Posts by Karen Richardson3

Michelle Nelson4 said:Canada? The Czech Republic? Estonia?...

So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

rowdypanther12 said:Who says Western countries are all that much better? Lol, I mean, abortion was banned in Ireland until just yesterday, and people there still swear by the Bible and stuff like that.

But yeah, I agree with you. Personally, I don't think religious education belongs in public schools, whether we're talking about the US or Poland or anywhere else.
I wouldn't mind having some kind of religious culture included—maybe even as a required subject—but only from fifth grade onwards.

That’s just my take on it, anyway. 😁 But looking at reality for a second, I get that we live in a melting pot and we aren't getting out of this for decades, so there's no way we're seeing widespread secularization or the constant accommodation of minorities and those kinds of things anytime soon.
We really need to look for practical solutions to real problems.
And that brings us back to what you said: asking the government to implement alternative programs or specific activity hours instead.

Well, we all say it, don't we?
I mean, how can anyone label a country as backwards or some primitive wasteland unless they're measuring it against places that actually aren't?

but yeah, I'm with you there. Personally, I feel like religious studies have no business being in public schools, whether we're talking about the US or Poland or pretty much anywhere else.
I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of religious culture taught, maybe even an elective, but starting from fifth grade onwards at most.

Actually, my take is that even religious culture is kind of unnecessary, especially since elements of Christianity and other faiths naturally bleed into other subjects anyway—I mean, you can't really teach literature, history, or art without touching on them.

So, how are we supposed to please everyone? 😁

let's get real for a second; I get that we're stuck in this bubble and won't be breaking out of it for decades, so let's not talk about secularization or respecting minorities like it's some imminent miracle.

See, you're proving my point—we're still just that "stuck bubble we won't escape for decades."
If you step back and look at the rest of the world, the US is actually quite advanced. Seriously, damn it, we are. 😁
In most places, ideology—whether state-run or religious—is way more dominant, and respect for minorities is basically non-existent.

And as far as being secular goes... the United Kingdom isn't even a truly secular nation, considering the Prime Minister can't be Catholic. See how much more advanced we are? 😁

At the end of the day, it mostly boils down to the arrogance of atheists (and look, I'm one of them 😁) who think everyone else's beliefs are just laughable.
The other half of the problem is the media pumping out propaganda about how backward and "extremist" America is, while totally ignoring the fact that, when it comes to freedom of belief for both believers and non-believers, America is actually ahead of most of the globe.

Honestly, schools shouldn't even need substitute teachers; they should just provide a room and let the kids be adults for a moment—reading, drawing, finishing homework from the previous period, whatever.
(Basically, what some schools already do by giving students who skip religious class a place to go so they aren't left hanging).

Matthew Young35 said:I don't have any issue with teaching kids about various religions—call it religious studies or cultural history, whatever you want to label it. My problem isn't with the academic side; it's with the actual practice of religion and the attempt to indoctrinate children within the school system.
Who wants that? If people want to practice their faith, they can head to their churches, mosques, synagogues, or even those places where Satanists gather to do whatever it is they do.

Matthew Young35 said:Religious education and religious culture are absolutely not the same thing.
I would support a curriculum focused on studying the world's various faiths—even if there was a specific emphasis on Catholic traditions. However, I cannot get behind religious instruction itself.

I wasn't trying to say that "religious education" and "religious culture" are exactly the same thing; what I was really getting at is that in several other European Union nations—you know, those highly developed, secular places—they actually include religious studies or a dedicated religious culture course right in their school curriculums.
If you look at the rest of the European Union, it seems like they've integrated that stuff into the curriculum everywhere, but France is basically the lone holdout where you won't find it being taught in schools.

That’s all there is to it.

The whole argument that we’re some kind of backwards, clerical-fascist, or even "clerical-Taliban" nation just because right-wing groups managed to get churches into school buildings basically falls apart the moment you actually look at it.
Religion classes were basically kicked out of the school system overnight, which felt pretty aggressive if you ask me, but then they ended up being brought right back in because, honestly, that’s just how things work in most schools around the world.
Look, you have to realize that the vast majority of people across the globe are believers, and honestly, I think we just need to come to terms with the fact that the majority rule actually carries some weight here—especially since there isn't any kind of legal mandate or government coercion forcing anyone to sit through religious education classes.

