Posts by Karen Richardson3

urbantinker8 said:I never actually said it was instead of Dante.
There really isn't any need to jump down my throat or start lecturing me with these historical-sociological deep dives.🥱
The fact that he represents the New Wave matters to me, I suppose, from a musical standpoint, rather than a literary one.

I'm with him on that.👍[/i]

From what I gather, there’s an active public debate going on right now, so you could always take your question directly to the American language and literature task force—basically the people who actually put him on the shortlist in the first place. Honestly, you'll probably get a much more sensible answer from them than from us, since they're the ones who can explain exactly why they think a song lyric intended for musical performance belongs on a list of potential reading assignments.

Personally, I think there's a real opportunity for a killer classroom session if an English teacher decides to dive into a text like that.

At the end of the day, everything boils down to one fundamental question: what is the actual goal of teaching American language and literature?
I'm actually a big fan of the shift being attempted with this curriculum reform, because I truly believe the point of studying our language isn't just about memorizing trivia about "classic" masterpieces or reciting literary theory definitions.
To me, the core mission is literacy—developing the ability to read deeply, which then serves as the foundation for building critical thinking skills.

It honestly seems way more meaningful to take a work that some might even dismiss as "trash" and have a class where kids actually debate the characters, their motivations, and their actions—analyzing the plot and defending their stances using evidence from the text—rather than just forcing them to endure 16th-century classics written specifically for a 16th-century audience.

urbantinker8 said:I suppose the reason a book like *The Chair* earned its spot on the high school required reading list is because...🤷

maybe it just sounds a bit more edgy and contemporary to pick up something titled *The Chair* instead of something like *The Great Gatsby*?🤔

Well, for one thing, he’s a definitive icon of the New Wave, and because of that, he serves as this vital piece of musical social commentary that kept the consciousness of the urban American youth at the time alive and kicking.

And also, unlike a bunch of those self-proclaimed "legends" who were churning out poetry back then—the kind of guys my historian buddies shoved into anthologies—he actually wrote songs that kids today still genuinely love to listen to. Meanwhile, most of that anthology stuff hasn't been touched by a soul in years, and honestly, nobody cares about it; it’ll probably all get tossed out of the anthologies the second those old editors retire and some new crew takes over the reins.

By the way, it's not Springsteen INSTEAD OF Dante. There's really no need to swap out arguments or start mourning the idea that people won't know the classics anymore.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:handwriting practice. 😬
Personally, I find it hard to believe a fifth or sixth grader could produce a deep analysis based on their own interpretation. 🤷 Sure, there might be a few outliers, but they're the exception. At least, that's my impression when I look back at how we handled literature discussions in middle school.

Right, so what they’re really doing is practicing expression—trying to figure out how to construct their own thoughts into actual sentences.
That doesn't really fall under the umbrella of "well, they don't write anything else at this school," because with most other subjects at that age, you're mostly just filling in blanks or giving short answers based on stuff you've memorized straight from the textbook.

On top of that, in a typical classroom setting, you rarely see everyone getting a chance to speak up, especially if the class is packed with 30 or more students (though things are looking up lately; even in places like San Francisco, classes seem to have leveled out to maybe around 20 kids now).

(I'm sure teachers have plenty of other reasons for this too, but these are just the things that jump out at me.)

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It’s not like they don't write anything else in that school. 🤔
Thinking back to myself—and honestly, plenty of others—that whole thing was just a massive waste of time. You can cover this stuff way more effectively during class, and any teacher can tell pretty quickly if a student actually did the reading.

I have no clue what the supposed benefits of this are, since I'm not the one standing at the front of the classroom.

