Posts by Nancy Martin93

Michelle Davis15 said:I was driving past a massive Kroger earlier today, and there was a line stretching out at least 50 or 100 yards down the sidewalk. I honestly can’t wrap my head around the masochism of it all. Why on earth would people willingly risk catching something just to stand in a queue for an hour when they could easily grab the exact same stuff at home for the same price? It’s almost like shopping around here has become some kind of grand social event, similar to going to a Broadway show, where people actually enjoy the spectacle of the crowd instead of just wanting to get things done.

Five new cases reported today... man, you really have plenty of ways to catch something out there! 😵😵😵

Morgan Brown4 said:🤦

Look, this stuff was decided by health experts who actually know what they're doing. They wouldn't pull these moves without a reason.

But hey, you're the resident expert on this forum, so I'm sure you know way better than they do. 🤦

Just to add my two cents—I've been working non-stop through this whole pandemic mess. My hours are basically 8 or 9 AM until 4 or 6 PM, depending on how busy things get. So... when am I actually supposed to go grocery shopping? My buddies are also working those standard store hours 9 to 5, so when are they meant to grab food? Am I supposed to show up at the Walmart at 7 in the morning just to be first in line at 8, rush through everything by 8:20, sprint home to unload the fridge, and then fly off to work?? Or maybe finish at 4:20 and pray to God I can make it to the store before they close at 5? Why can't I just head out at 9 PM like I always have? Honestly, how does that even affect the epidemiology? At this rate, my only option is Saturday or Sunday—and then I'm stuck waiting in line for an hour. That's the real headache.

Morgan Brown4 said:🤦

Look, this stuff was decided by health experts who actually know what they're doing. They wouldn't pull these moves without a reason.

But hey, you're the resident expert on this forum, so I'm sure you know way better than they do. 🤦

Honestly, this whole thing feels purely political. They cut store hours just so retailers can send staff home and slash labor costs—it's that simple. I'm definitely not claiming to be smarter than the pros, but their logic just doesn't track! If the goal is to limit social contact, why shorten the hours instead of extending them? That would spread the same number of people out over a longer period! Plus, stores have reduced hours, but gas stations stay open? What about the workers at those places who don't even have a restroom to use all day? Is that not an epidemiological issue too? And why are bakeries allowed to stay open when they're supposedly less "essential" than other shops? You can grab bread anywhere—Walmart, Kroger, Trader Joe's...—but you can't buy soap, detergent, or deli meats at a bakery. It's so weird—hair salons are closed, yet dog groomers are still operating (I know because I actually saw a dog getting a haircut, haha!). It just bugs me—these nonsensical, politically driven moves that ignore actual expertise. It's like asking people in a hospital for their opinion—as if they're just there to pose for photos and give soundbites! Sadly, all the big decisions happen without them.

coastalwalker9 Quote:
Wait, does that Walmart close at 5 PM? — Just checking! 🤦
And of course—they’re closing on Sundays! So, I guess it's whoever makes it in time wins, and if you miss out, well, just order everything online—right? Honestly, if someone doesn't have reliable internet access, they probably aren't worried about whether the local Walmart stays open until 5 PM or shuts down entirely anyway!👍
Do you really think people are just going to stay cooped up at home forever—without any personal needs or a desire to get out?—because, honestly, that seems unlikely!
Imagine getting home after work around 4:30 or 5:00—depending on the commute, of course—only to realize you have to sprint to the grocery store! It’s such a stressor—constantly worrying if there will actually be any bread or milk left on the shelves by the time you get there. You know how it goes, though—stores start cleaning up and closing down the deli counters just ten minutes before they shut their doors. But hey, what good is cheese and deli meat if you don't even have a slice of bread to go with it?
Maybe someone could just head home—grab a peaceful lunch, catch a quick nap—and then hit up the store around 7 or 8, or whenever they can finally get there! It’s such a hassle when all those specialty shops close by 4 or 5—you can barely squeeze in two visits in a single day—so now they really ought to be racing against the clock as much as they are focusing on nutrition.
Hey—maybe take a second to think things through before posting something so random? Just a thought!—:)

Stores should really be allowed to set their own hours—it just makes sense! Plus, there’s a huge difference between running a shop in a small town like Ann Arbor or Naperville versus being right in the middle of a major hub like San Jose.
Well, honestly—only people actually working in that industry would really get it anyway!