If we’re basically forcing people to accept that there’s no other option—like when parents sign their kids up for religion classes just because there isn't actually an alternative program available—then you really have to look at the government as the one at fault here. It’s not on the Church, and it’s certainly not on the believers. If the state wants to mandate these classes, they have a responsibility to provide a legitimate substitute, because leaving kids to just hang out in a hallway isn't a real solution; you can't just leave children unsupervised in a school corridor and call it a day.

I honestly feel like all those advocacy groups are totally missing the mark here. Instead of wasting their energy trying to push for getting religious education out of public schools entirely—which, let's be real, isn't going to happen anytime soon—they should really be focusing on the actual logistical nightmare families are facing. Think about it: you've got schools where if a kid doesn't sign up for religion class, they aren't even given a supervised room to hang out in. It puts parents in this impossible bind where they end up enrolling their kids in religious studies just because they have no idea where their child is supposed to be during that hour. It’s a massive childcare gap disguised as a curriculum issue. Rather than fighting a losing battle over removing faith-based classes, these organizations ought to be pressuring the state to step up and provide actual solutions for supervision and student safety, regardless of what subject a kid is studying.

silentraven6 said:Karen Richardson3, from what I’ve been reading, most people aren't actually against religion classes themselves. It wouldn't even be an issue if we had some kind of religious culture integrated into the curriculum, similar to how they handle things in Germany or other major countries. The real headache is leaving kids wandering the halls because the school fails to organize those hours as actual elective courses—especially since every other elective has already been moved out of the standard daily schedule.

On both sides of this debate, you’re always going to have the extremists—those who want to shut down every single Catholic institution, and then the ones who want to throw all the non-believers straight into hell. 🤣

I mean, come on—look at the crowd of people coming over from the online version of the New York Times, just like us here, arguing that in a secular country like America, there’s no place for religion classes tucked away inside the regular school day.
I just scrolled through the last three pages, and that’s basically the whole argument.

I felt like I had to chime in because this line of reasoning is honestly pretty shaky, and it leads to this weird conclusion that our country is somehow backward just because religious studies exist in schools at all.
I can't wrap my head around why people who actually study this stuff—people who should know how things work globally—are spreading this kind of propaganda. Honestly, I can't tell if they're being malicious or if they're just completely clueless.

The thing is, in plenty of other developed countries, religious education or religious culture is actually mandatory, though they do allow students to choose ethics as an alternative.

One thing that hasn't changed my mind, though, is the idea that the government (not the Church or individual believers) is the one to blame for failing to provide a place for kids who don't attend those religious classes.

Back in my last post a month ago, I mentioned that the state really ought to ensure every school has a library that stays open throughout the entire school day, giving kids a place to go while they wait. I’m especially thinking about the younger kids here.

I don't have an answer for why this isn't being fixed, or why we still have kids waiting around in hallways (which, if I recall correctly, is actually against school regulations).

Because the real solution isn't cutting religious education out entirely; it's demanding that the government handle the logistics for the kids who aren't enrolled in it.
Why didn't the previous administration tackle this issue?
It feels like the ruling class benefits from keeping the problem alive—one side gets to complain, while the other side doesn't actually have a problem to begin with.

I’ve been chiming in on this thread as someone who is an atheist, and my kid won't be signing up for any religious education classes.
I tend to step away from the conversation every once in a while because it feels like we just circle the same drain and end up wasting everyone's time.

The arguments I’ve thrown out—just like everyone else here—were basically along the lines of "religious ed doesn't belong under the roof of public schools," or "why are we teaching made-up stories alongside subjects that actually have a scientific foundation?" Plus, the whole idea that the US should be a strictly secular nation, and that the fact the government allows the Church into our school system is just proof of how backwards and overly religious our society has become.
When it came to the kids who skip those classes, the focus was usually on the lack of organization—like, what are they even supposed to do during that gap hour while everyone else is in class?

But honestly, despite being so deep in the debate and feeling so strongly about it, I realized I hadn't actually taken the time to look at how things work in other parts of the Western world or beyond.