That said, I personally used to love the writing assignments, specifically when we got to dive into our own interpretations (if that's even what we're talking about here?), mostly because I wasn't really the type to jump into every single debate during class time—though I might have raised my hand 😁 if the room went totally silent and nobody had an answer.

silentraven6 said:"Quote:"

That was just a hint, really—just throwing some ideas out there to see what sticks. 😁 And honestly, isn't it sometimes necessary to circle back to certain topics? I feel like some things just need to be revisited over and over again. It’s part of the process, right? 😁 Especially in our society here. 🤣

I just spent some time scrolling through Open Forum, and honestly, the uproar is getting ridiculous. People are acting like they just kicked Shakespeare out of the classroom entirely instead of just moving him from the core curriculum to the supplemental reading list. I don't get the outrage. In my opinion, required reading should really just be a supplement. It doesn't necessarily have to cover every single thing discussed during class lectures. You could easily set three mandatory books for everyone and then let the rest be elective. Students could engage with the material through term papers, essays, reading journals, or even project-based problem solving. It shouldn't be this big of a deal.

hiddendriver34, honestly, if you ask me, taking that whole historical approach with distinct periods is the only way to go. It just makes sense.

I’m not actually on campus right now, so I don't have all the specifics, but from what I can see, reading is becoming a massive issue. It feels like it's getting worse by the day. Even the older generation seems to be heavily leaning into writing and grinding through those required reading lists just to keep up.

They aren't the ones calling the shots, you know? It’s all just pure vanity. I can't think of a specific piece of literature that fits perfectly, but if I look back at Star Wars, Anakin's fall to the dark side is actually pretty similar to this situation 😬 🙂

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It was the same way here. 🙏
To me, writing those essays is one of the dumbest requirements out there. I don't see the point at all. I haven't been keeping up with the news lately—is there any talk about getting rid of them entirely?

I’d imagine one of the main points is basically just to give people a reason to actually practice building sentences while sticking to standard American grammar and spelling rules.

silentraven6 said:Look, some of my colleagues from years back couldn't follow original Shakespeare because they weren't exactly paying close attention during their linguistics seminars at Ivy League colleges. 😁

When it comes to Shakespeare's language, it should be easy enough to give kids the basics using some linguistically accessible methods. Honestly, I’d much rather teach Shakespearean Anka satir in a classroom than Judith, but hey, that's just my opinion. 😁

neka čitati i the "translation." Judith can actually serve as a window into understanding certain fundamental literary laws of the era it was written in. It's an excellent foundation for debating the morality of crimes, the author's stance, how female characters are portrayed, taking sides, and justifying bloodshed.

Listen, if a professor doesn't believe their subject is the coolest thing on the planet and a massive source of inspiration, they might as well quit right now. 😁

Of course, the staff follows the syllabus to the letter, forcing kids to memorize types of verse by rote, while having absolutely no clue how to present why a verse exists as a form, how it evolved through history, or why any of it matters to anyone. Understanding verse as expression could, for instance, provide a solid foundation for understanding predecessors—like using Petrarchan styles to show how powerful influence used to be. Then you pivot the conversation to their influences, who they were imitating, maybe play them a hip-hop track to bridge the gap, and talk about their followers. You can discuss why followers exist—is it just a Renaissance thing, or does that concept run through all of literary history and even into modern pop culture?

In the end, it all falls on you as the teacher. Even if you declare a work unreadable during class—and I've definitely had moments like that—it can spark a hell of a debate. You can take a comparative approach; you draw them in to read so they can understand why certain authors wrote such brainless, programmatic works and things like that.

And yeah, 😁

That’s not quite what I meant, though. I’m not saying teachers shouldn't be 110% obsessed with what they teach.

My point is more about how the people designing these curricula often can't seem to cut out the fluff and actually focus on the end goal. It applies to every single subject. That’s why we end up with this outdated style of teaching where it's just a massive firehose of facts that students are expected to memorize and spit back out during exams.

It’s honestly ridiculous to act like you can't function in society without knowing the deep nuances of Greek tragedy or the specific biological details of how cephalopods reproduce.
And all while we ignore the glaring reality that kids are graduating from high school practically illiterate—and our American grammar rules aren't even that difficult to master—including some who legitimately think that writing after sex is a valid form of birth control.

hiddendriver34 said:The thing is, it’s not the original work by Dante. It’s just a translation of Dante. Nobody actually sits down to read Dante anymore. And now, everyone is acting all outraged because someone is openly suggesting it, even though it’s already become the standard practice.