Restricting store hours is honestly one of the most nonsensical moves yet—it really makes you question their whole "expertise," doesn't it? Like, they can stay open until 5 PM normally, but then because it’s Easter, suddenly they close at 8 PM to somehow limit the spread?? The amount of misinformation coming from the task force lately is just... concerning. If the goal is actually to stop people from getting sick in shops, they should just be open from 6 AM to midnight! I’d happily go grab my groceries at 11 PM when nobody else is around—that would actually minimize risk—instead of cutting hours and forcing everyone to cram into the aisles all at once, which just causes a total collapse. And waiting out in the heat for an hour outside the store? Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant safety plan to me. Give me a break! If stores just operated like they should, there wouldn't be such massive crowds inside or even hovering around the entrances.

shadowcrane91 said:The Bible is all about interpretation... it really just comes down to how you choose to read things...
Obviously, God didn't just snap His fingers and finish the whole world in six literal days. I mean, those "six days" could easily represent millions of years of evolution and time passing...
And look, Jesus wasn't actually born every single year, yet we still celebrate His birth every December...

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything written in the Bible either... and I definitely don't think all Catholics are narrow-minded...
There are plenty of other faiths out there that are way more hardcore and rigid than this...

But yeah, sure—there are closed-minded people everywhere. It doesn't matter what religion they follow.

Could you explain that a little better for me? If the Bible is just a collection of stories where the lesson depends entirely on how someone interprets them within their own era and system—and if God didn't actually create the world in six days—then why are we paying people to "teach" this to kids? Why pay religious instructors in elementary and high schools, or have Catholic colleges in the US funded by taxpayer money just to teach children a bunch of stories that aren't grounded in anything specific, but instead rely on individual interpretation? We can't even find room for computer science in our schools—which is knowledge you basically need just to get a job cleaning floors these days—yet we have space in the curriculum to spend two hours a week teaching "stories"?? Also, I've heard the "believers don't agree with everything in the Bible" argument way too many times. How can you claim to be competent enough to take certain parts of the Bible as your absolute life guide while simply ignoring the parts you don't like? On what basis do you decide which parts of the Bible to live by and which ones you can just brush off without a second thought (since you consider yourself a believer)?

Scott Miller4 said:At the start of the school year, my kid ended up sitting right outside their classroom because some other grade was using the library for their lessons. 🤔
Since two of them don't take religion class, sitting out there wasn't actually a huge deal; they just chatted, and I guess the time flew by.
Then, they went ahead and shuffled the schedule around. Now, religion class switches between being first period one week and last period the next, so they're either sleeping in later or getting out earlier.

I actually sent a note to the school asking if they could adjust the schedule back to how it was... but the teacher basically told me they wouldn't change it just to be difficult. 😁

I'm not sure if some other parents complained and triggered this whole scheduling mess—that’s probably what happened—but honestly, it didn't bother me when they were sitting outside the room. My kid is an eighth grader, so it's fine. But if they were younger and left alone for a whole hour, I suppose I’d be complaining and insisting on better supervision.

Personally, I'd be pretty upset if my child spent an entire hour wandering the halls—whether they're in second grade or eighth. I pay way too much in taxes to expect that when I drop my kid off at a public school—which is supposed to be the standard for everyone—they'll actually be looked after. Even if there's some scheduling mess-up because of religion class, I want my kid to have the right to a desk and a chair somewhere in the building where they can quietly study for their next test or finish up some homework. You can't just tell me it's okay for my kid to sit on a bench outside a classroom doing absolutely nothing just because someone needs to hold a specific class. And no, "go take a walk" isn't a solution—regardless of what grade they're in. They can go for a walk after school or with friends or while walking the dog! When they're at school, I want them to be properly taken care of with a place to work—because that's the whole point of education, right? It shouldn't be like they're just staring at a wall because someone decided to squeeze in a religious studies class during third period.

shadowcrane91 said:I think you should change what you can, but looking at how many kids are actually signed up, it doesn't seem like most people mind it at all...

If they actually hated it, they wouldn't be enrolling their kids. If someone is signing their kid up just because of some gossip or whatever else people are whispering (for whatever reason), then they’re honestly pathetic...
The only real reason to do it is because you actually want it for your own child...

As long as this many parents are showing interest, there is absolutely no reason to pull religion classes out of the school system...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy J3

Kids sign up for religion class because it's an easy A—which, unfortunately, carries the same weight as math—plus, you get two free hours every week to do whatever you want! That's the real reason—for me, back in high school, I used those religion periods to grab coffee for four years straight, so there's that! And hey, he was getting paid for it too (well, okay, I was enrolled, and the class only met four times a year)

shadowcrane91 said:I don't know—honestly, I've only ever dealt with totally normal priests, so I haven't really run into anyone like that before. 🤷
It’s a lose-lose situation, honestly...

