Posts by placidorca16

brisknomad13 said:
Please stop dragging my name into all these different threads.
You did this back when I was banned, too—constantly implying that I’m trying to justify the crime committed against Bruno, which is a total lie. Not to mention the insults.
And here we are, all this time later, and you're still at it.

The fact that the moderators allow all this just proves the title of this thread is accurate.

That’s just not true. After my ban, the only time I mentioned your name was right here during a debate with Lisa Jackson7—specifically regarding the claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist," since you were the one who first wrote that, followed by Lisa Jackson7. I didn't quote anything you said while you were banned. Before that, I only used your quotes to ask you for explanations for the claims you made against Bruno, because you never actually explained them:

As for this "implying" business—you still haven't explained why you felt the need to insist that Bruno was "hardly a scientist at all", or that he "didn't perform experiments" but instead focused on "magic, Hermeticism, and the occult"? What exactly are you trying to prove there, if not an attempt to justify—or at least "soften"—the Inquisition's actions? (Because honestly, how do you even "soften" or downplay burning a man alive for his ideas? Even if he had been the dumbest person on the planet instead of a scientist.) And then you have the nerve to mock me, asking "where would I know," as if it's some "private publication"? 🙄 You even took a jab at the Renaissance itself. Who are you to question the validity of Bruno's science, and what are you actually trying to achieve here, brisknomad13?

Lisa Jackson7 said:
Should they be feeling some shame too? — Or is this just another crackpot source?
Encyclopedia of Philosophy Quote
Renaissance Philosophy

No—they aren't actually trying to claim that Bruno wasn't a scientist, which is exactly what you're attempting to do.

Bruno isn't exactly a scientist—not by any modern definition, anyway. Just like Kepler and Galileo—math aside—he had that... He didn't exactly connect the dots with the experiments—not that anyone expected him to. There were certain things he just couldn't pull off—even Copernicus actually had him beat in that regard...

😲So, you're back at it again with the whole "Bruno wasn't a scientist" thing—except now you’ve actually added some "proof"—claiming he didn't conduct experiments. Groundbreaking.🙄 So, what now? Experimentation is just one way to do science—hardly the only one, anyway.. I What? Are you really going to spend all this time trying to prove yourself?

It was that awkward transition period—moving from the Renaissance toward the Enlightenment—where science, then known as "natural philosophy," slowly started breaking away from philosophy.
Giordano Bruno was an absolutely brilliant mind—in more ways than one—but... What actually matters here is how he radically pushed back against the Church. To make that stick—to really paint the Church as this massive roadblock to progress—they had to pin those advanced scientific theories on him, like his ideas on the movement of the Earth or that whole "infinite worlds" concept.
Bruno wasn't actually sentenced because of science—it was more about his theological attacks (heresy) and the way he implicitly called out the Church as an institution.And all this was happening right before the Thirty Years' War—just when things were getting intense.

🙄 Of course Bruno was charged as a "heretic"—it’s almost too predictable, isn't it?A "heretic"—burned alive just for having an opinion.Basically, he went head-to-head with the "untouchable" Church authority—and ended up calling their entire theological foundation into question. And that’s exactly where the problem lies—if you can even call it that.. Anything that dared to challenge theological dogma from a scientific perspective—essentially anything that actually worked—was slapped with the "heretic" label. Simple as that.But hey, it clearly isn't an issue for you—not by a long shot. You’re actually out here claiming he "stole" certain scientific theories just to make the Church look like some sort of roadblock to progress—as if she wasn't, and still isn't, according to your logic.🙂 What else is there to say about this—besides... What a joke—honestly.!🤣

Philosophy isn't exactly a science—not by any stretch of the imagination.At least since the 19th century—though its ties to various scientific branches are pretty undeniable—it’s hardly a point of contention. And, just to be clear, I'm not using "philosophical speculation" in some derogatory way, nor am I attacking philosophy itself.

Hahahaha... 😂

I don't see the point in citing the Official Gazette—we're talking about the organizational structure of academic institutions here... what does that have to do with how philosophy and science actually relate to one another?

Hahaha... This isn't exactly some grand "structure for scientific and educational institutions"—it’s just a "regulation on scientific and artistic fields." scientific ...and artistic. scientific and artistic fields, branches, and disciplinesWhich was brought about by the National Science Council—as if that would actually change anything. Science—or whatever we’re calling it these days. The National Science Council of the US—the top authority for research here—clearly states that "philosophy" falls under the "humanistic sciences" umbrella, specifically as its own scientific "field" with various "branches." Are you actually playing dumb, or are you just trolling?🤷

So, why would anything that "isn't science" be tucked away in there? You're insisting it isn't philosophy—how does that work? Apparently, the official federal regulation on scientific and artistic fields means absolutely nothing to you—you're still out here claiming philosophy "isn't science." Honestly—either you're completely clueless or you're just playing dumb to troll me. 🤷

Honestly, I have no clue how you can justify keeping up the insults—really, I’m stumped.
Moderators??

People aren't blind—they can see exactly who's being insulted here. You've been trying to tear down Bruno's scientific work and his actual contributions to science from the get-go, and honestly, you just proved it again right here: I can't believe we're actually back at this—it’s like Groundhog Day, only with more heated debates and less coffee. Honestly, some people just love circling the same drain over and over again.
I honestly can’t wrap my head around what you're trying to pull here—who exactly gave you the authority to dismiss his work like this, and what’s the end goal? It’s not really your call to make—you aren't in a position to judge, you lack the capacity for it, and frankly, nobody asked for your take in the debate regarding the abolition of religious education. Scientists from all sorts of disciplines already did that evaluation ages ago. Otherwise, Bruno wouldn't even be mentioned in the history of science, physics, math, or in philosophy anthologies worldwide. Plus, you’re probably being pretty unfair by labeling the Church as some "brake on progress."🙄

You jumped right into my debate with brisknomad13—who, by the way, was also trying to drag down Bruno's scientific legitimacy. They kept pushing this whole argument about how he was just into "magic, Hermeticism, and the occult," basically claiming he "wasn't a scientist" or whatever—it’s still all pretty unclear. What exactly are you trying to achieve with all this repetitive circling—assuming, of course, that you aren't actually trying to justify an Inquisition trial?Anyway, thanks a million—you’ve already given me more than enough to work with. I can draw my own conclusions from all this. No need to go any further.