Here’s a little something to look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education

Basically, in most places (with the exception of France), some version of religious instruction or faith-based learning exists within the public school system.
That really puts a dent in the whole argument that America is this dark, clerical-fascist wasteland where priests are out to get kids.

Any journalist or activist who uses that kind of rhetoric either hasn't done their homework or is intentionally ignoring the fact that most secular, developed nations still include either specific denominational hours or broader religious studies that highlight the dominant faith.

So, after sitting with all this and thinking it through, I have to admit I'm changing my tune.

In fact, I’ll go as far as saying that naftali is actually right 😁

Matthew Young35 said:Perhaps the piece is indeed "biased" or even false, but let’s look at the reality here. The fact remains that children who aren't being taught Catholic ideology in school are being discredited in a million different ways.

I’m curious, though—how exactly is your child being discredited or discriminated against?
To me, this article looks like run-of-the-mill propaganda; it feels like it was written by a journalist sitting in an office just trying to figure out what would trigger an online flame war.
Honestly, I think religious education is just the second biggest "culture war" topic in the US, right after old-school political divides.

At the end of the day, if there is actual discrimination or bullying happening toward these kids, it's only because the people doing the discriminating are idiots who are just looking for an excuse. It seems to assume that these kids are being targeted because their parents belonged to the "other side" in previous generations.

In my own life, I haven't heard any stories like that from friends with older kids. My little one starts school next year and I won't be enrolling them in religion classes, so I'll let you guys know how it actually plays out.

This whole article is incredibly biased and just flat-out dishonest.
It feels like it was engineered specifically to stir up an outrage mob, baiting people into clicking and venting in the comments just so Bloomberg could rake in the ad revenue.

hiddendriver34 said:The staff will get some training. As for whether they'll actually get a raise, who knows?

The proposal is officially moving into the public comment phase.

Speaking from my perspective as someone working right inside the education system, let me tell you: the current curriculum hasn't changed since my grandmother was in school, and frankly, it’s broken. It’s so outdated that it doesn't just kill the motivation for the students—it drains the teachers too.

I have to tip my hat to whoever had the guts to dig this deep and attempt some real, fundamental changes. We haven't seen anything this transformative in... what, a hundred years? Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating, but it feels that way.

Look, some parts might not work perfectly out of the gate, but hey, that's how we learn, right? The most important thing is just to get moving.

The absolute worst thing we could do is just leave these kids stuck memorizing useless facts without changing a single thing. At least now, they're learning *something* new.

I was chatting with one of your colleagues the other day, and his take on this is pretty different from yours.
For instance, he’s skeptical about all those phrases like "teachers will have more freedom to design their lessons," because he feels like even now, there’s plenty of room to basically wing a lesson whenever you feel like it.

That really got me thinking, so I’m curious—what has held you back from doing more project-based learning or collaborative group work so far?
Was it just a matter of trying to squeeze everything into an already jam-packed daily schedule?

I'm guessing the differences between subjects are massive; like with American history classes, you might finish the core lecture in ten minutes and then the rest of the period is entirely up to your own creativity or whatever mood you're in.
(Thinking about it that way, I realized my high school history teacher, who was super strict and always grilling us with questions, was actually just being lazy. Since he didn't want to bother prepping for class at home, he'd just read the chapter straight from the textbook and spend the rest of the hour interrogating us).

He also mentioned that while there are various professional development seminars available for teachers to sharpen their skills, hardly anyone at his school actually takes advantage of them.

And he's convinced we won't see any real overhaul of the school schedule—like cutting down hours for certain subjects—because the internal resistance within the system is just too intense.

silentraven6 said:More than just the usual talk about cutting curriculum content, scrapping grades, adding ninth grades, civics classes, or masking new disciplinary systems under the guise of "project-based learning," what really keeps me up at night is this:

1. What does this reform actually say about training educators to meet these new working conditions?

2. How does the reform address the dynamics between student and teacher, teacher and student, parent and child, and how all those relationships overlap?

3. Where is the funding for decent project-based learning supposed to come from, considering most schools today can barely afford basic supplies?

4. Who is going to oversee the workflow and ensure these new reforms actually mesh with existing systems?

5. How much attention is being paid to correlative teaching—you know, interdisciplinary work? This requires a whole faculty to collaborate and build shared educational and developmental goals, then actually follow through.

