Posts by Susan James

Lawrence Torres56 said:I don't think parents even need to bother asking about the requirements; if a teacher is actually acting like this, they should just report them to the proper authorities. Look, there's a very clear line drawn between public school curriculum and church activities, both for the sake of the church and the government.

And as for pulling a kid out of a program? The rules are the same across the board—you can't just unenroll your kid in the middle of the year, whether it's a formal class or just some after-school club or extracurricular activity... you know how it is.

Parents ask questions about which teacher their child might have in first grade (which is mandatory), so why wouldn't they ask about the person teaching an elective subject?😕

I know quite a few kids who don't choose a second language in fourth grade, or rather, they don't want to deal with learning Spanish at school because the teacher grades like a "hardliner." There's a real risk of getting a C, which then drags down their GPA. They end up going to a local tutoring center or a specialized language academy instead. The only difference is that parents pay for it there. In their main school, they’d be in the afternoon session anyway, and some actually prefer the later timing because it gives them more productive time in between rather than just sitting around for 45 minutes waiting for class to start.

Then there's computer science, which everyone keeps pushing to make mandatory. Yet, in some schools, it’s only offered as an elective, and let's be honest, it isn't always the most exciting subject. I already know several families where the kids have opportunities to learn tech skills elsewhere, so they skip the school version. The first reason is usually the scheduling in the afternoon block, and the second is that it often turns into a grind for overachievers, carrying that risk of a lower grade affecting the overall average. If a family has a software engineer or someone tech-savvy at home, the kid is going to pick up all those basics at home anyway—likely even more than what's covered in a standard classroom.

Also, why is religious education tucked right into the regular school schedule? 🤔
Why isn't it held during the afternoon sessions? 🤔
How much does religious ed actually impact the GPA—does it help it or hurt it? 🙂
And shouldn't the content of school religious studies be something every parent is capable of teaching their own child? What is the actual purpose of having a dedicated instructor for this?🙂 🙂

It’s probably just for preparing students and organizing competitions centered around religious studies.🐔 🎉

Sarah Hall53 said:I actually teach an elective myself, and no—students don't really have to declare their choice at the start of every school year. Basically, if they don't submit a formal written request to opt out, it’s just assumed they're sticking with the class again.

As for the whole religious studies thing and having to attend church services... my cousin had a teacher like that about ten years ago. They had to go to the local parish for religious ed and collect these specific stamps in a little booklet from the priest—and if you missed mass three times, you were basically out of luck. So, parents would end up dragging them to Sunday service and confession just to make sure everything was documented. There were also all these headaches if you weren't at your home parish—like, say, you go to a different church nearby, but the priest there doesn't have a deal with your teacher and won't give you the stamp, so then the teacher won't count it... honestly, her parents were losing their minds that entire year. Thankfully, the following year she got a much more chill teacher.
So, yeah—just because you didn't experience something personally doesn't mean it isn't happening.

That's exactly what I'm saying

It really would be helpful if parents checked in on the teacher's specific requirements early on. That way, they won't be totally blindsided by the demands later, especially since you can't just opt out mid-year. Even if nothing is ever a 100% guarantee, it would at least prevent them from being shocked when a teacher insists that attending Mass is a higher priority than a soccer game—even though the other kids in the club, who go to different schools, seem to manage both school religion classes and their games just fine.

Brian Jones8 said:The delay actually makes sense when you look at the big picture... we're dealing with speech issues, focus problems, and—let's be honest—emotional immaturity.

I can't help but worry about how this whole thing is going to hit him down the road, but hey, what's done is done... 🕺

You should really look into the preschool situation first—see what the group dynamic is like. Check if most kids are moving on or staying, who he might end up being grouped with, and what kind of environment he'll be stepping into.

When it comes to delaying school entry, those mixed-age groups can be wonderful; they usually split things pretty evenly, with half moving up and half staying behind.

Whatever you decide, try to explain to him why practicing these new skills now will make his transition to elementary school much smoother. Also, see if there are any kids he can stay friends with—maybe connect with some of the other parents and set up a playdate or a birthday party. I don't mean you should force friendships, but having those social connections during such a big transition period can really help.
And definitely give the preschool a heads-up as soon as possible (if they don't know already) so they can try to group kids with similar interests together. Anything is possible if you have the time and the willingness to coordinate.