Look, I get that, but even when we talk about Shakespeare, we aren't reading the original Shakespeare; we're reading an English translation, yet we still say kids are reading him in school.

The real issue here is the ego of the people designing these curricula. Honestly, it's a flaw you see in almost every subject. There's this total inability to realize that the goal shouldn't be to show off how "cool" your specific field is or how much massive information you can cram into it.

hiddendriver34 said:Look, it’s not about the presentation itself. The issue is that Runic loves bragging about how she presents Homeric epics to high schoolers by framing them as nothing more than steamy romances and love stories, and how the kids absolutely loved it. Okay, great. But she hasn't provided a single shred of data showing how many of those students actually went home and sat down to read the Iliad from cover to cover on their own initiative. My guess? Zero.

Take Shakespeare, for example—he was an incredibly compelling writer. His life story is legendary, and his plays are packed with fascinating content. I’m sure I could brag just like Runic and say I know how to pitch Shakespeare to teenagers in a way that keeps them hooked.
But once they get home, all fueled up with enthusiasm, and pick up "Brer Rabbit" intending to actually read it—they’ll give up by page two. If they’re feeling particularly stubborn, maybe they’ll make it to page ten.

That’s why, when we tackle Shakespeare in my classes, I often have the kids dramatize a single scene. They’ll hold the book in their hands, flip through the pages, and pluck out snippets of text trying to find the perfect moment to act out. They even end up memorizing parts of that ancient text and go all out with the set design and costumes. Honestly, what else can you ask of them? It's not like they're doing a deep dive into the entire work.

And speaking of classics—there’s this edition where you have the original text on the left page and a "modern translation" on the right, and every single student gravitates toward that version. How much do you think they’re actually reading the left side—you know, the actual original text?
Usually, I’ll assign them some kind of linguistic or comparative analysis of a specific passage just to force them to focus on at least a tiny portion of the original text. If they're going to claim they're "reading" the classic, they might as well actually engage with it a little bit. But honestly, given the circumstances, I think it's totally hypocritical to complain about the fact that we don't force kids to read the entirety of "Judith."

To be totally honest, that whole setup used to trip me out so much back in high school. I mean, specifically that part where it wasn't even really a translation, if you know what I mean.
I remember us joking around about why they wouldn't bother translating Shakespeare into 16th-century American English instead. 😳

The fundamental flaw with how we've been looking at this is that people stopped approaching it like an actual reader—you know, the very people these stories were actually written for—and instead started acting like stuffy academics looking down from a pedestal.
It’s like they decided the importance of the message was somehow tied to whether the meter or rhyme scheme was perfect.

Honestly, I can't get behind that at all; to me, it just feels like pure academic ego, where experts feel the need to overcomplicate things and bore kids with technicalities that don't really matter to them.

If you ask me, it’s infinitely more important for a reader to grasp the core message in regarding the relationship between humanity and power—like what it actually means to carry that ring—than it is for them to memorize the mechanics of classical drama or the definition of a deus ex machina. I mean, when has anyone ever actually needed to know those terms to navigate real life? Besides, if we teach kids that power has a way of corrupting people, we might actually save them some massive heartbreak later on 😁 .

I’ve always had a soft spot for modern poetry, and honestly, anything from the mid-19th century onward was usually fine for my required reading.

But those epic poems, the hexameter stuff... all of that just 🙂

Then you spend all this time grinding through them, only to walk out of high school without being able to name even three contemporary American or international authors. And somehow, nobody thinks that's a massive failure?