Lisa Jackson7 said:
On topic—
So, they’re actually going through with the abolition of religious education in schools—finally. I reported placidorca16 on the forum yesterday because of these comments...

Look, this debate is happening over on the Close Politician PDF—not in History or Religion—but honestly, who cares? It’s all just pure ad hominem at this point. Anyway, I'm only answering for what I actually wrote: I was simply commenting on the historical impact and significance of Giordano Bruno, while noting how important it is to judge him objectively.

I can't help but feel like I'm just trying to find ways to justify burning Giordano Bruno.

Explaining the historical context isn't an excuse—period.

Also, the idea that philosophy counts as a science—on par with the natural or social sciences—is pretty questionable to me (even if it is deeply intertwined with them). But more importantly for this thread... placidorca16 keeps trying to attribute "my views" regarding the current drama at the University of Chicago Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to me—which, for the record, I haven't even commented on yet.

What’s next? Am I supposed to find some "safe" way to justify crowning Matija Gubec with thorns right before his execution??

Honestly, this whole discussion has gone completely off the rails over the last few pages—maybe we should save that stuff for the thread about KC's political influence?

Are you seriously not even a little bit embarrassed to bring up the whole "objective evaluation" thing regarding Mr. Bruno? You haven't actually explained any of the historical context—you just kept insisting that Bruno—Not exactly a scientist—not by a long shot.".

I think that it is—well, you know. Ad hominem attacks and straight-up lies—classic. So, what you're claiming about Giordano Bruno—that he... Not exactly a scientist—not that anyone expected him to be.Just like I stated and confirmed right here—

So then you claim to be offering "explanations"—which you've decided aren't just raw, 19th-century ideology—but you don't actually add anything to back up your claim that Bruno wasn't a scientist. Instead, you just drop a link to a book by I. Rowland, a professor of Classical Greek Architecture and Archaeology, titled *Philosopher/Heretic*, without providing any actual reasoning to debunk your own previous assertion that Bruno "wasn't a scientist."

And then you claim that... It’s not even about science—it’s all just "philosophical speculation.": basically means you don't consider philosophy to be a science—a point you pretty much double down on in this post by complaining about its status—but before you go any further, you really ought to read...The "regulation on scientific and artistic fields, branches and disciplines" (Official Gazette 118/2009)—specifically that section regarding "humanities"—is quite something.And that field under section 6.01— Check out this link to the Official Gazette 118/2009—just some riveting reading if you're into that sort of thing. It’s written right there—plain as day:

"6. Humanities branch—just a little heads-up.
Field: 6.01. Philosophy.
Branches:
6.01.01 logic—just because we’re starting there.
6.01.02 cognitive theory
6.01.03 ontology
Philosophical anthropology—6.01.04.
6.01.05 philosophy of nature
6.01.06 philosophical theology
January 6, 2007 — Aesthetics.
Ethics, Jan 6th, '08.

Like I said before—there really isn't much else for me to add beyond what I've already laid out here.

And here too: I can't believe people actually fall for this—it’s honestly kind of sad. Everyone thinks they're being so deep when they're really just repeating old tropes—it's all quite exhausting, if you ask me.

You still haven't actually provided any of those extra "explanations" I asked for regarding your claim that Bruno "wasn't a scientist." So—honestly—I don't see the point in you constantly repeating that he was just some "philosophical speculator" or whatever. It makes me wonder what the goal is here—both yours and brisknomad13's—in pushing these inaccurate takes on Mr. Bruno. Since philosophy is a science, much like the math and physics he worked with, why keep up the act? Are you trying to justify the Inquisition's treatment of him or something? You still haven't answered that.

I’m with the mod on this one. That Trumpian argument is just plain wrong—and honestly, pretty sexist. To claim that since the 1960s, women shouldn't be offended by statements like "I can only offend patriarchal women" because "after the sexual revolution of the 60s, it just became part of the slang—and reality, for God's sake"—is basically just trying to normalize sexism. It’s the same logic used when they say, "The most viewed content online is porn... so why are we making a fuss about 'grab a pussy'?" So, according to him (and clearly everyone else who isn't seeing the issue here), the fact that porn dominates the internet proves that women actually *agree* with being objectified? I have no idea where people get the notion that reducing women to sexual objects is somehow widely accepted or supported by women—especially those who fought for emancipation after the 60s. But hey, I guess I can understand the men who either don't care or are just playing dumb to avoid seeing the problem.

Lawrence Allen4 said:Jessica Kelly4, I think you’re overstating things here.

Shouldn't religious studies in our schools actually be about learning about different faiths and belief systems from an unbiased perspective? The goal should be to help kids develop critical thinking skills—to encourage them to question the world around them and truly think for themselves. Why does that equate to Christian indoctrination? This whole argument that these classes exist just to teach children "morality" or "goodness"... honestly, please. It feels more like teaching them how to be compliant followers under the guise of a faith that claims to only promote virtue.
The curriculum taught in public schools ought to be entirely distinct from what they teach in a church basement.

I’m all in on that bolded part—but there's a catch, because—well, it doesn't exist. If we're talking about teaching faith as a confession, that belongs in a house of worship, not a classroom. In public schools, we should be looking at something more like "religious studies"—basically just an overview of how different faiths function within American society.

Donna White50 said:Have you ever actually screwed someone over in your life? Like, stolen from them or trashed their reputation without feeling a single shred of guilt because you felt entitled to do it...? Do you think it's okay to just steamroll over people to get what you want...? Or like, would you pull the lever on that trolley problem to kill one person just to save five...? What kind of moves are you actually capable of making to get your way...? Do you even have real friends in your life...?