Jessica Kelly4 said:The magic you're talking about just isn't part of Christian doctrine or tradition.
I don't mind adding a little flair to things for the kids, but you can't seriously expect religious ed instructors to teach the Christmas season like it's Harry Potter.

In America, Christianity serves as a major cultural identifier alongside faith, so some families send their kids to parochial school classes even if they aren't particularly religious themselves. That’s their right, obviously, but you can't be surprised when they push back against certain activities planned by the teachers.

Religious education is strictly dependent on parental consent, which has to be renewed every single school year. Deciding whether or not to enroll a child shouldn't be taken lightly.

Does decorating pine trees and putting up Advent wreaths on the table and the front door count as part of the tradition too? I've always wondered how far back those customs actually go.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, though I have to disagree on one specific point. In our school system, if you opt into religion classes at the start of the year, that’s a commitment you stick with through the end of the term. It isn't really a matter of being able to just drop out because someone told you Santa Claus isn't real before the holidays roll around. It's also not about wanting to skip weekly services to avoid those repetitive roll calls, or trying to protect your GPA because your grades are taking a hit since you aren't attending Mass. Once you make that choice, you're in for the duration.

Anyway, if she’s really set on bringing up Santa Claus, she might as well say something like this:
I've been thinking about this lately, and honestly, it’s such an interesting perspective to consider. It really makes you stop and reflect on things we often take for granted.

Brenda Doyle5 said:What am I expecting here?
Look, I’d expect them to make a connection in a way that actually makes sense for kids—something like, "As Christians, we believe God is real and exists, and someone else believes Santa Claus is real and brings gifts..." You state that neither belief is "wrong." Then throw in a line or two about imagination, childhood, and fairy tales.
Whatever you do, don't just say, "Santa Claus doesn't exist, period."
Don't lie, but tailor the truth to a child's age... just like we already do when we teach them about God or Jesus.

Is that really such a big deal?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

By the way, I’ve noticed that the Christmas holiday logic is being handled directly on the PID controller.
At our local music school, we’ve already started getting into the spirit by singing Christmas carols. It got me thinking—how should we go about celebrating the Christmas season at the Nature and Society Club?
What should we do about "Snowflakes are Falling," that song they play at music class? The Christmas season is getting so close, and I can already feel that Santa Claus magic starting to kick in!

Are we really going to tailor everything just to fit Catholicism, or should other kids have the right to practice their own beliefs too?

I have to agree with the idea that Catholics shouldn't really be believing in Santa Claus. It’s pretty clear-cut when you look at it from a faith perspective—there is only one God, and we aren't supposed to have any other gods alongside Him.
If I remember correctly, back when they were first introducing Catholicism into the schools in places like Chicago, they actually rebranded Santa Claus as "Santa Claus" just to be different. It was their way of sticking to tradition and doing things their own way, I guess. 🥳
So, at the end of the day, does he actually exist or not?

hiddendriver34 said:What do you guys think about a teacher who just bluntly tells her students during religion class that Santa Claus is a made-up character who isn't real?😠

Robert Rodriguez9 said:I don't get it. 🤔 It’s a religion class, for crying out loud. There isn't really any room for Santa Claus in there. Then again, I guess she wasn't exactly lying to them. 🤷

The Grinch. It’s such a classic character, isn't it? I was thinking about him this morning while grabbing my coffee, and it really makes you wonder about that whole "heart growing three sizes" concept. Most people see him as this grumpy guy who just wants to be left alone, but there's something kind of relatable about wanting to opt out of all the holiday noise sometimes. Still, I think we can all agree that his transformation is the best part of the story. It’s a nice reminder that even the biggest skeptics can find their way back to the spirit of the season. 😬

Honestly, it’s kind of funny—true Christians don't actually believe in that Santa Claus from the Coca-Cola commercials, so to them, he really is just a fictional character. For people who happen to be part of a faith but don't necessarily practice it at home, this could actually be a nice little opportunity to sit back and reflect on the existence of Jesus and his miracles.
God bless you too! 🙂

By the way, I really believe there’s a vital need for a strong partnership between our schools and our churches. When these two institutions work together, they create such a solid foundation for the community.

"We all know that schools can't tackle the complexities of modern upbringing all on their own. It’s absolutely vital to build a true 'educational alliance'—one that connects schools with families, local communities, the media, cultural institutions, and even faith-based organizations like the Church, which has always been a cornerstone of culture and mentorship. When this partnership breaks down, society essentially dumps the entire weight of raising and educating the next generation onto the shoulders of educators. And when things don't go perfectly, the schools, teachers, and childcare providers are always the first ones looking for answers," Bozanic told them.