6. Were parents even involved in any of this through their representative councils?

7. How was the academic community brought into the fold? Is there going to be a reform of the higher education system, or will universities finally take responsibility for producing such underprepared graduates who struggle once they enter the workforce?

Regarding project-based learning, I honestly don't get why people are acting like it's some massive revolution. This is stuff capable educators were doing fifty years ago. It’s a fundamental way of working for anyone who takes their profession seriously; it’s been in the literature since the earliest studies on teaching methodology. So, where's the catch? I suspect the issue is simply that very few people actually implement it, and no memo from the Department of Education or fancy document titled "Curriculum Reform" is going to fix that. Even if you mandate that we MUST have a "project day"...

Since I’ve actually worked under one of the main architects of this reform—and I hold him in extremely high regard; in fact, I'm writing my thesis based on his work—I do have certain fears.

My fear is that we're expecting a total paradigm shift without actually changing our mindset. I'm worried that the smallest part of this reform misses the actual root of our educational and developmental issues in this society: that endless loop of dysfunctional relationships I mentioned in my questions earlier.

And look, the mere fact that a paradigm shift is necessary—Summer, to answer you specifically—is itself a sign of an ideological war within our own society.
The truth is, I believe this could happen without leaning into any specific ideology we recognize, but my verdict is that we won't see anything concrete from this for at least the next twenty years. As a society, we aren't mature enough for such a shift or even for that kind of thinking. Honestly, we aren't even ready for scientific knowledge paired with the core civilizational values we were raised on. We're basically a post-communist, post-tyrannical little village that is miles away from being a true democratic civil society built on equality.

It’s like feminism or the movement for LGBTQ+ rights—real change isn't just imposed from above. It has to trickle down to the lowest levels of society, meeting resistance with tolerance, acknowledging people's refusals, showing better paths, and gradually bringing individuals back into the fold.

To me, it feels like our children are just the casualties of our own failure to communicate with one another as human beings. That failure reflects everything: our entire social landscape, our politics, and our culture.

edit: nobody needs to answer these questions above. I was just getting the things that are weighing on me off my chest; it's easier to process things when I lay them out like this. 😁

Honestly, I don't even think the ideologies themselves matter much. Ideologies are really just a coat people hide under while they're busy scratching for a paycheck.

A project doesn't get shut down because someone has legitimate concerns; instead, those objections are manufactured just so new leeches can latch onto the government's teat.
And in the process, people actually end up believing they're fighting for some noble cause.

This hits both our political camps equally hard (and I mean truly equal, regardless of how much uglier one side might look than the other 😁 ).

silentraven6 said:More than just the usual talk about cutting curriculum content, scrapping grades, adding ninth grades, civics classes, or masking new disciplinary systems under the guise of "project-based learning," what really keeps me up at night is this:

1. What does this reform actually say about training educators to meet these new working conditions?

2. How does the reform address the dynamics between student and teacher, teacher and student, parent and child, and how all those relationships overlap?

3. Where is the funding for decent project-based learning supposed to come from, considering most schools today can barely afford basic supplies?

4. Who is going to oversee the workflow and ensure these new reforms actually mesh with existing systems?

5. How much attention is being paid to correlative teaching—you know, interdisciplinary work? This requires a whole faculty to collaborate and build shared educational and developmental goals, then actually follow through.

6. Were parents even involved in any of this through their representative councils?

7. How was the academic community brought into the fold? Is there going to be a reform of the higher education system, or will universities finally take responsibility for producing such underprepared graduates who struggle once they enter the workforce?

Regarding project-based learning, I honestly don't get why people are acting like it's some massive revolution. This is stuff capable educators were doing fifty years ago. It’s a fundamental way of working for anyone who takes their profession seriously; it’s been in the literature since the earliest studies on teaching methodology. So, where's the catch? I suspect the issue is simply that very few people actually implement it, and no memo from the Department of Education or fancy document titled "Curriculum Reform" is going to fix that. Even if you mandate that we MUST have a "project day"...

Since I’ve actually worked under one of the main architects of this reform—and I hold him in extremely high regard; in fact, I'm writing my thesis based on his work—I do have certain fears.