Honestly, I think you've watched way too many movies and now you're just trying to make everything about yourself...

Yeah, that's pretty much the textbook definition of a psychopath—manipulating others for personal gain regardless of the fallout, and honestly, usually ignoring the law entirely. To them, the law isn't some barrier... it's just an inconvenience. And of course, the smarter they are, the better they get at masking it and crafting the perfect alibi.

I think you've watched too many movies and you're just trying to make this about yourself...

Not necessarily... maybe it's just a "soft" version.😁 It doesn't have to be full-blown psychopathy—that kind of behavior actually isn't nearly as rare as people like to think.

Honestly, I feel like we might be looking at psychopathy here—just not the movie villain kind of malicious. Not all psychopaths are out to get you... some are definitely better than others. This guy wouldn't be the worst case scenario.😒

silentraven6 said:placidorca16, if someone were to write a dissertation on the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher, I think the results would be just as devastating. I’ve actually read this paper, and honestly, it isn't quite as bleak or one-sided as you're making it out to be.

Look, I'll admit I might have missed the mark on a few things, but I'm certainly not losing my mind here. It's not like there was some massive revolution within the accredited programs—let's not be overly bold by nitpicking formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance of the argument.

By the way, you seem to have completely misread the points I made in my initial post; they were actually pretty straightforward.

And besides, other disciplines tend to tear down the humanities in this exact same way—by obsessing over trivial nonsense that nobody actually needs. Do we really have to drag this debate down to that level?

Where did I say it was "one-sided or bleak"? I didn't read the whole thing myself—I just quoted a snippet from the published findings. That said, I trust Prof. Maleš—as a mentor, she knows her stuff—so I doubt she'd let anything pass that wasn't strictly scientific. But yeah, the results are what they are.

Look, I admit I missed the mark there, but I'm neither stupid nor crazy. There hasn't been some massive revolution in accredited programs—let's not be obnoxious and nitpick formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance.

Where did I call you "stupid or crazy"? Why the projection? And I never mentioned a "revolution" regarding accreditation—that's not what was said. Still, scientific standards have to exist—even if they're debatable when it comes to religious studies. So, really, we *are* talking about the substance.

By the way, you completely misunderstood my enrollment details—they were perfectly clear.

What exactly did I miss? Care to elaborate?

Besides, other sciences could humiliate the humanities in the exact same way by wasting time on useless nonsense—do we really have to debate at that level?

Sorry, but what does "humiliating the humanities" have to do with the pedagogical competence of religious teachers?

silentraven6 said:Take a little time to look over this.

So, they have their own dedicated department, just like most colleges focused on teacher training would. The Teacher Training Center basically steps in when someone who originally pursued a pure science track wants to beef up their resume and boost their market value 🤣 by taking those specific courses to stay competitive.

As for the pedagogy courses and the overall quality at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let's not even get into that mess. I don't know if anything has actually changed. It seems like people are just trying to rack up certain credits now. I see they’re offering things like working with gifted students and all these random electives that, back in my day, were probably just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing facts for an exam you cram for two days after never even showing up to the lectures.

Look, for me, the issue with religious education in schools is mainly because it gets treated more favorably compared to other electives. Plus, the whole situation with kids who opt out isn't handled well. But I would never question someone's pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher just because they earned those credentials somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Generally speaking, though, I think pedagogy courses need a complete overhaul at every university.

Besides, this list of their core and elective courses looks way better than what the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences offers, doesn't it? It covers both the broad strokes and the deep dives into the heart of the educational process. Imagine having a course in philosophy that actually focuses on the specific didactics and pedagogy of teaching philosophy itself, rather than just some vague, messy overview. I haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has ever told me that their pedagogy classes actually helped them once they started teaching.

I'm not sure if things have evolved over the years. My sources have been in the classroom for a long time, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately—I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into it. But I used to hang out with people from the Society of Jesus and sat in on some of their courses; I remember they had to take those subjects too.

Just because someone holds a chair in religious pedagogy and catechetics doesn't mean they’re actually accredited with the pedagogical competencies needed to work with kids in a school setting. Besides—what you wrote in bold actually contradicts what you said earlier—because if someone already had those competencies (assuming they earned them through an actual pedagogy department), there would be zero reason for them to head over to the Teacher Training Center for the exact same thing. But, if they *are* going, it clearly means they don't have them—or at least not enough. Like you mentioned, one is a scientific field and the other is religious; pedagogy is a science, not a matter of faith.

Based on a study from Marino Ninčević’s doctoral dissertation—titled "pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher"—which he defended at the Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy in Chicago back in 2012, the pedagogical skills of religious teachers aren't exactly anything to write home about. In fact...We really need to step up the game when it comes to improving pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher—it’s for their own sake as much as the students'. After all, you can be a theological genius, but if you can't actually teach, mediate, or organize a lesson without it falling apart—you're just not going to be an effective teacher.So, if you wanted to summarize that dissertation—which, by the way, was supervised by Dubravka Maleš, one of our most respected pedagogists—here’s what you'd get.
The Archdiocese of Zadar just dropped a new update regarding the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher process—basically, more paperwork to navigate. It looks like they’re trying to streamline things through the College of Liberal Arts, though I’m sure "streamlining" is just code for more digital hoops to jump through.

As for the quality of the pedagogy courses over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let’s just not go there. Nebulous.I don't know if anything has actually changed—it feels like you need to rack up specific credits now—but I see they’ve added working with gifted students and all sorts of courses that, back in my day, were basically just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing a list for an exam you cram for two days after skipping every single lecture.

Why "nebulous"? — honestly, I’m stumped.🤣 Points get racked up everywhere—that’s just how the Bologna Process studying works. It’s nothing new, really; been this way for ages.