That sounds absolutely wonderful. It really gives me hope that we can finally move past this and ensure there won't be any more school violence.

Jesse Cook4 said:I just picked up on a pretty wild detail, though I don't know if it's happening everywhere or just in my neck of the woods. During Advent, the religious ed teacher is insisting that the kids attend f**king early morning mass from 6:00 to 7:00 AM. Every single day, weekends included. 😵

Basically, this means during the week, kids are wandering around town freezing their butts off between 7:00 and 8:00 AM waiting for school to actually open. Since a ton of them commute, they don't even have the option to head home between church and class.

Our school actually opens at 7:00 AM, and I’m pretty sure the janitor is already there by 6:00.
Most schools in cities like Chicago or NYC work the same way.
If they can make it to an early service at 6:00, why can't religious studies just be held at 7:15? Or maybe just as a "zero period" class?

Lawrence Torres56 said:

I can't believe I'm even seeing this username floating around here again. Honestly, what is the deal with some people? Is there a specific reason why certain handles just refuse to die out, or is it just some weird cosmic joke being played on us all? Seriously, it’s like looking at a ghost from a thread that should have been buried months ago. Why does it feel like we're constantly tripping over the same old relics? kaže:
So, what exactly do you think I've got sitting around here? You really believe I'm just out here making stuff up for the hell of it, or do you actually think I have some kind of hard evidence to back this up?
So, you take a look at the enrollment numbers for religious education classes across different school districts—I mean, you’ve got certain classrooms where the attendance is sitting at a perfect 100%—and then you lay that right next to the statistics on peer-to-peer bullying and violence in those same schools... doesn't that just make you wonder what kind of connection is actually hiding in plain sight?

Look, I’m not some fragile little thing that needs to be wrapped in bubble wrap, okay? Please, just stop twisting my words around and putting things in my mouth that I never actually said.
Look, I’m not saying that having religious studies in our schools gives anyone a free pass to act out or get violent—I'm absolutely not justifying any kind of violence just because religion exists in the classroom. 😕I mean, I’m just sitting here scratching my head, trying to wrap my mind around how on earth that’s even possible, you know? Like, how does someone even end up in a spot like that, especially when it's a place where every single kid in town is heading off to their religious studies classes? It just doesn't add up, does it? 🤔

Look, if religious studies aren't actually having any real impact—and I mean zero, or at least pretty damn close to it—on what kids are learning once they get home, then why are we even bothering? If it’s just some isolated thing that doesn't connect to anything else in their lives, isn't it basically just useless filler?
Honestly, it’s just a massive, blatant waste of taxpayer money to be lining the pockets of these high-priced consultants, isn't it? Just throwing hard-earned cash down the drain to pay for people who basically exist just to tell us what we already know.

Look, I feel like I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve laid this out right here, but honestly, can we just finally admit it? Parents—no matter how much they love their kids or how smart they think they are—just aren't equipped to teach high-level math or physics at home. It’s just not happening. You can try to sit there with a textbook and some coffee, but when you get into the heavy stuff, you're basically flying blind, right? That’s exactly why schools exist in the first place. We need specialized teachers and actual classrooms for this kind of content because, let’s face it, trying to DIY a calculus curriculum is just a recipe for frustration for everyone involved.
I mean, let’s be real for a second—if someone is actually preaching religion, they should at least have the decency to follow through on the most important part, right? It’s one thing to spout all those lofty ideals and moral lessons from a pulpit, but if you aren't actually living out that faith in your day-to-day life, isn't the whole thing just kind of hollow? Like, what's the point of talking a big game about devotion if your actions don't back it up when it actually matters?

If religious education doesn't actually have any kind of moral impact on a kid who’s already wired for aggressive behavior—you know, if they just end up picking up bad habits that their family couldn't even drill into them—then I really have to wonder: what's even the point? Like, seriously, what's the actual purpose of sitting through all those lessons on religious doctrine for kids who are already part of faith-based families? If they're already getting everything they need from their parents at home and then heading off to church every Sunday, isn't all that extra schoolwork just redundant? 🤷

Look, for an accusation that malicious, I’m gonna need to see some actual, credible proof before I even consider buying into it...
Statistics aren't exactly your best friend here, are they? I mean, if you look at the raw numbers, someone’s over there just gnawing on a plain piece of Wonder Bread while another person is sitting pretty with a plate full of high-end prosciutto, but according to the math, everyone's out here enjoying a perfectly balanced, gourmet deli sandwich. It's kind of ridiculous when you actually think about it, right?

