32 posts shown.
You’re right. Honestly, you’re thinking with a sense of humanity and fairness here. Still, it isn't your job to brief her on what her boyfriend is thinking. Look, you don't even have the full story—you're just hearing one side from her partner, and words are always subject to interpretation.
This isn't your drama, and it isn't your fight. The only real opening I see in this whole mess is a conversation between her and her partner, since they’re friends. They might actually be able to push one another toward making life decisions that aren't completely selfish. Though, I highly doubt he truly grasps what waiting around means when dealing with a woman facing a diagnosis like that.
steelmarlin93 said:This is just awful...
The Supreme Court already made its stance clear back in February: Congress actually has the power to vote on this, to basically pull religious education out of public schools if they wanted to... but clearly, there's no actual political will here. It's not about principle, it's about interests... it's about cushy jobs, money, power, and egos. And I'm not just blaming the current administration, either... even the previous quasi-liberal leaders didn't have the guts to touch anything "sacred." They could have renegotiated the Vatican Treaty while they were in charge, or maybe pushed for curriculum reform, but they just didn't...
It would be so incredibly interesting if they actually built a school specifically for kids who don't participate in religious studies. If they did that, the percentage of kids attending those classes would probably drop by half overnight...
The thing is, we already have plenty of those—they’re called public schools. And sure, the government claims to be secular; at least, that’s what the Constitution says. But then again, Krivousti signed that famous Vatican Treaty back in '96, and we've had religious zealots running the show for thirty years now. They have zero interest in fixing this "little issue." If it actually hit their wallets, they would have found a way to bypass the "stone-carved" rules long ago.
Meanwhile, the state keeps marching "forward": hallways turned into death traps, the unvaccinated, the immunocompromised, a flatlined economy... you name it.
All they care about is sending out surveys asking if kids want elective computer science next year. You can bet they won't send out the same garbage regarding religion. Not that anyone cares about any actual reform.
The 13th century was more progressive than the United States in the 21st.
I wouldn't call it anxiety; it sounds more like depression to me. Reading your posts, I can't help but compare this to my own cycle of anxiety and depression, and honestly, this smells like the latter. You’ll get a clearer picture once you sit down with your doctor, though. They'll help you pinpoint exactly what you're dealing with. Generally speaking, that sense of apathy and lack of drive? That's classic depression.
Before you go diving headfirst into all the different therapies suggested here, if I were in your shoes, I’d start with a full blood panel. Check everything—hormones, thyroid, the whole nine yards. It won't take much time, but it’ll give you a baseline for what's actually happening biologically.
Regardless of those results, looking at your history, it seems to me that psychotherapy is where you'll find the most significant relief.
Peter Harris80 said:I started out just trying to figure out how schools handle parental consent when parents don't see eye to eye. Instead, I ended up spiraling into a debate over enrolling my kid in Catholic Religious Education and questioning my own stances.
As a believer, it’s frustrating to watch my child be singled out for no good reason. I’m not talking about being teased for their faith or views on hell—that’s going to happen regardless of whether they take the class or not. I’m talking about the practical side of things. I don't want my kid to feel like an inconvenience or a logistical burden. I know the school has to account for every student, but I certainly don't want a teacher having to scramble during the first period just because of us.
I’m willing to compromise and let them participate in first grade, but we still have the looming issue of other consents if the school insists on signatures from both parents.
Relax, they won't be. Teachers and staff have their own weekly duties, but nobody is officially assigned to babysit a kid who isn't attending Catholic Religious Education. It’s basically just their good will—call it what you want. They end up in the library, with the counselors (assuming those offices are actually open), or tucked away in an empty classroom if the school even has them. Or, more likely, just hanging out in the hallway or sitting out front on a nice, sunny day.
Those are the kids who "get supervised" while skipping religious classes. And honestly? No specific clause in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is going to change that reality.
Peter Harris80 said:I’m asking this again, even if it’s off-topic: which specific regulation actually requires consent from both parents?