My fear is that we're expecting a total paradigm shift without actually changing our mindset. I'm worried that the smallest part of this reform misses the actual root of our educational and developmental issues in this society: that endless loop of dysfunctional relationships I mentioned in my questions earlier.

And look, the mere fact that a paradigm shift is necessary—Summer, to answer you specifically—is itself a sign of an ideological war within our own society.
The truth is, I believe this could happen without leaning into any specific ideology we recognize, but my verdict is that we won't see anything concrete from this for at least the next twenty years. As a society, we aren't mature enough for such a shift or even for that kind of thinking. Honestly, we aren't even ready for scientific knowledge paired with the core civilizational values we were raised on. We're basically a post-communist, post-tyrannical little village that is miles away from being a true democratic civil society built on equality.

It’s like feminism or the movement for LGBTQ+ rights—real change isn't just imposed from above. It has to trickle down to the lowest levels of society, meeting resistance with tolerance, acknowledging people's refusals, showing better paths, and gradually bringing individuals back into the fold.

To me, it feels like our children are just the casualties of our own failure to communicate with one another as human beings. That failure reflects everything: our entire social landscape, our politics, and our culture.

edit: nobody needs to answer these questions above. I was just getting the things that are weighing on me off my chest; it's easier to process things when I lay them out like this. 😁

I was reading through hiddendriver34’s post, and honestly, those questions hit me immediately.

hiddendriver34 mentions how high school seniors can't even draft a formal appeal against their standardized test results. But let's be real—even people graduating from top-tier law schools struggle with that kind of thing.

When I was at the University of Rijeka, everything was just old-school lecture style; writing papers felt more like a mindless chore than actual learning. And the teaching methodology? It was just a one-semester course that nobody gave a second thought to.

I think a real reform could actually work, but only if we start by fixing higher education first.
We have a massive sprawl of universities and colleges that basically exist just to hand out diplomas and get people jobs.
The quality at these newer universities is pretty shaky, and the community colleges feel like they're just teaching single, isolated courses rather than providing a real foundation.
We're essentially inflating the number of people with advanced degrees and hiring PhDs for roles they aren't trained for, which is really the only reason the whole system stays upright.

To be totally honest, looking at the state of our schools—from the lack of funding to the low morale and varying levels of teacher training—the pessimist in me hears hiddendriver34’s list and thinks, "Great, now they'll just make everyone memorize even more useless data." It feels like more rigid, forced memorization is coming.

I should also mention that I knew people finishing degrees in English Literature who couldn't even grasp basic grammar or spelling rules.

Susan James hit the nail on the head. It’s just that people rarely realize their own personal biases and worldview actually constitute an ideology. 😁

Like I said before—there is so much spin flying around regarding this whole situation.

Honestly, I haven't been able to find a single clear-cut article that actually highlights the core changes they're planning for the school system; it's all just vague, empty rhetoric about how we "need to become a knowledge-based society."

In my opinion, these reforms always end up being purely cosmetic—like debating whether grades should be issued mid-term or quarterly, or if we should switch from letter grades to descriptive feedback—when what we actually need is a total paradigm shift. We're talking about things like letting students actually choose their electives, completely restructuring class schedules, or moving away from traditional lectures toward more interactive learning models.

But let's be real, there’s neither the political will nor the budget for that. Apparently, even the teachers are pushing back hard (or at least that's what the news is saying, though I don't know if it's the full story).

I honestly can't tell if this curriculum overhaul was ever intended to bring about any meaningful change.

Are there any actual teachers in here who could break down what the most significant shifts would look like within their specific subjects?

As for whether they'll scrap it or pause it, I'm just waiting for a serious statement from the new administration. First, the word was they were halting everything, then they said it would move forward with some modifications, but nobody has a clue what those changes actually entail.

From what I can gather, there isn't any actual power sitting in the executive branch right now; they’re all just banking on this vague idea of what might happen 😁

But anyway, everyone is basically hitting a wall at the same time—both the winners and the losers—so you end up getting even less coverage from the news than usual, making it pretty much impossible to figure out what’s actually going down.

silentraven6 said:Okay, looking at this now, I realize I picked the wrong word. I really should have said "protest" instead of "strike."

I mean, I don't even see any sign of teachers planning a protest over the repeal of those reforms. Is that better?