Look, I’m sorry, but what am I even tripping over here? Seriously, just take another look at what you actually wrote and you'll see exactly where you're coming from... it’s just so... I don't know, off. Are we really going to go around throwing shade at religion classes just to provide some kind of convenient cover for bullies and school violence? Is that really the angle we're taking now?😢
Wait, how on earth is that even possible? You actually got an answer from me already? Seriously? Well, fine, if you really need me to go over it all again, I’ll just repeat myself for you—I guess I don't have much of a choice, right?
You know those types of people—the ones who are just straight-up toxic and live for the drama? The kind of folks who basically survive on nothing but lies and spreading rumors? It’s honestly pathetic. They’ll go out of their way to sign their kids up for religious education classes at school, even though they don't believe in any of it and couldn't care less about faith if their lives depended on it. Why do they do it? Because it gives them all this juicy little ammunition to gossip about and use as fuel for their endless, petty little schemes.

Look, you know this is true just as well as everyone else on this board does, but I guess it’s just too damn hard for people to actually admit it out loud, isn't it? The real issue here isn't some debate over religious studies or theology; the actual problem is the ideology driving the whole thing. We've reached this point where it's apparently "better" to let some aggressor off the hook—someone who's perfectly fine giving us a metaphorical spanking if it keeps the peace—than to actually stand up and allow someone who isn't bothering anyone at all to just live their life exactly how they want to? It's wild, really.

Look, before you go jumping down anyone's throat or passing judgment on what’s actually worth what, just do me a favor and check out these links, alright? Seriously, take a second to read through them first so you actually know what we're dealing with before you start throwing accusations around.
http://www.os-pkanavelica-korcula.sk.../vjeronauk.pdf

I was just digging through this PDF link—it’s basically a breakdown of the grading criteria for these school assignments—and honestly, looking at all these specific requirements makes me wonder if we’re actually teaching kids how to think or just training them to be world-class bureaucrats? I mean, you look at the way they weigh certain rubric points versus others, and it feels like there's more emphasis on following the exact formatting structure than actually having an original thought, doesn't it? It’s that classic academic trap where if you nail the font size and the margin width, you get the A, even if your actual argument is a bit thin. Does anyone else feel like this kind of rigid standardization is kind of killing the creative spark in the classroom before it even has a chance to catch fire? It’s such a heavy lift for students to juggle all these technicalities on top of the actual subject matter.

I mean, seriously, what’s stopping a parent from just sitting down and teaching their kid some physics or math? Is there some unwritten rule out there that says you need a PhD from MIT just to explain basic algebra or how gravity works? Honestly, I don't see the problem. If you've got the patience and you actually know your stuff, why shouldn't you be the one guiding them through it? It’s kind of wild to think that we assume only a classroom setting counts as "real" learning, right? 🤷 I mean, look, the guy actually went through the whole grind and finished his degree, right? He put in all those hours, hit the books, survived the exams—so he’s clearly got some actual knowledge under his belt. It's not like he just woke up one day knowing how things work; he actually did the work.
Look, if you skipped out on religion class back in school, don't expect to be sitting in the pews on Sunday morning... I mean, honestly, does it even matter if they know a single thing about faith at this point?
So, what’s the move here? Are we really going to strip this guy of his rights just because you or some other random person finds religious studies a bit too much to stomach? Is that how we're playing it now?

Do you actually have proof that dishonest people are enrolling their kids in religion class?
Isn't that a bit of a mean-spirited assumption? 🤔

On the other hand, I'm talking about the actual statistics regarding students reported for school violence by administrators or other institutions.
Within those numbers, the vast majority attended religious education at school (which is easy enough to verify, whether you check with a specific school during a free period or just ask a kid how their class went and what they're learning 🥳).

I honestly don't know what logic you're using to suggest I'm blaming religion for violence, because that wasn't my intention, nor does it make any sense to me.
My question was simply: how is it possible that after seven years of lessons and repetition, a child still can't grasp the basic rule of "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you"?

