Posts by Jose Wells3

goldeneagle36 said:I’ll admit I’m biased when it comes to commenting on why we read assigned literature, mostly because I’ve always been a total bookworm and firmly believe that reading actually expands your imagination and builds your vocabulary—though, granted, the reading list could probably use a bit of a modern refresh every now and then. What really grinds my gears, though, is how kids are handed these assignment instructions that make you want to just give up on life entirely, let alone find any joy in reading 😁
Take our latest required reading and the instructions for it, which honestly gave me a nervous eye twitch 😁
https://ibb.co/LtZrpcQ

Can't we just talk about books, perhaps discover some new dimension to a story or a character? Nooooo, apparently we have to make a formal decision on the plot and then pick out a specific art technique to go along with it 😵

So, basically, the kid has an assignment that’s easy, actually engaging, and teaches them how to summarize a plot chronologically while using a drawing to show they understood the setting. They’ll probably just talk about it in class.

Back in the day:

List all the basic facts about the work (author, title, publication year...).

Provide a chronological summary of the plot.

Identify the setting and time period.

Plus, they’d get a whole set of "brilliant" extra tasks, write twenty-page essays, and take a reading comprehension exam.

I don't see the issue.

Required reading exists for very well-known reasons, and it’s tragic that we have to explain this year after year. Of course, there's also the practical application of literary knowledge involved.

You know why?

Because kids don't read for comprehension. You give them a five-paragraph text with events out of order, and even with the text right in front of them, they can't number the sequence from 1 to 5.

Why? I think we all know the answer to that.

The reading lists are getting more diverse and contemporary.

The amount of required reading is decreasing.

The assignments are getting easier.

The reading periods are getting longer.

The way we approach literature is becoming more modern.

Come on, tell me: what is your "new dimension" of the six-fold umbrella? Please. What revolutionary discovery do you have that is actually methodically or pedagogically sound? We aren't running some social experiment in schools; there is a specific set of skills students need to master. Honestly, a picture book is better than having them write endless essays.

The book belongs to the student, not to you!!!

Sarah Hall53 said:I’ve always had this nagging issue with religion teachers—not because of what they teach, necessarily, but just because of how they end up in the classroom. They aren't even hired through the standard school district application process; instead, the Diocese just kind of assigns them where they need them.

Hard truth. I'm with you on that.

Betty Wood54 said:ROFL, me calling someone else foolish? Let's back up here. A principal heading up a secular school is obligated to educate children according to the tenets of a specific religion, which is why they answer to the leaders of that faith.

Secularism isn't a "good" or "bad" thing; it’s a concept with its own specific definition, and what was described above is a pretty glaring example of how that principle gets violated.

So, secularism isn't actually under threat because:

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't say a school employee can be barred from applying for a principal position based on their faith.

A principal is a secular official. Even if they happen to teach religion, their job description doesn't involve answering to a Diocese—they answer to the US Federal Government and the founder.

Furthermore, a religious school principal answers to the US Constitution.

How do you propose we ban someone from doing something that the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees to everyone, provided they have the right qualifications?

Let me repeat: anyone with the necessary credentials can run.

Excluding someone based on their religion is just as absurd as excluding them based on gender or race.

Secularity isn't about excluding people; it's about separating institutions and their decisions. It’s the separation of Church and State.

If you try to drag in other examples of violations, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

For me, the much bigger issue is realizing the Diocese meddles in the Health Insurance curriculum—not as a reviewer of religious content, but to sneak in extra religious agendas. Personally, I stopped marking anything years ago; I just leave it to the Religion teacher and basically copy my colleague's literature syllabus.🤣

And of course, Jesus is still reading the newspaper, because top-tier content is top-tier content. Just like Kranjcevic's Moses.

Larry Walker24 said:Look, I’m gonna say it: there is absolutely no way religious studies should be allowed in any school that gets its funding from the government. It's a non-starter. Period. If my tax dollars are paying for a classroom, I don't want them being used to push some specific faith on kids. It just feels wrong. We should be focusing on actual subjects—math, science, history—not whatever doctrine a particular church wants to drill into their heads. It's about keeping things neutral. If you want to teach religion, fine, go to a private academy or a parochial school, but don't touch the public system with it. Simple as that.

So, are you suggesting all those even more advanced democracies out there are just setting a bad example?

It wasn't forced in; it’s there quite legally through international treaties.

You clearly don't grasp the concept of anti-theism. Terminology matters—it's a vital branch of any science.