In our high schools, when it comes to World Literature, we basically got stuck in the early 20th century—maybe even stopping right at WWI. As for American literature, they didn't really push us past the 1960s (which, let's be real, feels like the curriculum boards just decided to stick with what they knew 😬)

rowdypanther12 said:I actually really loved Antigone 😂

But honestly, it’s all about finding a balance. I truly believe any teacher knows exactly which students in their class are actually going to want to read something like Antigone or maybe some Krleža. There are always a few, but it's usually just two or three kids per class.
So, why not give that one student those quotes for extra credit? For everyone else, the goal should be to spark enough interest that they actually pick up a book at all—even if it's something as rough as The Odyssey. Let them read. Let them discover what a book actually is. Maybe 10% of them will move on to Tolkien after finishing The Odyssey, and maybe 5% of those will eventually find their way to Kafka. 😁
If things unfolded like that, I’d consider it a win. 😁

Back in elementary school, I used to absolutely devour Greek mythology.
But I couldn't stand it for a second when it was presented in verse.

At the end of the day, everything hinges on what you think the actual point of teaching literature is.
There’s one camp of people who think the whole goal is just memorizing the classics and knowing which big names triggered which shifts in literary history.
Personally, I don't see why that matters to anyone unless they’re planning on making a career out of it.

If we shift the focus—say, if the goal of reading is to find our own personal struggles or universal human issues within a story, or to grapple with those eternal questions—then there’s no reason to limit ourselves strictly to works written hundreds or thousands of years ago.
Sure, studying the old stuff proves that these human dilemmas are timeless, but you could easily approach that through a comparative lens, pairing an ancient work with something modern to show how the themes carry over.

Plus, some questions are uniquely tied to our current era, which means we can't even begin to have a real conversation about them without digging into contemporary literature.

redridge13 said:I was watching yesterday and honestly, it just set me off. Prosper started rambling about partisans and those old Soviet-era manuals🤦
just because nobody invited him to sit on the board.
So suddenly, everyone there is totally incompetent, useless, and just bad professors. And then you've got Jokic acting like a total coward, pushing some curriculum from 1976 (side note: the guy wasn't even born that year🙂, apparently they handed him the syllabus right at the hospital)

And what kills me is that Vukovic-Runjic didn't even bother to address her point about how adults don't read anymore. She should have pointed out that THAT is the direct result of the exact type of education she’s still out here defending
Then she starts giving these examples of how kids in creative writing workshops are obsessed with the *Iliad* and > just because she’s "engaging" enough to present them well (unlike, say, Feric)
Newsflash: the kids showing up to those specialized workshops are already way above average when it comes to being interested in writing and literature. They aren't exactly your run-of-the-mill public school demographic

Man, I didn't even have to watch closely to know exactly what kind of circus was going on.☕ 😁

It’s the same old story everywhere in this country. You’ve got people chasing power and paychecks, then they wrap their greed in all this lofty rhetoric about "higher causes"—you know, pitting patriotism against liberalism—just hoping nobody sees through the act.😁

When it comes to these new book lists, there's really only one question worth asking: are these titles actually included in the teacher training manuals?
If they aren't, then we're looking at a situation where most teachers will just take the path of least resistance and keep teaching the same old Homer and Marulić classics, simply because that's what's already laid out in the guides they've been handed.

So, don't get your hopes up too high; in a system like ours, there's always some kind of catch waiting around the corner.😁

rowdypanther12 said:Oh please, they’re just worried about our kids' futures 😁

All jokes aside, what Jergović mentioned is exactly what I was thinking about yesterday. This "modern and engaging" literature taught in high schools really needs to be revised every few years. Beyond that, the curriculum should be broad enough that a teacher can choose based on their specific class structure.
That way, one class might study something classic while another dives into something like *The Hunger Games* or whatever actually grabs their attention.

Just to give you a little glimpse of how this went down during my time at university (Seattle Sounders FC): our World Literature course was only two semesters long—basically just one single year.

And you won't believe how they structured it.
Seriously, they started way back in the Middle Ages... 🤣

It was absolutely maddening. After being hammered with all this stuff in high school, we get to college and immediately start getting drilled on Antigone, then a tiny bit of the Middle Ages, then more drilling on the Renaissance, and so on, until we finally crawl our way into the early 20th century by the end of the year.
Since the lectures wrapped up right there, all we ended up with was a handful of papers listing authors and the works that won the Nobel Prize in Literature during the 1900s. 😁 🙏

An absolute train wreck.