Look, my biggest gripe with religion classes in schools is how they get treated like the golden child compared to other electives—it’s totally lopsided—plus the whole situation with kids who don't opt in is just a complete mess, but... I would never question someone's pedagogical competence just because they picked them up somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, though personally—and this is just me—I think pedagogy courses need a total ground-up overhaul at pretty much every university.

It’s not actually about that—it's about accreditation. If you're accredited, you're cleared to provide those training modules to others for their education and skill acquisition.

Besides, their list of required and elective courses looks way more impressive than what we have at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, doesn't it?

Not for me—sorry, but absolutely not.

It implies diving into both the general and specific cores of the educational process—imagine if, say, a philosophy major had a course focused specifically on the didactics and pedagogy of philosophy itself, rather than some vague, messy mishmash. I honestly haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has claimed their pedagogy classes were actually useful in a classroom setting.

Look, pedagogy and didactics are scientific disciplines. You can't just shrink them down into some other field. They can be applied within other professions, sure—just like teaching methodologies work—but religious education isn't easily fused with a scientific discipline or methodology, given that it isn't exactly a science. Then there's the fact that they want the same status and treatment as actual sciences; that's why the Church tries to be so pushy within the secular school system through religious ed, attempting to wedge its way further into higher education. But, in my opinion, it won't be quite that easy.

I'm not sure if things have shifted over the years—my sources have been teaching for ages, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately, so I haven't done any deep dives. That said, I have spent time with people from the Jesuit order and sat in on some courses; I remember they had to pass those subjects.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you aren't exactly up to speed with current campus happenings. As for the Jesuits, in my experience, they're much closer to philosophy than to catechesis.☕

silentraven6 said:I’m lost here... have you actually looked at the curriculum for those religious studies courses they mention in the lectures? As I recall, it covers general pedagogy, didactics, and methodology.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that trying to teach "teaching competencies" through basic pedagogy classes is a total joke. I won't even count the methodology courses I took in Philosophy, because honestly, that department probably feels more philosophical than the entire faculty at the FBI.

I don't know if they still do student teaching observations, but back in my day, even mentioning them as a requirement for teacher certification in secular programs was considered embarrassing—and I was doing my observations at a massive, high-profile school. Okay, fine, I'll make an exception for Reseda... I didn't exactly walk away with "competencies" because I was young, pregnant, and totally unprepared for the job at the time. But I did get a lasting sense of optimism from seeing people who truly love what they do and actually know how to teach at a world-class level.

At the end of the day, religious educators can't step foot in a public school without those pedagogy credits.

Yeah, I was at the College of Liberal Arts. I never actually saw didactics or methodology anywhere—not even in my curriculum—and I only caught general pedagogy during my theology studies, which wasn't even part of the Religious Education and Catechesis track. On that program, though, I did take three specific courses: 1) religious education for preschoolers, 2) religious education and catechesis for children and pre-teens, and 3) religious education for adolescents and young adults. Now, what exactly would those fall under when it comes to pedagogical competence?

Let’s be honest—trying to measure teaching competencies within pedagogy courses is a total joke for anyone with half a brain. I’ll leave out the methodology classes I took at the College of Liberal Arts, since that course was probably more philosophical than the entire Department of Pedagogy over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Even if that were actually the case—which, let’s be honest, is a total reach—what does it have to do with the actual study programs offered at the College of Liberal Arts regarding pedagogical competence?
Link: Check out this link for the College of Liberal Arts studies—specifically the track for religious education and catechetics:

The Teacher Training Center at the Faculty of Humanities—on the other hand—offers this: Check out the regular study programs over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—details are all right here:

Religious education teachers can't exactly walk into a classroom without having tackled those pedagogy courses first—it's just how things work.

Oh, I can definitely pull it off. It’s just that we aren't actually supposed to—but let's be honest, who's really going to go checking besides the church authorities?😁

silentraven6 said:Whether you’re training to be a religious educator or teaching secular subjects, you still have to master the actual art of teaching—the methods and the pedagogy required to make your subject stick.

John Thomas13, there are people everywhere, and let's be honest—idiots are everywhere too. You shouldn't be so exclusive about it. My own neighborhood is actually crawling with folks who are deeply into theology; I've got catechists, former seminary students, and even some staunch atheists living right around the corner. Those two groups can get into some pretty heated debates sometimes. It’s honestly fascinating to listen to. That kind of friction is healthy, and frankly, things would be pretty dull without it.

At which university, though?

rowdypanther12 said:How can someone be a homeroom teacher if they don't actually know all their students? Not even going to get into the deeper issues here.

Plus, they haven't exactly mastered any pedagogical, didactic, or methodological skills needed to actually teach kids.🙄

[No content provided to rewrite]

Lawrence Torres56 said:So, who exactly is the "specialist" for GO? Or better yet, who's the "expert" at being a homeroom teacher?
Please, just spare me the nonsense.🍿

So, instead of an actual answer, you’re just offering a question paired with some ironic commentary? Sorry, but that doesn't exactly count as an explanation—or a credible introduction, for that matter. I don't mind addressing your point, really—but let's try getting an answer to my previous question first, since that's still hanging in the air. So, if you're claiming this:
[User Name] said: "..."

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

So—could you actually explain how a religious studies teacher is supposed to be any more "expert" or "high-quality" than a biology, English, or math professor when it comes to those specific subjects? I'm genuinely curious—can you actually answer that?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

Oh, really? Which specific topics are we talking about here—what could a religion teacher possibly cover from other disciplines if they aren't actually qualified for them?🤣 And why would they even bother doing that when we have actual specialists who are actually qualified to teach those subjects?

[User Name] said: [Text]

silentraven6 said:Look, I’ve been reading up on this, and while I have plenty of gripes regarding the terms of these kinds of agreements (because let's face it, we're still living in a bit of a backwater here and we're being totally naive about what these contracts are actually supposed to represent), the idea of making studies more interdisciplinary isn't a bad one at all. We’re already a weird case where you can study almost identical subjects at two different universities just a few miles apart; it’s already a precedent.