Supporters of these programs argue that these values are taught at home and that school has no influence (basically washing their hands of the responsibility), even though I believe influence is cumulative. If something is consistent over many years, it can actually overcome a negative environment at home.

But I have to ask, if religious education has absolutely no influence, then what is its purpose in the public school system?
If everything is supposedly learned within the family?

Or is the goal to just baptize non-religious kids so they become "good and obedient" and we get better numbers (meaning higher enrollment and more believers)? Meanwhile, we do nothing about the kids who are already prone to violence because "it all comes from the home" and we shouldn't interfere, essentially pretending the problem doesn't exist.
(Though, from what I hear, the Church would probably try to act like social workers and visit families. Honestly, I'm not against that. Right now, clergy often earn more than social workers, so it might be nice if they spent a little time looking after their local communities when they come for school visits. My only concern is the sanctity of the confessional; since priests aren't required to report certain crimes, I worry a lot of issues would stay buried within the family... without any real change.)

Lawrence Torres56 said:Do you actually have any proof for these claims of yours?

Or are you just trying to use religion to justify violence—using an elective subject as a way to wrap up bullies in cellophane and sell them to us as victims?

And hey, no offense intended... but seriously, violence comes from the home; it has nothing to do with faith or religious studies. Honestly, after reading a post like this, the only thing I can do as a decent human being is fight to make religious education mandatory, with strict grading criteria based on sincerity, honesty, and respect. Then, when some kid fails because they aren't living up to those standards, maybe their parents will finally take a hard look at how they're raising them. That way, the fake believers won't be able to hide behind their various masks anymore, and if people are going to criticize the church, at least let them do it for a legitimate reason.

How do you think I'll find proof?
You just look at the enrollment statistics for religious education classes per school (there are classrooms where it's 100% full) and compare that to the statistics on peer bullying.

I am not "wrapping anyone in packaging," so please don't twist my words or put things in my mouth that I didn't say.
I am not justifying any kind of violence through the existence of religious education, 😕, I am simply asking how it is possible that it exists in places where every single child attends those classes. 🤔

If religious education has zero impact (or a minimal one) on what children learn at home, then it's essentially useless.
It's just a waste of taxpayer money on salaries for religious instructors.

I've mentioned this several times before: parents can't teach their kids math or physics, so school is absolutely necessary for that kind of content.
But when it comes to what religion preaches—the most important stuff—parents can certainly do that themselves, provided they actually live out that faith.

If religious education fails to provide any moral guidance to a child who is already prone to violent behavior (meaning they aren't picking up anything new that they aren't already getting at home), then I really have to wonder: what is the point of teaching religious curriculum to religious people who are already learning all of this at home and at church on Sundays? 🤷

shadowcrane91 said:Look, I was primarily talking about Catholics who claim the label but act completely different...
And they're totally fine with it... like, "Yeah, call me Catholic, but I'm not really gonna act like one."
And if someone actually identifies as Catholic and respects the rest of the commandments—why on earth can't they respect the first three too?????
Most of these commandments are just fundamental moral standards that anyone should stick to...
But if you're actually Catholic, you should be following all ten...

Seriously... I just can't wrap my head around people calling themselves Catholic when everything seems to bother them...
From following the rules to having their kid go to religious ed but skipping Mass...

And then they have the nerve to get pissed off if a textbook mentions coming to church...

Come on... either commit to being Catholic or don't.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Reddit

You didn't actually answer my question.
🥳

I'm not getting into the "why" behind parents enrolling kids in religion classes, or whether a Catholic is defined solely by attending Mass versus living by the moral values of the Ten Commandments while perhaps not attending church regularly (or at all).

I asked a very clear and direct question.
How is it possible for an entire class to take Catholic religious education, yet bullying in the classroom continues? How can violence increase after seven years of religious instruction, especially right before First Communion?
If it were just one student, that would be one thing, but we see this happening with at least one child per generation—if not per class—in every single school... so do the math.
It would be interesting to see the data on the kids causing trouble in middle school who have completed eight years of Catholic education and received every sacrament available to them.

If the argument is that these values are taught at home, then please, make sure those Catholic teachings actually stay within the family.
Thanks.

shadowcrane91 said:Look, religion class can try to teach morals all day long, but at the end of the day, the kid and their home environment actually have to buy into them....
If a kid learns about morality in school but then sees their parents completely ignore it at home, they're just going to view religious ed as some useless, irrelevant fluff. How are they supposed to take it seriously?
How many people even bother following the first three commandments? (Seriously, if you aren't even following the first three, how do you expect to stick to the rest?)??
One of them is "keep the Sabbath holy," yet we've got people claiming to be Catholic who only show up to Mass twice a year.....
Then we act shocked when kids grow up acting totally contrary to everything taught in those classes....
So, personally, I don't think the problem lies with the religious education itself.....