Meanwhile, in the spirit of Star Wars, which is what I'm currently obsessing over, 😁 there’s been this decades-long debate about what traits push people toward the Light or the Dark Side.
But seriously, try finding anyone actually debating the merits of The Odyssey or if anyone even cares about him anymore. 😁

rowdypanther12 said:I was just following the discussion yesterday until I got a little frustrated and decided to jump in 😂
Some people seem stuck on the idea that required reading lists are meant to introduce students to the great pillars of American (and global) literature. If that’s truly the goal, then leaving out Shakespeare is a total scandal, honestly 😁
But I think everyone should have realized by now that this approach is completely counterproductive.

Anyway, this sounds a bit like something I would have written 😂
From my perspective, we always had too little required reading, and the selection was far too narrow. It was like math class—there was always way too much of it, and it felt like you needed superhuman intelligence just to pass. The end result was that I managed to escape math as my biggest life hurdle so I'd never have to deal with it again, much like how most of my peers escaped required reading by never picking up a serious book for the rest of their lives.

And honestly, I’m pretty sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we’re talking about literary historians here—people who are constantly sitting on various academic boards and committees that decide exactly which books make the cut for school reading lists and textbooks. 😁
You know how it is with people—it’s almost never actually about what’s in it for them or their own selfish little egos. It’s rarely just about greed or vanity, either. 😬

I haven't really been able to keep up with all the chatter surrounding this curriculum overhaul because my schedule has been absolutely slammed lately, but from what I can gather, the actual educators and literacy specialists are FINALLY getting a seat at the table. It feels like they’re finally being given the reins to steer things toward books that actually resonate with kids today—stuff written in their own era that feels relevant to their lives—which is honestly the only way you're ever going to get them to actually fall in love with reading.
I’m fully behind that. 👍

silentraven6 said:Regarding all the pressure being put on the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and other departments, I think we're looking at this specific issue. There’s actually a really solid article right here.

Of course, they're pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now, and naturally, they're throwing everyone into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's only theologians and religious educators trying to qualify themselves to teach these subjects. But honestly, once you actually know the material, seeing how much these different fields overlap with philosophy just looks ridiculous. As someone studying American studies, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy, at most maybe the philosophy of education or linguistics (though even then, I don't see myself doing that even after finishing my degree, but that's a whole different conversation 😁); I have no clue what a social scientist like a sociologist would even do there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations; I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in specific seminars on political or social philosophy; and I don't see how a theologian could take over bioethics or the principles of modern philosophy—maybe they could be a guest lecturer for Spinoza or something...; and as for religious educators, I really don't see it; their curriculum truly, truly can't be compared to studying theology, let alone philosophy.

I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about exercising pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into teaching philosophy is a shameful move, regardless of how bad current instruction is and how desperately it needs a massive overhaul.

Honestly, I don't see any big issue with theologians teaching high school philosophy—especially since, from what I recall, the curriculum is mostly just a history of philosophical thought anyway. I mean, what's the actual difference in training between them and a standard religious instructor?
Is that old-school rulebook still being enforced? Some stuffy, bureaucratic 😁

In my opinion, theologians are actually better educated than most students graduating from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and at the end of the day, there’s a huge amount of overlap between theology and philosophy. They're basically just religious philosophers, if you catch my drift. 😁

Looking back at my own experience, one single teacher used to cover philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics for me in high school. I can't even remember if she had a degree in one of those or all of them.

It was clearly either too expensive or just impossible for the school to hire separate specialists for every subject, so she probably just filled her schedule that way.