There is no such regulation, unless the school district decided to make it their own rule—if that's the case, go ask them for clarification. If I were you, I'd reach out to the Archdiocese too. In this secular country, they hold the real power over family and educational matters; they carry way more weight than any department or state law.
George Davis3 said:I honestly don't get why anyone would still be giving a kid a hard time about skipping religion class these days, I mean, seriously, I went through several different schools growing up and I don't think I ever once saw or even heard of anyone being pressured about it...
It’s not like they actually make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things either... I guess it's just like taking a foreign language elective or something, you know? Like, some kids sign up for it and some just don't, and that's pretty much it...
Completely wrong. Experiences from kids and parents all over the country tell a different story. Just because someone chooses to look away, ignore it, or stay deaf to the issue doesn't mean it isn't happening. And it certainly doesn't mean "they" aren't making a difference. They are. Kids who don't attend religious education classes could probably tell you quite a lot about it. My thanks to the United States of America and the Concordat for institutionalizing anti-pedagogy and discrimination right at the level of our youngest and most vulnerable.
It’s almost like I’m looking at a version of myself in my 20s, writing about my relationship with my mother. The parallels are haunting. In my case, nothing ever shifted; the connection stayed distant, cold, indifferent. She performed her role perfectly for the public eye because she needed us to look good to the neighbors. But there was zero intimacy with me. For a long time, I assumed this was just how things were, until I saw how other parents actually treated their kids. It’s identical to your experience—she never asked about my period, my boyfriends, my feelings. Not even when they were resuscitating me in the ER; she didn't ask what happened or how I felt. Not a single word.
Back then, I didn't think it was wrong. I just thought, "that's just who she is." I held onto that delusion until I became a parent myself and started building a bond with my own children—a relationship built on actual conversation, emotional closeness, where my kids trust me, and where I fight for them with everything I have. Only then did I realize my mother had a completely warped view of what parenting meant.
I confronted her repeatedly in my early 20s, and she would just shut down, retreating into her shell like a turtle. Honestly, she wouldn't even argue; she was just terrified of the confrontation. Yet, she’d still turn to me for advice or help with various things. I always felt like I was the mother and she was the confused daughter who needed my constant patience and guidance.
Did anything change? Sure. She passed away young, and at her deathbed, it was just me, once again, the one taking care of her. She was sicker than she'd ever been. We never spoke about the irony of me being the one nursing her through the final stages of cancer, especially since she was never there for me—not when I was a kid crying over my first heartbreak, not when I was in the ICU, not during my pregnancy, or after I gave birth (she was too busy living her own life, a life I didn't fit into).
I know I haven't helped you much. If I had someone to turn to, I would, but I don't.
I could have faced a parent like that five times a day, and they’d just end up crushed. So why bother? It wouldn't make me feel any better, and I know my own strength.
No, I wasn't withdrawn like you; I never lacked confidence. Actually, I broke through every barrier in my life whenever I felt it was necessary—from college to my career to my relationships. I never let myself be at the mercy of others or circumstances, and more often than not, I get what I want. I have no patience for illness or people who are perpetually needy. I don't wait for others to act; I change things myself, right now. I am the complete opposite of what she was...
By the way, she was a stunning woman, the kind people turned heads for. And for me, there is nothing worse than someone telling me I look like her or act like her. Believe me, there have been many times I wanted to walk into traffic just to stop hearing, "You're so much like your mother, it really shows..." I am not her. I never was... even though, as a child, I wanted that more than anything.
rowdypanther12 said:That’s just what I wrote, responding to wanderinghawk30’s advice about handling a child.
It works fine, provided the parents aren't at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum.
She mentioned that if I'm not mistaken, the dad is strictly against it, while she really wants to go through with it.
I mean, if one parent thinks their kid is headed for hell without being baptized or confirmed, and the other thinks religious education will mess with the child's psyche and potentially ruin their mental health, then there's just no middle ground.
I honestly don't get how two people with such polar opposite views ended up together in the first place.