When you look at it from the perspective of the KBC and the FFZG, it actually seems like a pretty valuable move if you really think about it. You'll have people who are incredibly well-versed in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, enrolling in a philosophy program at the FFZG to round out their expertise. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see a problem with it—if someone wants to study it, they should go for it. Honestly, having the secular influence rub off on the sacred might even help build tolerance among KBC students and encourage them to step away from dogma a bit (even though it's not like everyone there is strictly denominational, for example).

But then again, if we're talking about this kind of fluidity, I’d want to see it applied to other fields too. For instance, I’d love to be able to pair Russian language and literature with geology at the FFZG, just to stay competitive in the job market. Or maybe art history with musicology, or molecular biology with linguistics, or automation with American studies—the combinations are endless.

If things actually worked the way the Bologna process was intended to work in its core principles, it would be amazing to see, say, a Science student pairing mathematics with theology. I wouldn't see any issue with that whatsoever; it would be nothing but a benefit. But that's assuming we were in some other country and Boras wasn't one of the most influential figures in the Old Catholic Church.

We all know what’s actually going on here. They just tacked on those other majors as an excuse, a way to provide an alibi so they can claim this isn't a blatant attempt to wreck the critical thinking that still manages to exist in certain pockets of the FFZG philosophy department.

People don't really understand philosophy itself. There's this widespread misconception that anyone who asks a few fundamental questions straight out of Kalin is a philosopher. To them, sociology and philosophy are the same thing, psychology gets lumped in there too, and why not theology? These sciences have different subjects and different methodologies. Throwing them all into the same basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and sure, they should overlap—every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and I don't mean just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two disciplines?

Look, you can't just shove everything into one basket—especially not religion and science. Besides, before forcing this kind of thing through, there should be some actual mutual interest shown by the departments involved—not just one side aggressively pushing their agenda. Right now, the playing field isn't even remotely level. We're talking about a tiny Seminary with only three programs trying to merge with a massive College of Arts and Sciences that has over 100 different combinations of majors and departments. If we change the hiring system for schools, teachers with different credentials are definitely going to lose out—which would basically put the College of Arts and Sciences students at a disadvantage compared to the Seminary crowd. Why even do that? Honestly, plenty of disciplines here would probably benefit way more from partnering with Law, Economics, Architecture, or the College of Science than with the Seminary. In my opinion, we need to figure out what each school actually needs strategically instead of just forcing the Seminary into the College of Arts and Sciences—especially since the Seminary isn't even a secular institution; it’s run by its own religious authority.

When you look at it through the lens of the Mayo Clinic and Harvard University, this move actually seems pretty brilliant—if you think about it. You’ve got people who are already killing it in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, and now they can just pick up a second major like philosophy at Harvard to round out their skill set. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see any issue with it—if someone wants to study, let them. Honestly, having that secular influence rub off on the religious crowd might actually help Mayo Clinic students become a bit more tolerant and less stuck in dogma—though, granted, not everyone there is strictly religious.

Is it actually a good idea for KBF students to pick up extra training at Harvard University? Maybe. But doing the reverse? Not so much—Harvard students don't gain anything from it, they just end up losing out on enrollment spots and, eventually, job opportunities.

[User] says: [Text]

Look, if I could actually have that kind of flexibility—like picking Russian lit and geology at Harvard just to stay competitive—I’d take it in a heartbeat. Or maybe art history paired with musicology, molecular biology with linguistics, or robotics and American studies... honestly, the combinations are endless.

That’s exactly my point. Why would Harvard University bother giving special treatment to the KBF when they aren't even interested in them? They should be pushing programs like biology, geography, social work, pharmacy, or design instead—but hey, you need a centralized university system for that, which we just don't have.

If the whole credit system actually worked the way its theoretical foundations claim—you know, like it's supposed to—it’d be great to see someone from the College of Science studying theology on the side. I don't see any issue with that, honestly—just pure benefit—if this were some other country and if Miller wasn't one of the most influential members of the Old Catholic Church.

That’s just "what if" territory... but it isn't reality, because this is just a closed-off, narrow-minded American state.🙄

Look, we all know what's actually happening here. They only added those other majors as an alibi—to pretend this isn't a blatant attempt to screw over critical thinking, which is still barely hanging on in certain corners of philosophy at Harvard University.

Of course that's what it is—but there aren't even other majors being forced through... there's really just that one: KBF.

People don't really understand philosophy itself; there's this widespread idea that anyone who asks a few basic questions at the start of a semester is a philosopher. They think sociology and philosophy are the same thing, or that psychology should be shoved in there too—and why not theology then? These sciences have different subjects and different methods. Throwing them all into one basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and they should, since every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and not just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two sciences?

Oh, the people pushing this know exactly what the differences are... that's precisely why they're pushing it.

Karen Richardson3 said:Honestly, I don't see any big issue with theologians teaching high school philosophy—especially since, from what I recall, the curriculum is mostly just a history of philosophical thought anyway. I mean, what's the actual difference in training between them and a standard religious instructor?
Is that old-school rulebook still being enforced? Some stuffy, bureaucratic 😁

In my opinion, theologians are actually better educated than most students graduating from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and at the end of the day, there’s a huge amount of overlap between theology and philosophy. They're basically just religious philosophers, if you catch my drift. 😁

Looking back at my own experience, one single teacher used to cover philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics for me in high school. I can't even remember if she had a degree in one of those or all of them.

It was clearly either too expensive or just impossible for the school to hire separate specialists for every subject, so she probably just filled her schedule that way.

