Haha, exactly. We officially withdrew. I actually titled that paperwork as a formal request rather than a plea—because I have zero interest in begging for favors or acting like someone is going to sit there and decide whether or not they feel like being reasonable with us. It’s a demand for withdrawal. Period.
And as for the reasoning? I didn't even bother getting into the weeds with them; I just wrote something along the lines of "we decided not to attend."
Well, when you gotta find joy in the little things... 😁
The kid basically has one day of downtime now—time to play, fewer books to deal with... the whole thing just doesn't add up for them. They either go to the local library or they just repeat the material. There's no big drama involved, and we aren't "making do" with anything.
I honestly thought I was right when I argued that kids shouldn't be allowed to travel with their parents—because, at the very start of all this madness, the whole point was that things like grocery deliveries were supposed to let everyone help out their elderly parents. But by making it about these strict permits, they’ve basically ensured that traveling outside your immediate area won't turn into a family outing or even just a chance to catch up; instead, you just show up, do your errand, and leave.
Since when did it suddenly become a given that children can tag along?
The whole idea of managing things by state lines would actually make sense if we let life unfold with a bit more regional dynamic. For instance—just as a thought experiment—you could fully reopen everything in a major hub like Chicago or the surrounding suburbs, keeping the power on for businesses, schools, and everything else, while essentially keeping the rest of the states under lock and key like they’ve been the last few weeks. Then, you just sit back and watch what happens over the next two or three weeks. If the hospital capacities and staffing levels aren't getting overwhelmed by the influx from the city, then you slowly start opening up the other regional centers... maybe in three or four gradual phases. Only then would it actually be logical to restrict travel between states.
So, you were asking about May Day? Like, taking it as part of your annual vacation time? Well, look—you can't just pick any random reason. You have to frame it as something absolutely essential. Something mission-critical, if you will. Maybe say it's for grocery deliveries or some other errand that just can't wait.
Just look at the logic here—everything is supposedly open, right? Almost everything. Except for enclosed spaces. And local shops. But the real issue is trying to visit your relatives or elderly parents you haven't seen in six months—since most people only travel during holidays or big family gatherings to see their grandkids and all that. To actually make that happen, you’re forced to lie. It’s honestly ridiculous.
And even if you play along and claim you're heading out for agricultural work to get a permit—say, two permits for a married couple—what about the kids? Are they just stuck here? It’s an absolute joke.
On a purely personal level—and I know how this sounds—I just can't stomach the idea of needing someone's permission to travel. I can wrap my head around going abroad or heading overseas, sure, but the notion that there are internal borders or restrictions within the States? It just doesn't compute for me. There’s something deeply humiliating about having to ask for leave or clearance from anyone just to move around my own country. If that's how it works, then fine, I'm staying put. Peace out.
How did we even end up with this travel ban? It happened because everyone from the City of Los Angeles—who were facing quarantine—massively fled to the islands, the coasts, or out toward the Midwest... There was Corona in LA. Everywhere else, there wasn't.
But seriously, what kind of logic is behind a ban that stays in effect when there are active cases in every single state?
And get this—it’s being applied at the municipal level. Honestly, it's enough to make you laugh. The City of Los Angeles isn't divided into municipalities like this. Other states are divided into municipalities.
Up until now, they've made more than a few decent moves. But with this? They really stepped in it. It's just nonsense piled on top of more nonsense. Or am I missing something here?
Since I’m not really going anywhere—and honestly, keeping up with the news has been exhausting enough as it is—I completely missed the memo regarding the residence info. Are we talking about the municipality, the city... or what exactly?
If we were to head out from D.C. toward Mount Rainier, would that even be doable? I’m assuming Zumberak is off the table since it's outside the city limits, right? Also, is Central Park open for biking or jogging?
It’ll just be family, not a whole group, obviously.
brightheron64 said:To be perfectly honest, I’d almost be happy if Hell truly existed... I might find things a little uncomfortable myself given my own views and stances 😁, but the mere thought of a massive crowd of "devout believers"—you know, the typical American political, business, and religious elite—simmering in pitch is a level of justice worth enduring...
Don't even get me started on that... Just look at those three who weren't even baptized... 😁
Honestly, you guys are reaching total extremes here. Even a casual believer would still go through with the baptism for their kids...
So, is it safe to assume people aren't actually taking Communion if they skip religious studies?