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy J3!

In high school, you get the choice between religion class or ethics. 😏
Who wants in? You get to pick. (At least, that’s how it worked back when I was in school.)

I honestly have no clue if they’re still doing those ethics labels.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy J3!

Why does it bother you "non-believers" so much that religious education is even an option in schools when your kid isn't even attending the classes anyway???
Look, it’s pretty simple. You live in a country where Catholicism is the backbone of society, so they offer you Catholic religion classes—even if they aren't mandatory. If you were living somewhere else where a different faith held the reins, you'd be getting taught that instead. It’s just how things work.
What's the damn problem?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy J3!

Religious studies shouldn't be trying to fix how kids are raised at home.

America isn't exactly a Catholic country—it's pretty secular—so just because the census shows a high number of Catholics on paper doesn't mean that's really how we live!

shadowcrane91 said:Well, in my opinion, going to a few church classes a couple of times in your life isn't nearly enough to actually learn your own faith...
If you really think that's sufficient—hey, good for you!

What, because a kid might pick up something wrong during those twelve years, we just scrap the whole subject??? Give me a break.

Honestly, you won't "get to know" your faith in a classroom anyway—goodness gracious! You learn about faith at home, through your parents, your family, at church, and within your community; school isn't where you go to discover your soul.
I never said kids would learn something "bad" (though that's a whole other debate!), I'm just saying—we have priests who are paid by our tax dollars to lead Mass, so they should be more than welcome to run their own parish programs for those interested (or let people pay for those themselves!). It doesn't make sense to use public funds to train teachers just so they can sit on government pensions for 45 years—especially since, in a secular country like the US, the Bishop appoints them and is the only one who can fire them without any public hiring process. And yet, I'm the one footing the bill for all of it!

shadowcrane91 said:Because I can't see one single reason why religious education shouldn't be part of the school day...
It's simple: if you don't want your kid in it, don't sign them up. Period.

So, go ahead and try to convince me why religious education belongs in public schools—because honestly, I can't see any reason for it at all.
First you have First Communion—so you need the classes—then there's Confirmation—more classes—then you get married—and suddenly there's more training or whatever—so why on earth would we need twelve years of religious ed in school???

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, it’s not about forcing some one-size-fits-all religion down anyone's throat, because in America, everyone should have the right to follow their own path, right? Plus, if their specific religious groups actually ask for it, every kid should have the exact same opportunity to take religious studies as an elective in school, just like any other subject.😉

True, though—I haven't personally run into a single school yet, whether elementary or high school, that actually offers any kind of alternative to standard religious studies.

shadowcrane91 said:My kids are definitely taking religion classes since they're an option. I want them learning about the faith I'm raising them in from someone who actually knows the theology better than I do...
Plus, I’m a believer—not just a "paper Catholic" like half the people out there—and since I’m raising my kids in this faith, it’s a no-brainer that they take the class...

I get the feeling we’re the only nation that seems "ashamed" of its faith and wants to hush it up or rip it out by the roots...

In almost every other religion, faith holds a massive place in life and education, yet in Christianity, it’s treated like it's some kind of nuisance...

We are a Catholic country, and minorities should adapt to us, not the other way around...

But here's the kicker—even the big-time Catholics in this country seem bothered by Catholic symbols...

Look, if you aren't Catholic, I get why it might bug you... but seriously, you're living in this country, just deal with it...
What I don't get is why it bothers CATHOLICS too...
Real Catholics probably don't care... it's mostly those people who just love bragging about being Catholic or Christian on paper...

That's not quite right—don't say that! America isn't a Catholic country; it's a secular one. There is no state religion, and all faiths are considered equal here.
Also, saying a minority should have to adapt to the majority is a pretty dangerous road to go down—because eventually, you might find yourself in the minority position for whatever reason, and then you'll see things differently.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion and their own faith. You have every right to raise your child however you think is best, but an atheist or agnostic has that same right to raise their child without religion—just like a Muslim has the right to raise their child according to their own needs.
The real issue is that since this is part of the public school system, it becomes a problem in a secular nation when one specific faith is being pushed on everyone. No one is questioning your right to enroll your kid in Sunday school—where they can learn from a priest or a nun in the faith you choose—but using taxpayer money for religious classes is the sticking point. That money comes from both believers and non-believers alike, and it feels like non-believers are being pressured into religious classes because there isn't a comparable alternative provided.