Yeah, that’s the million-dollar question, but that’s a whole different conversation. Honestly, I don't quite wrap my head around it either. From what I see and hear lately, people are pairing off without any actual compatibility regarding their top priorities—and if they were rushing through downtown to make it happen, you'd know it was something vital to them. How? Why? For what purpose? Who knows. But there are plenty of people doing it, which is why marriages are popping like popcorn.
I hope this woman, dealing with her ex-husband and looking out for her kid, finds some decent solution despite all the friction.
rowdypanther12 said:Okay, let’s simplify this.
Why on earth would I sit my kid down to talk about attending religious education classes if I honestly believe it's incredibly harmful and damaging to a child's mental health?
Let me repeat myself:
wanderinghawk30 said:Look, I don't know. Every parent just does what they think is best, so I'm not going to sit here and lecture anyone on what's "right." That feels pointless. Besides, this whole debate over religious education isn't even in the same league as something like whether you want to take antibiotics or walk along the edge of a skyscraper. It’s different. Still, I get that some people see things through a completely different lens.
Look. If a parent finds this stuff that terrifying—that brainwashing—then they should probably just take a hard stance on whether the kid goes or stays. That was my position. My position, and mine alone, regarding this specific situation.
If those other parents are equally uncompromising, who knows how that plays out. Nobody wants the drama of involving the local police department or social services. It's much better for the kid if the parents can actually manage to talk to them. I hope they can.
Look, I don't know. Every parent just does what they think is best, so I'm not going to sit here and lecture anyone on what's "right." That feels pointless. Besides, this whole debate over religious education isn't even in the same league as something like whether you want to take antibiotics or walk along the edge of a skyscraper. It’s different. Still, I get that some people see things through a completely different lens.
rowdypanther12 said:You can talk to kids about this, provided you don't frame religion as something dangerous or, on the flip side, something absolutely mandatory for a decent life.
It’s like how you wouldn't just randomly ask your kid if they want to try some drugs, nor would you bother asking if they feel like taking their antibiotics.
Anything in between those extremes is fair game for a conversation.
Right. You present it to them and see if they actually care. Lay out both sides—the pros and the cons. It’s mostly just a parent gauging how much their kid can actually process, though honestly, it usually comes down to whether the parent is even capable of explaining it clearly. You can stay perfectly neutral.
The only complication is when those religious classes require things the Church demands, but the parents just want the kid to get all their sacraments.
For instance, there’s a girl in my kid's class from Russia. She attends religious ed because her friends go, even though her parents follow a different faith and she has zero connection to the church itself. Still, they let her attend. To me, that's fine. Why force a specific agenda on a kid if they'd be happier with another option? At the end of the day, whatever they learn at home—their own traditions and faith—is what really sticks.
Larry Walker24 said:Wait, why would they HAVE to go?
No clue. They should probably ask themselves that.
Maria Gray3 said:I don't know, maybe I'm just talking about unicorns here. In my experience, people who are together—or even those who aren't—always have their disagreements and doubts, but that doesn't stop them from reaching an agreement. Maybe I’ve lived my life in some rosy bubble thinking all families were perfectly stable, but I really don't see the point in signing a kid up for religious ed, or any other school or extracurricular activity, through some community center without actually talking to the child first about what they might actually want or be interested in.
Maybe the kid already goes to church with their mom and isn't feeling it, or maybe they go with their mom and actually love it, or maybe they weren't really raised with much emphasis on faith so they'd rather just play soccer with the guys from school during that time. There could be a hundred other reasons. But a six-year-old is articulate enough to have an opinion, and it seems reasonable to consult them before the mom, dad, and some coordinator at the center decide everything without asking, just because the parents want to force their own way. I'm not saying this applies to the woman who asked or her ex-husband, but I think it's perfectly fine to ask her if she and the dad have actually sat down with the kid to see if they're actually on board with this religious class or not.
In my son's class, nearly everyone—we're talking 28 kids—wanted to drop religion class the second they realized what they were missing. They saw the kids who didn't attend getting to hang out or just head home early. It was an absolute nightmare for us parents, trying to convince them they actually had to show up.