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Reddit

Could you clarify what you meant by that sentence?

From what I understand about Catholicism, all the commandments are equally important
and they're all covered in religious education classes.

As for myself, everything except the ones specifically mentioning God actually aligns with the values I live by and pass on to others.
I'm not Catholic.

When it comes to what I expect from a school as an educational institution, I expect zero tolerance for violence, regardless of whether a person follows those first three Catholic commandments or not.
You mentioned that the other commandments can't be followed if the first three aren't, but in my world, that just isn't the case—and it shouldn't be that way in a school setting either. Your argument implies that if a child isn't baptized or doesn't attend religious ed (meaning they aren't familiar with the first three commandments), they somehow can't adopt basic, widely accepted social norms.😕 😕 😕

Quincy:

I haven't seen any posts from shtefy yet! I'll be sure to keep an eye out for them. kaže: When kids hit those teenage years, home life isn't the only thing shaping who they become. I’m certainly not trying to say that parents aren't important—I know there are plenty of times when what gets said at the dinner table doesn't quite match up with how things are actually being taught, or how the kids are reacting to it all. It’s complicated! But I just wanted to bring up that old saying about how it takes a whole village to raise a child. It really does take more than just one household to guide them through those formative years. I'm sorry, I didn't quite catch that! It looks like your message was just the letter "A." Feel free to send over whatever you need me to work on, and I'll get right to it! Since the whole point of religious education classes is to instill certain "moral" values in kids, I honestly feel like they’ve missed the mark big time. It just feels like a huge letdown when you look at the results..

Yeah, I couldn't agree more.

shadowcrane91 said:Look, religion class can try to teach morals all day long, but at the end of the day, the kid and their home environment actually have to buy into them....
If a kid learns about morality in school but then sees their parents completely ignore it at home, they're just going to view religious ed as some useless, irrelevant fluff. How are they supposed to take it seriously?
How many people even bother following the first three commandments? (Seriously, if you aren't even following the first three, how do you expect to stick to the rest?)??
One of them is "keep the Sabbath holy," yet we've got people claiming to be Catholic who only show up to Mass twice a year.....
Then we act shocked when kids grow up acting totally contrary to everything taught in those classes....
So, personally, I don't think the problem lies with the religious education itself.....

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Reddit

So, if you don't get those first three posts in, does that mean you're locked out of everything else too? Just curious how the rules work here!
That’s an interesting point.
I don't really hold much respect for those three specifically since they just don't mean much to me, but the rest? Those are my core values—the principles I actually live by every single day.

I used to think all the commandments were on equal footing, but it definitely feels like some carry more weight than others within the Catholic Church.
You know, you’ve got a point there. It’s funny how often we see those folks we recognize from Congress celebrating the Lord's Day—you see them on the news via PBS—only to catch them later heading straight to a local pub or settling in for a nap after a long afternoon at the tavern. It’s quite the cycle!
Ah, values. It’s funny how much they really matter in the long run, isn't it?

I really hope you realize how heavy that statement is. If we’re teaching kids in school that God is more important than people and our relationships with one another—things like not killing, stealing, or lying—then the blame for the rise in violence lies squarely with the Catholic Church.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that's what drives the whole thing, but honestly, if you just head into the confessional, get your penance, and say a few prayers, the priest will grant you absolution for your sins.
It really makes you wonder about that priest and how much the seal of the confessional protects him from having to report violence.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Think about it—seven years of forty-five-minute sessions twice a week—how exactly do you expect that to undo fourteen years of being raised in an environment where they're learning a completely different set of rules twenty-four hours a day?
And why did the Catholic Church fail here?
If anyone dropped the ball, it’s strictly the parents who are setting a terrible example for their kids...
I mean, how can you seriously expect a child to listen to a lesson about loving others as themselves in class, only to head home and see nothing but "every man for himself" from their own parents?

Bullying doesn't stem from true believers or atheists; it comes from the people who flip-flop between the two whenever it suits them.