I get why this creates a headache for philosophy majors, though, because a religious instructor could easily fill their roster by teaching both religion and philosophy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "specialist." Back in college in a city like Chicago, they used to call students who were only majoring in a single subject like American literature "specialists," whereas double majors weren't labeled that way. 🤣

Anyway, I had this really interesting debate recently with a friend of mine who's a teacher. He thinks it's ridiculous that teachers are expected to teach *only* their specific major. We were talking about restructuring classes, cutting hours for some subjects, and adding more for others.
He believes that even if a major reform happened, teachers should be allowed to teach subjects outside their primary degree.
And honestly, I'm on his side. High school education—even middle school—doesn't really demand the kind of deep, hyper-specialized knowledge you'd find in a PhD program.
That’s why I think the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is organized so poorly; they treat pedagogical training like a chore you just have to get through, similar to gym or art class, while focusing almost everything on niche, granular details that you will NEVER actually use in a classroom.
If I were studying history, for example, I feel like half of it wouldn't even apply to me. 😁

I know I'm jumping around here, but this ties right into the whole school system reform conversation.
At one point in college, I had a course on history taught by a Franciscan monk from a monastery, and he was hands-down one of my best professors.
He taught me about the Middle Ages during that teenage phase where I was, you know, super anti-Church and all that.
The fact that he was a monk didn't stop him from delivering an incredible lecture. He was a theologian who had earned his doctorate in history from one of "their" universities.

I also had a political science professor teach one of my courses.

So, if it works at the university level, why shouldn't it work in K-12 schools?

Is this restriction strictly limited to this one subject, or is this kind of flexibility allowed for other disciplines too?

😲 Where did you get this idea that theologians are better at philosophy than actual philosophers? What’s your basis here? At the College of Arts and Sciences, they train students across more than 23 scientific disciplines in over 100 combinations—philosophy being just one specific science, which you clearly don't realize. Other students from different majors wouldn't even dream of applying for philosophy jobs because they lack the credentials. So why would theologians have them?

From my own experience, the same person taught me philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics back in high school. I can't even remember if she was a specialist in all of those or just some of them.
It was clearly either too expensive or impossible for the school to find separate people for every subject, so she just filled her schedule like that.

.You already answered that—logic and ethics are part of philosophy, so philosophers are the ones qualified for it. For sociology, you need sociologists, though at the College of Arts and Sciences, you can do a double major (one program) combining philosophy and sociology. That way, you get a degree covering both and the competencies for both distinct fields.

On what grounds would a theologian with a theology degree (or a religious ed teacher) be qualified for that, please?😲

I also understand how this creates a problem for philosophers, since a religious ed teacher could fill their schedule with both religion and philosophy.

In no other country can a religious ed teacher fill their hours with philosophy if that country actually has a dedicated philosophy department—except in America, unfortunately.🙄 In some places (like Germany), teacher training isn't even considered a scientific study, nor is such an institution part of the University system, because it's simply not treated as a science. But here, it is.😁🙄

silentraven6 said:Regarding all the pressure being put on the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and other departments, I think we're looking at this specific issue. There’s actually a really solid article right here.

Of course, they're pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now, and naturally, they're throwing everyone into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's only theologians and religious educators trying to qualify themselves to teach these subjects. But honestly, once you actually know the material, seeing how much these different fields overlap with philosophy just looks ridiculous. As someone studying American studies, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy, at most maybe the philosophy of education or linguistics (though even then, I don't see myself doing that even after finishing my degree, but that's a whole different conversation 😁); I have no clue what a social scientist like a sociologist would even do there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations; I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in specific seminars on political or social philosophy; and I don't see how a theologian could take over bioethics or the principles of modern philosophy—maybe they could be a guest lecturer for Spinoza or something...; and as for religious educators, I really don't see it; their curriculum truly, truly can't be compared to studying theology, let alone philosophy.

I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about exercising pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into teaching philosophy is a shameful move, regardless of how bad current instruction is and how desperately it needs a massive overhaul.

I wasn't really thinking of that—though it's related—but rather that specific agreement regarding "joint dual-degree programs" between KBFa and FF.

Of course, they’re pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now. Naturally, they're throwing everything into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's solely theologians and religious educators trying to qualify to teach these subjects. Honestly, if you actually know the material, the way these disciplines overlap with philosophy looks pretty ridiculous. As an American studies major, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy—maybe education philosophy or linguistics, but that's a whole other story 😁—and I have no idea what a sociologist would even be doing there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations? I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in certain seminars on political or social philosophy. And as for a theologian taking over bioethics or modern philosophical principles... well, maybe they could guest lecture on Aquinas or Spinoza. But a religious educator? Definitely not. Their curriculum can't even be compared to theology, let alone philosophy.

That's basically what people mean when they talk about exerting pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into philosophy classes is a disgraceful move, regardless of how bad the current curriculum is or how much of a massive overhaul it desperately needs.

Sure, but it's not just about that—it's about a total restructuring of the College of Arts and Sciences. The goal seems to be turning it into a satellite office meant to serve KBFa—basically a long-term plan to clericalize society at the university and scientific level. If they get away with this blatant takeover of the College of Arts and Sciences, moving onto the other departments—with the College of Science being the most interesting target—is only a matter of time.

Karen Richardson3 said:Alright, let's take this one step at a time:

You quoted my post where I was specifically pointing out which countries don't offer religious education, and then you hit me back with that line about how some countries don't have religion classes in their schools at all.

Look, I already pointed out in my previous post that there's a massive difference between teaching religious education and teaching religious culture, but you're still out here insisting they're one and the same thing.
I know they aren't perfect, which is exactly why I’m bringing up the fact that one or the other actually exists.

Alright, here’s my third take on this whole situation regarding the pressure being put on universities:
I'd really love it if someone could drop a link here, because honestly, I feel like I'm just flying blind right now and have no clue what we're actually talking about.