Peter Harris80 said:It’s different. For a field trip, you sign one group consent form for the whole class. Religious ed requires an individual waiver for every single student. Plus, there's zero transparency when parents disagree. From what I've seen, kids with divorced parents usually don't end up in those classes anyway.
I never said the paperwork was identical; I meant they carry equal weight. (Even for a field trip, my kid's school sends home a specific form for me to sign—there aren't any "group slips" at my kid's school.) Look, I’m just reporting what they asked me for and what I actually signed. My ex hasn't been contacted about anything once. (The only exception was at the police station while sorting out some legal docs for my kid, but never anything else.)
As for whether you agree or not on your kid attending religious classes—that's out of my lane. For everyone's sake, especially the kid's, it's in your best interest to be on the same page. Being able to settle things without drama or involving the courts... well, even a bird could tell you that.
Good luck.
David Evans6 said:I don't know, I was just interested in the, let's call it the psychology behind the idea that people in an office are expected to buy gifts for the entire company.😁
Where else was I supposed to post—in a forest?😁
Fine, I could have put it under career and job. I still can. If it's bothering people here, move it then.
Personally, I think this gift-buying stuff is stupid too. Fine, if it's just a few people in my immediate department buying something for each other, whatever. But for the whole company? That's just plain moronic.
And what, everyone just stays quiet because it suits them? If I say something, suddenly I'm the one being difficult.
Honestly, I don't give a damn if nobody buys me anything for my birthday. I'd just bake some cookies or grab something sweet and bring it in. It’s also dumb to make anyone feel obligated; it should just be a nice gesture.
I am certainly not buying gifts for people I barely see once or twice a week when they swing by the office. We aren't even friends. Some of them I don't even like.
What kind of psychology is driving this... consumerist greed, maybe?🤔 😁
I would have posted this on ZK; reading the replies there would've been entertaining.😬 But since it’s here, all the employers can get a collective diagnosis at once!😈
I get not wanting to ruin the "gift-giving harmony," but this imposition is exhausting. Not just exhausting, it’s rude. Why should anyone buy or chip in money for someone they can't even stand to imagine working with?🤷
If you give a gift, it should come from the heart, not through some mandatory system. I’m perfectly fine buying a gift for my immediate team if I actually feel like honoring them or taking them out to dinner. But that’s not coercion. That’s doing something because I genuinely enjoy being around those people.
No, we aren't buying anything. Honestly, I find the whole thing bizarre. Maybe if someone actually celebrating brings in some donuts or something to share with the office, then we'll talk.
By the way, what does any of this have to do with psychology?
John Palmer9 said:I don't really take any medication, besides those natural things I mentioned; I just mix some pure cocoa, sugar, and hot milk in the morning, and after that, I feel pretty great and energized. I figured maybe it might bump up my blood pressure, but I guess not, since it stays right around 132/90.
Wait, hold on. Are we talking about a clinical diagnosis here, or just feeling a bit unmotivated and using cocoa and warm milk to kickstart your day?
Clearly, I misread the room with this thread title. When I hear the word "depression," I think of that absolute rock bottom, that dark place where things felt life-threatening—not just feeling a little sluggish or "down."
So, are we actually discussing general blues and lack of motivation, rather than actual clinical depression with an official medical code?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A52 using Reddit
Anthony Ward6 said:Finc people get twelve hours a week. 😬
I think we probably have the lowest maternity pay rate in the entire European Union.
If we're looking at the rest of the European Union, we seem to have the lowest hourly rates for just about everything.
I don't know much about the Finnish system, but if they're only doing 12 hours a week, I assume their curriculum is structured differently, right? I highly doubt they're overloading those kids—though maybe I'm being too optimistic... 🤷
Larry Walker24 said:Check out this news clip:
Students are reading less and less, plus they aren't getting nearly enough English lit classes.
https://www.cnn.com/video/example-news-story-about-education-hours
Five hours a week isn't enough? Please...