In certain neighborhoods where basically 99.5% of the kids are enrolled in religion class, you see people complaining—constantly—about the whole curriculum. They’ll moan about everything from the textbooks to the grading scales to the specific rules... but honestly, if it’s such a headache, why sign them up in the first place? Well, because then they wouldn't be eligible for Communion, and let's face it, that's a bridge too far for some families. If a kid doesn't get baptized or take their First Communion, Grandma or the mother-in-law will never let it go. It becomes this massive family drama.
And besides, First Communion is just so sweet. The little outfits, the gifts, the big family dinners... it's a whole thing.
But seriously, how does it work regarding Communion in areas where we actually hear that maybe a quarter of the kids aren't even taking the class? Do they still participate in the sacrament or what?
So, they went ahead and split the two first-grade classes in a really specific way—like, intentionally skewed. In Class A, almost everyone is signed up for religious studies, maybe five kids aren't. Then you look at Class B, and it’s basically the exact opposite—nearly everyone skips it, with maybe five kids actually attending. Some people are whispering that this is just a move to protect certain teaching positions, while others claim they’re just trying to avoid a messy split in the curriculum... Honestly, who knows what the real motivation is behind this? It could be something else entirely, some third factor we haven't even considered.
Our kids usually head to the library or just hang out outside. For instance, they recently had this music assessment—they had to memorize about twenty different songs, which sounds like a nightmare—but they all just sang them together to practice for the entire period. Everyone ended up pulling an A. 🙂
Sometimes they’re just messing around, coloring, playing games, or even bringing their little toys along... stuff like that. My little one actually loves religious studies; honestly, being a bit of a misfit isn't necessarily a bad thing. It’s only a real bummer, I agree, if that child is the only one doing it—then you really have to consider how tough it is to feel like a total outcast.
Other kids are heading off to church for things related to First Communion, so I honestly thought the whole routine had changed. It’s a whole thing now—they actually participate. They basically get picked up from school by some organized group and driven straight to the church.
In a fourth-grade class, there are four kids who don't attend religion class—though, based on my chats with at least five or six other parents, they’re basically just tagging along so they don't make a scene. I haven't spoken to the rest of the group yet, but I'd bet my bottom dollar there are plenty more parents playing it safe just to avoid any drama. There are 20 students in the class total. Now they’re all just waiting to finish up their First Communion, and once that's over, I'm sure nobody will bother making an issue of it anymore. 😬
It’s honestly better than relying on random people on some internet forum—I actually know how things tend to play out in real life. If I had pushed her to take notes, it probably would have just caused more unnecessary friction—though, in all honesty, she wouldn't even have thought to do it herself. And let's be real, there's no guarantee she’d suddenly decide to start checking things the second time around. It's highly unlikely.
Kids just aren't mature enough—and they're nowhere near responsible enough—to manage every little detail of their schoolwork, keep track of deadlines, or even figure out basic time management. I mean, hats off to the kids who actually can pull that off.
Peter Harris80 said:Do both parents need to sign the consent form? Does any regulation actually state that both parents must agree on an elective? Or is one signature enough if it's based on the child's best interests?
The father claims that for religious education, both parents must agree. Especially if they are divorced. He is strictly against it, while I would prefer the child to attend. What am I supposed to do in front of the school? I'd rather not involve the local police unless absolutely necessary. And I definitely don't want the school forcing my hand.
Nothing in front of the school. Just settle it beforehand, for God's sake. He’s flat-out against it, yet you’re saying you’d "love for it to happen." Maybe I'm misreading this—and I could be wrong, mind you—but the way you've phrased it makes me think you just don't want the absence to be highlighted, so you'd rather they just go along with it to avoid the fuss. It’s not even about the religious education for you, it's more about the optics...
Am I right?
Besides, why wouldn't you compromise? I mean, since the kid lives with you, you basically get a vote on almost everything—what they eat, what they wear, bedtimes, who their friends are. Why draw a line here?
And honestly, why not sit down with your ex one more time? Try to talk him into letting them attend just for this one year, and then re-evaluate next year if they actually want to go. To me, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable deal.
As for us—we aren't religious, but we actually enrolled our child in religious ed classes at the local elementary school just so they can hear about it and see what it's all about. You know, so they can learn terms like Jesus, Mary, God, the Holy Spirit, saints, apostles, Advent, Christmas carols, the crucifixion, sin... just so they have a foundation to start asking questions from.
It’s honestly not even worth my time to play the "what if" game. We’re all just doing what we feel is right in the moment—period. Sure, if you listen to the armchair experts on these forums, they’ll tell you that if we just stop stepping in, the child will eventually figure things out on their own. Start being independent. Start thinking for themselves. But let’s be real—not everyone is going to step up like that.