I get why this creates a headache for philosophy majors, though, because a religious instructor could easily fill their roster by teaching both religion and philosophy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "specialist." Back in college in a city like Chicago, they used to call students who were only majoring in a single subject like American literature "specialists," whereas double majors weren't labeled that way. 🤣

Anyway, I had this really interesting debate recently with a friend of mine who's a teacher. He thinks it's ridiculous that teachers are expected to teach *only* their specific major. We were talking about restructuring classes, cutting hours for some subjects, and adding more for others.
He believes that even if a major reform happened, teachers should be allowed to teach subjects outside their primary degree.
And honestly, I'm on his side. High school education—even middle school—doesn't really demand the kind of deep, hyper-specialized knowledge you'd find in a PhD program.
That’s why I think the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is organized so poorly; they treat pedagogical training like a chore you just have to get through, similar to gym or art class, while focusing almost everything on niche, granular details that you will NEVER actually use in a classroom.
If I were studying history, for example, I feel like half of it wouldn't even apply to me. 😁

I know I'm jumping around here, but this ties right into the whole school system reform conversation.
At one point in college, I had a course on history taught by a Franciscan monk from a monastery, and he was hands-down one of my best professors.
He taught me about the Middle Ages during that teenage phase where I was, you know, super anti-Church and all that.
The fact that he was a monk didn't stop him from delivering an incredible lecture. He was a theologian who had earned his doctorate in history from one of "their" universities.

I also had a political science professor teach one of my courses.

So, if it works at the university level, why shouldn't it work in K-12 schools?

Is this restriction strictly limited to this one subject, or is this kind of flexibility allowed for other disciplines too?

rowdypanther12 said:So, I guess it’s fine if it’s in the textbook, as long as the professor doesn't actually assign it as homework? 😁

Personally, I don't mind anything as long as the teacher frames the question more like, "For those of you who pray, have you ever stopped to think about what this sentence actually implies?" 😁

Anyway, just grab your old schoolbooks and take a look for yourself.
I don't know when you were in grade school, but our textbooks back then were pure brainwashing—I spent a few years dealing with the leftovers of the old communist era before everything shifted into that whole newly-found nationalism phase.

Kids who aren't dimwitted tend to see right through all of it and naturally push back. The ones who aren't really thinking just swallow whatever they're fed.

Honestly, parents are probably better off not even looking at the curriculum; my folks definitely had no clue what kind of stuff I was being taught back in fifth grade. 😁

placidorca16 said:I wouldn't exactly agree that everything is the same as it is in America, because there are places where religious instruction isn't even an option in schools. Plus, there's a massive difference between having confessional religious instruction and having a "religious culture" course—they are completely different subjects. You couldn't even have the same teachers for them. For instance, as an atheist, I wouldn't mind at all if my kid took a religious culture class—if such a thing were even possible in the US—because that would likely cover various religious discourses from around the world rather than just one specific church doctrine. The fact that the Church in America meddles in education way more than in other countries is obvious when you look at things like the University of Chicago—where the current rector is essentially forcing the dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to sign a contract with the Catholic Theological Faculty. This is all just so religious instructors could get a degree in yet another subject to qualify for teaching in schools via the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. After they pull that off, they apparently plan to move onto the Faculty of Science too. You won't find examples like that anywhere else in Europe.

Alright, let's take this one step at a time:

You quoted my post where I was specifically pointing out which countries don't offer religious education, and then you hit me back with that line about how some countries don't have religion classes in their schools at all.

Look, I already pointed out in my previous post that there's a massive difference between teaching religious education and teaching religious culture, but you're still out here insisting they're one and the same thing.
I know they aren't perfect, which is exactly why I’m bringing up the fact that one or the other actually exists.

Alright, here’s my third take on this whole situation regarding the pressure being put on universities:
I'd really love it if someone could drop a link here, because honestly, I feel like I'm just flying blind right now and have no clue what we're actually talking about.

So, I finally wrapped things up at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, but here’s the kicker—if you actually want to add another subject to your teaching credentials, you can't just stop there; you basically have to go through the whole grind of finishing the entire program first. Come on, man, just lay it all out for me—give me the full rundown of the whole degree program..
So, what you’re actually saying is that the University President is pulling strings behind the scenes just to make sure a student from the Theological Faculty can walk away with a degree in American history, English, or linguistics?
Do you think they could actually walk away with that degree without sitting through every single second of those four years? I know, I know—it sounds totally ridiculous and basically impossible when you say it out loud, but I mean it.
Are they actually looking to let students pull off a double major—like pairing Theology with something else over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—without having to jump through all the usual admissions hoops? Because if that’s the plan, I’m wondering if they’ll just bump up the capacity at the Humanities department, or if those Theology students will still get that special enrollment priority. Honestly, the whole idea feels a little half-baked to me. 🤔

Look, can you just drop a link or maybe break down how this whole university situation actually works? I'm trying to wrap my head around the specifics here.