I wasn't suggesting that these things get "fixed."
What I meant was that this is what should be taught during religious education classes.
Even if parents don't speak a second language at home, the kids still learn it during those two weekly lessons.

I'm convinced that the way Jesus laid out his teachings (and he did it perfectly 👍) can be learned in a single year rather than seven. It's actually quite simple and logical, and honestly, it's very easy for kids to grasp at that age.

But sure, whatever you say. That's not what gets taught. 🙄
Instead, they focus on imaginary figures, rituals, and reciting prayers.
The priority seems to be learning the church hierarchy and why it's vital to attend mass every Sunday (🤔 or being told by teachers to "bring your parents to service this Sunday"—a mom mentioned that's the assignment they got at our local parish)
So, essentially, even a perfectly designed curriculum loses its impact because the outward formality is treated as more important than the actual spiritual process. 🤷

I totally agree that if children see a model at school that contradicts what they see at home, they're going to follow the home model every single time. That's a huge risk the Church took by taking on the responsibility of teaching moral development in schools. With that comes a lot of accountability. 🙂

Plus, if students see a culture at school where it's okay to say, "I don't care where the non-believers are while we're in class" or "let them hang out in the hallway," then Jesus's message about peace and loving your neighbor loses all its meaning—even if the parents at home truly live by those values of empathy and love.
I also think the idea of "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" carries much more weight in classrooms where religion is the first period. In those cases, kids who don't attend the class don't feel left out or excluded; they can just nap or relax and then rejoin their friends peacefully when the lesson is over.

Let’s stick to the topic of religious education in our schools, okay?

Honestly, I don't really care how often someone steps foot in a church. What actually keeps me up at night is seeing whether people truly live out their faith and act in accordance with those values when they're out in the world.
For instance, if a kid is being violent in seventh grade despite attending religious classes since first grade, then I feel certain that it isn't just a failure on the parents' part—it's a failure of the Church too. I’m not interested in the reasons why a child was enrolled in these classes in the first place, but if they’ve been attending twice a week for seven years, you’d think they would have picked up at least ten of the Commandments by now. And clearly, they haven't.
I know this is just one example, but it’s a heartbreaking one. And unfortunately, it's happening all over the place.

To clarify my point: I’m not worried about how Catholics plan to clean up their own house. I’m concerned about the quality of the teaching itself. It should be rooted in the core teachings of Jesus, like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "love your neighbor as yourself."
So why does bullying still happen? 🤔

I won't even go there regarding kids who aren't in religious education; I'm talking about the bullying that happens between the students themselves. How does it even get to that point?
They are supposedly being taught these values from the very first grade. 🥳
How is it possible that they still haven't learned them? 😕

Drew Johnson2 said:Exactly. A close friend of mine has two kids attending that school—one is about six and the other is eight... Religion class always seems to be scheduled as either the very first period or the absolute last one. Everyone ends up taking it. I suppose you could say that’s how most of the grade levels have it structured, though I can't quite wrap my head around why they wouldn't just standardize it for everyone...

I haven't the slightest clue, nor do I have the energy to sign up for anything or engage in any sort of debate; we’ve already pushed through more than half of the schooling years by now, and there's no way the younger ones will end up at this particular school anyway. It isn't just about religion class, mind you, there's a whole host of other matters involved...

And really, who can blame me for moving into the most devout Catholic neighborhood in town? On Sundays, when Mass is being held, you can't even walk down the street without it being completely blocked off because everyone is heading toward the church... 😉

I’m actually itching to write a journalistic piece about this.
The Department of Education would probably just try to sweep it under the rug. Or maybe they'd come up with some clever excuse about protecting teachers' mental health or filling gaps in the faculty schedule.
I'm really curious to see what kind of explanation the principal would give once the media gets a hold of it.

Drew Johnson2 said:Back in our district, they didn't even bother asking for input... which resulted in nine non-religious kids being split up across four different classrooms, when honestly, they could have easily just been grouped together in one... It’s quite a peculiar setup at our local school, too; most classes where everyone attends religion studies have those lessons scheduled for the very first or very last period of the day, which is how it usually goes... Our generation was actually the first to deal with a classroom dynamic where at least one student in every single group opted out... and because of that little quirk, for our first three years, those classes were always stuck right in the middle of the daily schedule... presumably so they could send us a notification or something...

Wait, seriously?😲
That’s awful. Honestly, that sounds like a total nightmare for an audit.

