I honestly feel like we need to have a serious conversation about this because I can't just sit here and let these points slide by without adding my two cents. It feels like everyone is looking at the surface level of the situation, but if you really dig into the nuances, there's so much more going on beneath the waves than people are willing to admit! When I was reading what Michelle Nelson4 was saying earlier, it really hit home for me how much we tend to overlook the systemic stuff. And I totally agree with Lawrence Torres56 on that specific point—it’s not just about one single event, it’s about the whole pattern of how things are being handled. You can't just pluck one thread out of the tapestry and expect the picture to make sense, right? It’s almost like when you’re watching a high-stakes game between the Dallas Cowboys and the Philadelphia Eagles; you can't just look at the final score and think you understand why the momentum shifted. You have to look at the play calls, the field position, the fatigue... all those little details that most fans miss while they're busy cheering for a touchdown. I know some people might think I'm overthinking it, but I truly believe that if we don't take a step back and look at the bigger picture, we're just going to end up repeating the same mistakes over and over again. We need to be more intentional, more thoughtful, and honestly, a little more skeptical of the easy answers being handed to us. Let's keep this discussion going, because I feel like we're finally starting to scratch the surface of what's actually happening here. kaže:
I honestly think you hit the nail on the head there—you clearly understand that nobody is ever taught to believe that homosexual people are somehow less valuable than anyone else. It’s just common sense, isn't it?

Are you seriously suggesting that the Church grants them the exact same rights as heterosexual people? Look, they’re just one example of the problem—this goes for pretty much any belief system or doctrine that fails to meet the basic standards of modern civilization and fundamental human rights.

I honestly can’t even begin to wrap my head around the sheer scale of what we’re looking at here, but I’ll certainly try to dive into it! It feels like every time we turn around, there’s another layer of complexity to peel back, doesn't it? I was just sitting here thinking about how much has shifted lately, and it really makes you stop and wonder where the whole thing is headed. It’s one of those situations where you want to jump in and offer an opinion, but you also realize how much nuance is involved that most people just gloss over in their rush to be right. I'm curious to see how everyone else is processing this, because it feels like such a massive turning point for all of us. kaže:
Look, if there’s enough interest from the students, other religious studies classes can absolutely be offered, so I really don't see how we can keep leaning on the argument that Catholicism holds some kind of unfair advantage or special privilege here.

It’s funny when you really think about how things are structured in our schools, isn't it? You look at all those different elective courses they offer, and then you look at religious studies—it just feels like such a different category altogether. Most of those other subjects are treated as optional electives that students can pick and choose from depending on their interests, but Catholic studies is handled so differently. It’s treated more like a mandatory requirement rather than just another choice on the menu, which is a pretty interesting distinction if you ask me!

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Another inaccurate post.
For the Church, being homosexual isn't a sin; the sin lies in acting on those impulses. Furthermore, one can sin through thought, speech, action, or omission... Therefore, someone who is homosexual but does not act on those urges is not a sinner. The Church supports the birth of all conceived children without exception.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Republic of America regarding cooperation in education and culture (1996/97) states: "The Republic of America commits to guaranteeing the teaching of Catholic religious education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as an elective subject for those who choose it, under the same conditions as other mandatory subjects, within the framework of the school curriculum and in accordance with the will of parents or guardians" (Art. 1).
The text of the Concordat clearly specifies that religious education is an elective subject, but that choice belongs to the parents and students, not the school itself. A school cannot refuse to offer religious education as an option. Likewise, religious instruction must be conducted under the exact same conditions as any other mandatory subject. Consequently, those who "treat" religious education as if it were somehow less important than core subjects have no right to complain.

The Concordat is publicly available; it would be wise to read it before jumping into the comments.

Oh, come on! Are we seriously suggesting that gay people don't experience those thoughts and just somehow keep them perfectly under wraps? It’s all well and good for heterosexual people to live out their natural inclinations, but apparently, that rule doesn't apply to everyone else. The Church refuses to grant them the same basic rights, and they actually go as far as promoting this bias during religious education classes—basically "teaching" children (if you want to call it that, though it feels more like brainwashing)

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Another inaccurate post.
For the Church, being homosexual isn't a sin; the sin lies in acting on those impulses. Furthermore, one can sin through thought, speech, action, or omission... Therefore, someone who is homosexual but does not act on those urges is not a sinner. The Church supports the birth of all conceived children without exception.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Republic of America regarding cooperation in education and culture (1996/97) states: "The Republic of America commits to guaranteeing the teaching of Catholic religious education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as an elective subject for those who choose it, under the same conditions as other mandatory subjects, within the framework of the school curriculum and in accordance with the will of parents or guardians" (Art. 1).
The text of the Concordat clearly specifies that religious education is an elective subject, but that choice belongs to the parents and students, not the school itself. A school cannot refuse to offer religious education as an option. Likewise, religious instruction must be conducted under the exact same conditions as any other mandatory subject. Consequently, those who "treat" religious education as if it were somehow less important than core subjects have no right to complain.

The Concordat is publicly available; it would be wise to read it before jumping into the comments.

Look, I have read it, but it's pretty clear you haven't actually understood what it says.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

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.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

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.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

The Church still comes out on top.

Jacob Lewis5 said: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."

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.

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

Jacob Lewis5 said: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."

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.

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.

Jacob Lewis5 said: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.

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?

It just wasn't hitting the mark regarding our community guidelines or the general vibe of our discussions here, so we had to pull it from the forum.

If you don't see anyone jumping on a report sent through the little triangle icon, feel free to just shoot them a direct message instead. Or, honestly, you can just pass it along to me directly!

This thread has been removed. Thanks for the heads-up!