So, I finally wrapped things up at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, but here’s the kicker—if you actually want to add another subject to your teaching credentials, you can't just stop there; you basically have to go through the whole grind of finishing the entire program first. Come on, man, just lay it all out for me—give me the full rundown of the whole degree program..
So, what you’re actually saying is that the University President is pulling strings behind the scenes just to make sure a student from the Theological Faculty can walk away with a degree in American history, English, or linguistics?
Do you think they could actually walk away with that degree without sitting through every single second of those four years? I know, I know—it sounds totally ridiculous and basically impossible when you say it out loud, but I mean it.
Are they actually looking to let students pull off a double major—like pairing Theology with something else over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—without having to jump through all the usual admissions hoops? Because if that’s the plan, I’m wondering if they’ll just bump up the capacity at the Humanities department, or if those Theology students will still get that special enrollment priority. Honestly, the whole idea feels a little half-baked to me. 🤔

Look, can you just drop a link or maybe break down how this whole university situation actually works? I'm trying to wrap my head around the specifics here.

If you look at how things work over in Europe, the way various churches—whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or whatever else—interact with the government is actually pretty varied and generally stays on quite positive terms. It’s a world away from the vibe we have here in the States, where everything feels like this constant, exhausting tug-of-war between the "leftists" who can't stand the church and the "right-wingers" who basically treat it like their best friend.

It feels like here in the States, everyone—from the far left to the far right, even the church—just can't help but turn everything they touch into a political statement; you just don't see that level of constant maneuvering everywhere else.
It feels like people around here are just so easily swayed by the noise, honestly. It’s like everyone is being played, and because they've been conditioned to view everything through such a specific political lens, their entire stance on religion ends up being shaped by those partisan biases instead of anything else.

You could have checked out the link I posted earlier 😁

Every country handles this its own way. Even within federalist systems, you see huge differences in how things play out.
Basically, some places teach formal religion, while others focus on religious culture; it all happens right inside the school buildings during normal hours, and kids who don't want in can just opt for ethics instead.

(Just a quick side note regarding ethics being the alternative—that’s still on the government to organize. For instance, when those previous liberal administrations were in power, they had to manage that, just like the state has to provide the funding to ensure there's a room with an adult supervisor for kids who choose the non-religious route).

As for religious symbols (though honestly, I have no idea how many schools around here have actually stripped them out), take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Lautsi v. Italy case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. On March 18, 2011, they ruled that the Italian law requiring crucifixes in state school classrooms doesn't actually violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm not sure if our local anti-religion activists can even answer those last questions for you. Usually, they just jump straight to that "we're backwards, it's not like this anywhere else" argument without actually looking at how things work in the rest of the world.

Let me reiterate my newly discovered take 😁 which is that everyone uses this whole debate as a way to keep everything hanging in limbo and just stir up tension between citizens.

Yeah, because: 1. ... 2. In the same breath where you list countries that don't have religious education—while also mentioning places that *do* have it or teach religious culture—you’re claiming it's "everywhere," just like here in America. Which, let's be real, isn't actually true.

Karen Richardson3 said:So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

I just held you to your own word—which you’re clearly misinterpreting, by the way—because... Nah. It’s the same story everywhere—especially when you consider that some countries don't teach religion at all, while others just offer religious studies as a standalone elective that has zero connection to any specific church. Plus, there's a massive difference between people born into a tradition and those who actually choose a faith—they aren't the same group when it comes to how they practice or how they treat atheists and people of other faiths. They usually behave quite differently. But you? You’re just shoving everything into one big pile without making any distinctions—as if America is somehow identical to every other country in the European Union.

I gave you an extra example involving the KFB and the FFO here in the States—it’s a total anomaly that you won't find anywhere else, though maybe that's flying over your head. Anyway, here are some links regarding how this whole thing started:

Students at the College of Arts and Sciences are making waves—apparently, they’re staging protests over enrollment issues. It's the usual chaos.

Why are students flocking to the seminary? It’s becoming a bit of a trend—everyone seems to be heading toward the clergy lately. Honestly, it makes you wonder if there's some hidden logic behind the sudden surge in enrollments.

And here’s a link from the FFa student union right before their final FFa Council meeting—just in case anyone actually cares. https://www.facebook.com/slobodni.fi...91727064332632

Karen Richardson3 said:Alright, let's take this one step at a time:

You quoted my post where I was specifically pointing out which countries don't offer religious education, and then you hit me back with that line about how some countries don't have religion classes in their schools at all.

Look, I already pointed out in my previous post that there's a massive difference between teaching religious education and teaching religious culture, but you're still out here insisting they're one and the same thing.
I know they aren't perfect, which is exactly why I’m bringing up the fact that one or the other actually exists.

Alright, here’s my third take on this whole situation regarding the pressure being put on universities:
I'd really love it if someone could drop a link here, because honestly, I feel like I'm just flying blind right now and have no clue what we're actually talking about.

So, I finally wrapped things up at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, but here’s the kicker—if you actually want to add another subject to your teaching credentials, you can't just stop there; you basically have to go through the whole grind of finishing the entire program first. Come on, man, just lay it all out for me—give me the full rundown of the whole degree program..
So, what you’re actually saying is that the University President is pulling strings behind the scenes just to make sure a student from the Theological Faculty can walk away with a degree in American history, English, or linguistics?
Do you think they could actually walk away with that degree without sitting through every single second of those four years? I know, I know—it sounds totally ridiculous and basically impossible when you say it out loud, but I mean it.
Are they actually looking to let students pull off a double major—like pairing Theology with something else over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—without having to jump through all the usual admissions hoops? Because if that’s the plan, I’m wondering if they’ll just bump up the capacity at the Humanities department, or if those Theology students will still get that special enrollment priority. Honestly, the whole idea feels a little half-baked to me. 🤔

Look, can you just drop a link or maybe break down how this whole university situation actually works? I'm trying to wrap my head around the specifics here.

If you look at how things work over in Europe, the way various churches—whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or whatever else—interact with the government is actually pretty varied and generally stays on quite positive terms. It’s a world away from the vibe we have here in the States, where everything feels like this constant, exhausting tug-of-war between the "leftists" who can't stand the church and the "right-wingers" who basically treat it like their best friend.

