Posts by William Bennett53

http://news.yahoo.com/lifestyle/priest-threatening-families-over-school-choices

(My apologies if someone has already shared this link.)
To put it briefly, a local priest is issuing written threats to parents and their high school students. He’s essentially telling them that if they choose to enroll in an ethics course instead of religious studies, or if they fail to attend Mass, he will refuse to authorize them to serve as godparents in the future.

It is genuinely disheartening to watch what Jergović is doing to his own reputation. I could almost tolerate the constant posturing regarding his buddies or him reciting tweets directly into the ears of the race producers—mostly because his actual writing can be quite good. But this habit of picking fights with the readers in every single piece? Honestly, even Zak Houdek doesn't go that far.

graniteharbor502 said:I've added this to the first post. It was already mentioned in the thread, but let's keep it somewhere highly visible.

Tenks. I tend to forget these things from one race weekend to the next, much like a goldfish. Or maybe a yellow one. I'll let my mom decide.

graniteharbor502, I didn't mention this in my initial post, and it slipped my mind:
- how many teams compete in the group stages?
- does it consist of the top two moving on, or is it the top three?

It’s entirely possible she just disabled her private messages altogether.

Take a look at this screenshot from the settings menu:

Perhaps we should strip away that clumsy assertion inside the parentheses and swap out the word "substantially" for something a bit more nuanced.

But for the most part, I believe we have this settled. 😁

Honestly, even to me, this warning doesn't look particularly well-crafted. Let's just wait for the moderator to weigh in.

shadowcrane91 said:Look, I'm 100% with you that faith shouldn't be part of a student's GPA, but I am all for making religious studies an elective. Since faith is a choice, why not make the class an elective? That way, we don't just scrap the program entirely from schools.
Honestly, if there's a decent number of kids from different backgrounds, just offer their specific faiths as electives too—if someone wants to go, let 'em go.

Even as an elective, the current setup isn't quite right. It ought to be an extracurricular activity offered on campus for those who actually want it. Why should someone who has no interest in religious studies—perhaps because they are an atheist or belong to a minority denomination that isn't large enough to warrant a dedicated program—be forced to sit through an ethics class instead? Why couldn't they choose to study trumpet, model building, advanced math, creative writing, or any of the other extracurriculars the school provides? Furthermore, why should a gradebook include a subject taught by someone who isn't even a standard employee of the school or the Department of Education—someone whose very position is secured by a Bishop and can be revoked at his whim?

I would happily suggest a course on world religions or something similar to my own child. However, I suspect organized religious groups would be the first ones to protest a curriculum that teaches children about the perspectives of other faiths independently.

I would truly love for my children to have the opportunity to pursue extracurricular enrichment in areas like music, language, and religion. I’m not looking for anything forced, though—especially when it comes to the religious aspect. By "forced," I mean I wouldn't want religious studies integrated into the standard curriculum at any time other than perhaps the final period of the day, and certainly not listed as a graded subject alongside their core academic requirements.

shadowcrane91 said:Belonging means being part of a religious community....
I haven't tried it myself (and neither have the people whining about it), but I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to walk away if they aren't feeling it anymore.

Where is this registry???
Who knows. I don't care enough about changing my own religious affiliation to have looked into it...
But there has to be some document somewhere used to pull the percentage of Catholics...

You can clearly see there are people who were checked off by someone else and they don't even care. (At least they haven't done anything to fix it.)

Unsubscribe from what, exactly? There is no official registry, no exclusive club, no cohesive group beyond a collection of people with shared interests—and even then, those interests are incredibly diverse.
There isn't really anything to "opt out" of, and besides, we need a more reliable metric than just raw numbers. A census is just as flawed a measurement as counting heads in a church pew.
We won't truly know how many Catholics there are until, following the model of some more advanced nations, religious funding is based on direct tax contributions from members of those specific communities. Only then would the IRS maintain an actual registry. Until that happens, appealing to the majority of the country's citizens as a way to validate support is nothing more than an attempt at intimidation.

And there it is... how can one Catholic be at odds with the teachings of their own faith?

Now, purely for your sake rather than for the sake of this debate, I would appreciate it if you could define exactly what constitutes a Catholic.

shadowcrane91 said:I don't know... I went to religion class for years and I never heard teachers talking about any of this stuff you're bringing up....
Maybe things have changed since then....

And honestly, if someone's actually bothered by being listed as Catholic, they can just uncheck the box. No need for all this drama and throwing stones.