The recommendation is to schedule those sessions during the first or last period. While that might be a logistical headache, it’s only fair—if some kids are being inconvenienced by mid-day shifts, they should prioritize scheduling the groups where everyone stays together, or at least give preference to the kids who aren't participating.
So bad. 🤮

feralgardener33 said:I didn't quite follow your logic on why it isn't handled that way. Of course, during registration, we were asked if our child should take religion, and we made our choice right then. But at the first PTA meeting, one mom felt the need to loudly reiterate to the teacher that she didn't want her kid in that class. That triggered a chain reaction where others started speaking up too. Maybe seeing how many kids weren't participating caused some parents—who were originally planning to sign them up just so their kid wouldn't be stuck in the hallway—to change their minds. Who knows. Either way, the outcome was actually great.

In our district, elective subjects (which basically just means religion since it's the only elective offered) are chosen during the enrollment process. At that point, you don't even know who your child's classmates will be, what the general consensus on religious studies is, or even which teacher you'll end up with. So, most people just go with the flow to avoid any hassle.
What happened at your school probably just gave a few more parents the nudge they needed, whether they decided not to sign up initially or changed their minds later on.

feralgardener33 said:I'm with you on this one. Luckily, my kid's class turned out exactly that way. During that very first morning we were all gathered, parents were stepping up one by one, making it crystal clear they didn't want their kids participating in religious ed. In the end, only about five or six out of twenty-three kids ended up in the class, and everything worked out perfectly. If people acted like that everywhere, the problem would be solved overnight.

But that’s actually why it doesn't work that way.
The decision is made during the enrollment period back in June, where you have to officially opt-in or opt-out of those elective subjects.
(Even if families have known each other since preschool and know that a certain group of five kids won't be taking religion, they can't be sure if everyone will end up in the exact same classroom. People just don't want to take that risk.)

Daniel Gomez10 said:Catholicism and the Church only recently accepted the theory of evolution.
And now science is questioning it again, but that's beside the point.

But yeah, Catholicism and the Church are definitely against most IVF procedures.
Back in med school, we had an ethics elective where we discussed things like this using a specific textbook on reproductive tech.
I won't go into how advanced the writing was or how tough it was for me to wrap my head around as a med student, but the bottom line is that the Church views IVF as a sin.

If IVF is considered a sin, then what are you supposed to do with a child conceived that way? 😕
Do they even have a right to live? 🕺

Are they allowed to be baptized (once the parents have gone to confession and been absolved)?
Can children conceived through IVF attend religious education classes?

Is this topic ever brought up in elementary or high school religious studies?
And if it is, how is it handled?

Personally, I think it’s fine to debate these topics in medical school. If someone isn't prepared to tackle those kinds of heavy ethical questions, maybe they should just specialize in ophthalmology or proctology instead. 🤷

briskbison55 said:I guess it just doesn't make sense if you look at it logically 😁 or do you think only the "good" atheists get a say when we're talking about the Islamic Studies Department? I really hope I don't have to explain that further.

I think your reasoning is a bit flawed here.
Every child in the US has access to basic healthcare services without needing extra private insurance. That coverage is funded by employees across the country through payroll taxes, yet it benefits everyone—including the unemployed—regardless of their gender or religious background. It’s a system built for all citizens.

I was wondering why, if a city like Chicago already covers textbooks for every student, they would choose to fund books for an elective subject like the Islamic Studies Department, but then skip over elective math books or basic supplies like art folders? It seems much more logical for the city to chip in $18for those folders (which are issued the same way as the books) for core subjects, while leaving the specialized religious texts to be purchased only by the families who actually opt into the class. After all, since the school has integrated it directly into the regular daily schedule alongside mandatory subjects, it should be treated similarly.

hiddenscout44 said:Ugh... this text is way too stiff. It’s got that typical self-righteous vibe, like "we're the only smart ones who actually get it while everyone else is just a bunch of sheep"...

So, how would you even say "don't feed the trolls"...?

I find it pretty interesting how they interpret us. 🙂

The article came out just a few days ago, right around the same time a few Catholics posted here mentioning they weren't happy with how religious education is being presented in schools.

On a side note, if religious studies is an elective course, why are the textbooks for it being funded by the city government—basically by us taxpayers?
I remember having to pay out of pocket for extra math workbooks if I wanted my kid to take advanced classes, and I had to pay for art supplies too (even though art was a required subject).