It feels like here in the States, everyone—from the far left to the far right, even the church—just can't help but turn everything they touch into a political statement; you just don't see that level of constant maneuvering everywhere else.
It feels like people around here are just so easily swayed by the noise, honestly. It’s like everyone is being played, and because they've been conditioned to view everything through such a specific political lens, their entire stance on religion ends up being shaped by those partisan biases instead of anything else.

You could have checked out the link I posted earlier 😁

Every country handles this its own way. Even within federalist systems, you see huge differences in how things play out.
Basically, some places teach formal religion, while others focus on religious culture; it all happens right inside the school buildings during normal hours, and kids who don't want in can just opt for ethics instead.

(Just a quick side note regarding ethics being the alternative—that’s still on the government to organize. For instance, when those previous liberal administrations were in power, they had to manage that, just like the state has to provide the funding to ensure there's a room with an adult supervisor for kids who choose the non-religious route).

As for religious symbols (though honestly, I have no idea how many schools around here have actually stripped them out), take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Lautsi v. Italy case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. On March 18, 2011, they ruled that the Italian law requiring crucifixes in state school classrooms doesn't actually violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm not sure if our local anti-religion activists can even answer those last questions for you. Usually, they just jump straight to that "we're backwards, it's not like this anywhere else" argument without actually looking at how things work in the rest of the world.

Let me reiterate my newly discovered take 😁 which is that everyone uses this whole debate as a way to keep everything hanging in limbo and just stir up tension between citizens.

Yeah, exactly.

Would you actually get that degree without sitting through all four years of the program? I know—sounds absolutely ridiculous and impossible when you put it that way.

Of course not. How would that even be possible? — honestly.

So, are they actually looking to let people pull a double major—like Theology paired with something else at the College of Arts and Sciences—without having to deal with the usual admissions hurdles? If that’s the case, will they bump up the capacity at the College of Arts and Sciences, or is the Seminary going to get priority in the enrollment rankings? Honestly, the whole idea sounds pretty half-baked to me. 🤔

So, they’re looking to set up these "joint double-major programs" with the College of Arts and Sciences. At first, the idea was to pair them with "religious pedagogy and catechetics"—basically for teaching religion—over at the KBF, but since that initial plan got shot down, the new version of the contract suggests pairing them with every single program at the KBF. The quotas were originally supposed to be "extra," but in this second draft, they've been moved into the "regular" slots. Also, the original plan allowed KBF students to skip the entrance exams for their chosen double-major track at the College of Arts and Sciences, but they've walked that back too—now you'd actually have to take the exam. To top it all off, they’re proposing "joint degrees" where everyone gets a diploma for their respective parts of the program—which is legally impossible unless they plan on lobbying to change the laws entirely. Honestly, given how things work in this country, I wouldn't put it past the Catholic Church to try and bend the law to fit.

So, the KBF is currently pushing through its study accreditation via the University Senate—skipping the College of Arts and Sciences entirely. They actually listed themselves as the primary institution while claiming the College of Arts and Sciences just "hosts" their secondary subjects. It’s honestly absurd—the College of Arts and Sciences is a fully autonomous university entity that manages nearly 100 different dual-degree programs on its own; they don't need KBF's permission for anything. The whole thing is just a power grab by KBF, backed by the University President and the top brass at the main campus administration. Incidentally, this is the same crew that campaigned for him to become President because he promised them he’d "push this through" at the university level. He even tried to sneak a blank contract titled "Cooperation with KBF" past the College of Arts and Sciences Council without any actual text included—and then, surprise, he won the election. It wasn't until the new leadership stepped in at the College of Arts and Sciences that the mess was finally uncovered. They released the original contract and the Council rejected it by a massive majority. But—and there's always a "but"—they aren't done yet. If they can break the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Science is next on the list—basically everything taught in schools except for religious studies. As Dean Tonči Matulić put it during a chat with the President, they are looking to restore the "old medieval glory."😲😲😲

Everything’s on hold for now—the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences pulled that item from the agenda entirely. Apparently, seven of the most prestigious departments at the College of Liberal Arts (we're talking Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, English, Art History, and a few others) all voiced their opposition to the contract. The Dean is clearly just trying to protect his standing within the university—even if he's being squeezed by the President and the top brass at the University Board—but now he's already started playing the "job security" card with faculty positions. We'll see how this plays out, though. My money is on this hitting the local news soon.

Karen Richardson3 said:So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

I wouldn't exactly agree that everything is the same as it is in America, because there are places where religious instruction isn't even an option in schools. Plus, there's a massive difference between having confessional religious instruction and having a "religious culture" course—they are completely different subjects. You couldn't even have the same teachers for them. For instance, as an atheist, I wouldn't mind at all if my kid took a religious culture class—if such a thing were even possible in the US—because that would likely cover various religious discourses from around the world rather than just one specific church doctrine. The fact that the Church in America meddles in education way more than in other countries is obvious when you look at things like the University of Chicago—where the current rector is essentially forcing the dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to sign a contract with the Catholic Theological Faculty. This is all just so religious instructors could get a degree in yet another subject to qualify for teaching in schools via the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. After they pull that off, they apparently plan to move onto the Faculty of Science too. You won't find examples like that anywhere else in Europe.

neonsailor26 said:Do you really think it's okay for a parent to call their kid an idiot or a psychopath just because they wanted to grab a coffee with a friend at a local cafe?! Is it? Really? Is that normal? And is it normal for a parent to block their child—a student who was straight-A all through high school and earned every accolade possible—from moving to another city for college, simply because the parent thinks it's a bad idea? Is it? I'm positive it isn't...

Your mom is being way too possessive—honestly, she’s doing you a massive disservice by trying to stunt your growth and independence, which is pretty much the whole point of growing up. I’m a mom myself—I’ve got a 14-year-old son—and I’d actually be thrilled if he showed even half the drive for independence that you have, like wanting to head off to college in a different city when he's 20. That's just maturity. If you can manage to move away for school, you should definitely go for it—it’d be the smartest move, and it would finally get her off your back.