You’re talking about "opting out" as if religious affiliation were membership in some social club or a political party. Where exactly is this registry you're referring to? Does the Church even maintain one? If you're talking about the Census, that covers everything under the sun; you can't exactly rely on those numbers to dictate policy until there's even a clear definition of what constitutes a Catholic.

shadowcrane91 said:I could, but I honestly can't be bothered right now...
It's taking way too much out of me 🙂
Maybe tomorrow when my phone has more than 5% battery left.

It shouldn't be that difficult; once you know the headcount, you ought to know who they are, but fine. I will wait for your reply. 🙂

shadowcrane91, would you care to attempt a definition of what it actually means to be a Catholic?

Most Americans live in apartments; perhaps it’s time we held a referendum to mandate a tax based on square footage per occupant. Since homeowners in the suburbs and rural areas are in the minority, shouldn't they be the ones to adapt?

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...

If we are truly a Catholic nation that shouldn't feel any shame regarding its faith—as you suggest above—then wouldn't it follow that minorities should be the ones to adapt? This leads me to wonder: following the model of certain Islamic states in the Middle East, do you believe religion ought to become an integral part of our formal social and legal framework? In other words, are you suggesting we should abandon secularism altogether? If we did, would that effectively silence all opposition to placing crosses in public schools and government buildings? And really, looking at the big picture, do we actually gain anything positive from maintaining a secular society?

As for everything else, I firmly believe that almost anyone who truly cares about providing their children with a meaningful religious upbringing should favor church-based instruction over what is offered in public schools. Schools offer a certain level of convenience, certainly; it requires zero extra effort from a parent to manage their schedule when the curriculum is already built into the school day. But much like opting for fast food just because it’s easy, this approach lacks substance. For a practicing believer, what actual spiritual value can be gained from a standardized school religious program? It simply doesn't compare.

The reasons that immediately come to mind:
Is mandatory religious education in schools truly serving any purpose? When you frame faith as a requirement, you immediately trigger resistance in a child. It becomes a chore rather than a choice. In our experience, church-led religious studies were never an obligation; instead, they served as a wonderful, enriching extracurricular activity for those of us who attended. Why force the issue when engagement comes from genuine interest?
Does the inherent sanctity of a church building not play a profound role in how a student perceives the lessons taught by their catechist? It seems to me that the atmosphere itself lends weight to the word.
When religious studies is forced into the same rigid schedule as math or history, it loses its essence. It gets reduced to just another checkbox on a syllabus—something students feel they simply have to "get through." From a student's perspective, it becomes just as hollow and pointless as any other mandatory elective that lacks real-world relevance. Why should it be any different? If it’s treated like a chore rather than an exploration of faith, how can we expect them to care?
Assigning grades to work submitted by individuals outside the traditional school system often triggers significant backlash. I’ve personally witnessed several instances where students were essentially bullied into abandoning critical thinking by frustrated instructors. This usually happened when students started asking uncomfortable questions rooted in scientific facts they had picked up in other classes. In those cases, there was often an implicit threat: either stay quiet and remain passive, or risk having a poor grade in religion tank your chances of getting into a decent high school.

To wrap this up:
Is a church really a better environment than a school for learning religious doctrine? I would argue that it is. To those who remain skeptical, I might suggest trying both and seeing for yourselves.
Forcing children into religious education classes creates a sense of resentment, much like any other form of compulsion. To avoid this friction, the most logical step would be to remove religion from the core academic curriculum entirely—essentially taking it off the official grading roster. Instead, if these classes are to exist at all, they should be scheduled during the final hours of the school day. If it remains part of the school environment, let it function as an extracurricular activity, much like a model building club or a choir program.
- We ought to be giving people a real choice here; religious studies should be an option again, whether that's in public schools or through local churches.

I’m sure there are plenty of other points to raise, but I simply don't have the time right now... 👋

1. Hamilton
2. Rosberg
3. Vettel
4. Kimi
5. Ricciardo 6th Verstappen
6. Verstappen
7. Bottas
8. Grosjean
9. Massa
10. Hulk

Why did you drop out? I'm not entirely sure how many cars we have left in the groups, but even if there's only one remaining, you could still finish fourth.

Cool! 👋

Man, how am I ahead of granitestag15? We’re tied on points, but he turned in his valid prediction earlier, didn't he? Did the secondary tiebreaker change at the last minute?

Not quite so fast.
(Technically speaking, you have every right to request a review for removal after six months.)