If you look at how things work over in Europe, the way various churches—whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or whatever else—interact with the government is actually pretty varied and generally stays on quite positive terms. It’s a world away from the vibe we have here in the States, where everything feels like this constant, exhausting tug-of-war between the "leftists" who can't stand the church and the "right-wingers" who basically treat it like their best friend.

It feels like here in the States, everyone—from the far left to the far right, even the church—just can't help but turn everything they touch into a political statement; you just don't see that level of constant maneuvering everywhere else.
It feels like people around here are just so easily swayed by the noise, honestly. It’s like everyone is being played, and because they've been conditioned to view everything through such a specific political lens, their entire stance on religion ends up being shaped by those partisan biases instead of anything else.

rowdypanther12 said:Since we're already talking about Europe, does anyone actually know how they handle this practically?
I mean, what happens to the schedule, or where do the kids go if they don't take religious studies? How does it all work on the ground?
Also, I'm curious about other school activities—do they have religious events scattered throughout the school year, or do priests show up to give blessings at school programs? And do they ever ask students in other classes to write about things like prayer or similar topics?

You could have checked out the link I posted earlier 😁

Every country handles this its own way. Even within federalist systems, you see huge differences in how things play out.
Basically, some places teach formal religion, while others focus on religious culture; it all happens right inside the school buildings during normal hours, and kids who don't want in can just opt for ethics instead.

(Just a quick side note regarding ethics being the alternative—that’s still on the government to organize. For instance, when those previous liberal administrations were in power, they had to manage that, just like the state has to provide the funding to ensure there's a room with an adult supervisor for kids who choose the non-religious route).

As for religious symbols (though honestly, I have no idea how many schools around here have actually stripped them out), take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Lautsi v. Italy case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. On March 18, 2011, they ruled that the Italian law requiring crucifixes in state school classrooms doesn't actually violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm not sure if our local anti-religion activists can even answer those last questions for you. Usually, they just jump straight to that "we're backwards, it's not like this anywhere else" argument without actually looking at how things work in the rest of the world.

Let me reiterate my newly discovered take 😁 which is that everyone uses this whole debate as a way to keep everything hanging in limbo and just stir up tension between citizens.

I haven't actually stumbled upon a formal list yet; I just took a quick peek at their website to see what was up.
It’s totally possible they’re keeping the specific roster under wraps just to dodge the inevitable backlash from parents who are either all for it being implemented at their kid's school or completely against it. 😁

On another note, I honestly think it's great how the mainstream media actually gave us the straight facts regarding the new administration's plans for the overhaul, and it’s pretty inspiring that regular Americans were able to push back through activism and protests to make sure those reforms actually stayed on the table. 🐔

Matthew Young35 said:Of course. As long as the Catholic majority continues to operate from a position of sheer force, these arguments remain hollow. The Church will always fall back on the same old playbook: "We are the majority, so we get our way. If you actually care about your children's future, enroll them in religion classes."
That is how it looks from an atheist's perspective.

Look, I totally get where you're coming from, and honestly, I used to lean on those exact same points, but I eventually realized they were built on this flawed idea that this is some unique dysfunction specific to how the US handles its relationship with the Church.
The reality is that most people across the globe are believers, and religious education is a staple in schools everywhere—not even mentioning the places where religion essentially dictates the legal code.
So, if we follow your logic, then the majority of the entire world is basically just "acting from a position of power." 😁

I just wanted to point out that it feels a bit reductive to frame the whole debate as just "America is a backward country, and the proof is that we have religious instruction in public schools."