The Bible has been part of my education for ages, just like any other religious text. Didn't they teach you about their historical significance and value? Or does anti-theism—if that's truly what you claim to be—forbid teaching anything about a faith that is, let me remind you, a constitutionally protected right for every citizen in America?

As an aspiring atheist who decided, along with my family, to finally check that box on the census—taking an active stance on a matter that irritates me—I don't see any issue with studying books that many people on this planet hold sacred, nor with respecting someone else's beliefs.

Even Nietzsche wasn't fully an anti-theist, yet anyone calling themselves that today should at least master the basic definition. It implies an active opposition to dogma, religious content, and faith itself.

We actually agree on almost everything; I just don't think your approach is correct or productive.

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, really? 🥳

Did it ever occur to you that it's just plain wrong to separate kids in a public school based on their religion? And to top it off, we're basically paying taxes to fund the discrimination against our own children?

Yeah, we must be some real bunch of anti-theists, huh? How terrible of us!

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. They separate kids by physical ability in PE class, too. But apparently, that isn't considered a valid argument.

Look, my kids are right here in the hallway. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of discrimination.

I don't have an issue with the financial side of things either, though I could give you a very vivid demonstration of how much those religious instructor salaries, the hiring processes, and their standing within the school system actually irritate me.

That's not what I'm talking about.

nimblelynx7 said:If the church and state are truly secular, yet we have religious education in schools, does that mean churches should host lectures on civics? Should teachers walk into churches to give presentations hand-picked by the government, with the church footing the bill?

While secularism might be a neutral term for the state, for the Catholic Church, it acts as a red flag—something deeply negative.

Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

Betty Wood54 said:And honestly, having even a single secular school run by a priest as principal feels like quite a bit. He can hold whatever "progressive" views he wants, I suppose, but at the end of the day, his primary accountability is to the Diocese. His fundamental job is to raise kids within the framework of the faith, which, in my view, just isn't compatible with a secular mission.

That’s just not true. Honestly, you’re missing the point entirely here. Why don't you try defining "secular" for yourself? Secularism isn't about denying religion; it's about separation and acknowledging its existence. There are plenty of secular people within religious communities—among parents, even among the clergy. Raising children in a faith-based environment doesn't inherently clash with a secular society. And please, let's not start bringing up radicalism as an argument. Secularism isn't some antagonistic force against religion, nor is religion against it. It's meant to be neutral. The laws built on secular principles should reflect that exact neutrality.

School administrators answer to their founders and are obligated to follow their specific guidelines. For those whose founder happens to be a Bishop, they still have to follow the laws of the USA, but a huge part of their accountability lies with their founder.

In many parts of the world, religious schools are actually recognized as premier educational institutions.

nimblelynx7 said:I'm not seeing much "awareness" regarding religious education, let alone anyone actually doing anything about it.

There are 27 in elementary schools. Out of 878 total schools. That's 3.07%.
Only 8 in high schools out of 378. So, roughly 2 percent.

Exactly. Two or three percent tops.

Now, try this: strip away those few administrators who happen to be genuinely great leaders despite the religious curriculum and hold progressive views. And if you don't count private religious academies, the percentage in public secular schools is even lower.

What do you think we can actually do here?

I'm being serious.

nimblelynx7 said:And what if the principal happens to be a theologian who teaches religion classes? There’s definitely an opening for that...

Sent from my Galaxy S21 using Twitter

Extremely slim. But the number of people actually paying attention to how religious instructors are positioned is growing—which means this kind of thing will become harder and harder to pull off.

Honestly, you show up here almost exclusively with arguments that would be tossed out of any decent logical debate. You're stacking logical fallacies before you even finish making your point.

It feels a lot like trolling, doesn't it? It adds nothing to the discussion. Why don't you go ahead and pull some actual statistics showing how many religious teachers hold administrative roles, and then explain how that percentage represents the whole picture? Please.

In larger schools, you can manipulate the schedule. In smaller ones? Not a chance. If there's no practical way to make it work, you might as well complain to the local water department. I find myself muttering the same thing every year when I see my kids' schedules. And mine, too—especially seeing that gaping hole where my teaching hour should have been instead of religion class...

- To the Principal: isn't it just appalling that kids are stuck out in the hallway during religion class?
- Colleagues, if you're feeling the frustration, join me in taking this up with the School Board.

Steven Newman50 said:Mastodon, June 28th at The Fillmore 👋 (It’s been on the radar for a while, but man, the date is actually getting close)

I'm not entirely sold on the idea, but I could be convinced.

I missed Woodpecker in Vienna and honestly? It still stings.