The media coverage on this whole reform situation is honestly such a mess; it’s hard to tell what’s actually happening.

One minute the headlines are screaming that everything is being shut down, then they backtrack and say that's not true, and now we've got this update from Ilcic today:
He basically confirmed that the education overhaul and the development of the new curriculum aren't being halted—everything is still moving forward according to the original schedule—though he did mention they're planning to tweak certain sections.

At the end of the day, we really need to get a clear picture of the actual facts before we can make sense of any of this.😁

brisknomad13 said:My family's bank account doesn't rely on the Church one bit.

Where did you even get that idea, and why does ☕Karen Richardson3
feel the need to talk about me like that?
I work, I pay my taxes, and I'm actually fine with my tax dollars supporting the Catholic Church. Got a problem with that?

At the end of the day, everything really just boils down to money and self-interest, usually manifesting as who gets which job or which business opportunities open up because you're connected to a specific political clique.
It’s the same story whether you're looking at the far right or the far left; the loudest cheerleaders are almost always just people looking to gain or lose leverage depending on which faction holds the reins of power.

Most regular folks don't even bother looking into it, or if they do, they certainly aren't digging as deep as this.

And look, if you happen to have zero ties whatsoever to the crowd we call the "right wing" here in America, then please, accept my most sincere apologies.

Henry Cox78 said:So you're basically saying we should scrap religious studies just because kids who skip it get a free period to hang out in class and mess around? And now that downtime is considered "discrimination" against them? 😁 It would be hilarious to actually ask those kids if they feel discriminated against or if they just think they hit the jackpot. These modern totalitarians love wrapping themselves in the flag of human rights, tossing the word "discrimination" around left and right just to persecute anyone with different beliefs. Real discrimination is stripping away rights—which is exactly what you're doing by suggesting we stop religious education just because you think schools should only be job training centers rather than places that actually prepare kids for life.

The discrimination part comes in because the government isn't actually providing any supervision for those kids while these elective classes are running. Since this specific subject holds such a unique status compared to other electives—and there isn't even an alternative class scheduled at the same time—those students are essentially left adrift.
Basically, it's not like every school across America has made sure to provide dedicated spaces or staff to look after them.
In our area, they’re just stuck out in the hallways instead of being in a proper classroom.
From what I can tell, it's the same story everywhere else, too.

What's the big deal with allocating funds so that, say, the school library stays open all day? That way, if a six, seven, or eight-year-old isn't in religious studies, they could head to the library and spend that hour there productively.

At the end of the day, I have plenty of my own reasons for thinking religious education doesn't belong in the public school system, but as you guys mentioned, I'm in the minority here.

But look, if we want to avoid repeating the mistakes of past totalitarian eras, the way the majority treats the minority really needs to be rooted in Christian values and democratic respect. So, when we argue that it's unfair that nobody is looking out for the kids skipping those religious classes, both the state and the Church—given its own stated mission—really ought to step up and show they care about them.
When my kid shows up at school at 8:00 AM but class doesn't start until 8:50 AM, I need to know they are safely in the library under someone's watch, which is exactly how a school is supposed to function.

Henry Cox78 said:Maybe it's because religious education hasn't been part of the curriculum for decades, so we just have to wait for this current generation to grow up and actually take charge of things.

For what it's worth, I was a regular at religious studies in school and was super active in church growing up—I genuinely wanted to be there. But once a child realizes there's a gap between what's being preached and how things actually work, especially if they don't see any personal benefit from the organization, they tend to walk away and never look back.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Some people find these posts terrifying or nauseating, but nobody is actually using them as a solid foundation for a real counter-argument. Throwing insults isn't going to get you anywhere.

The democratically elected government that came to power in the early 90s was operating under very specific, intense circumstances. They didn't have weapons, a standing army, or diplomatic leverage... they were dealing with internal uprisings and their own military turning against them. We had to lean hard into American identity and Catholicism because that was literally all we had left. Sorry, but back then, the government wasn't worrying about today's "New Age" parents complaining about an hour or two of lost time in their kid's schedule.🙄

Religious ed isn't being forced on anyone. There aren't really "religious" or "non-religious" kids—if there were, it would actually be a great chance for kids to learn how to live alongside people who are different. You're using such heavy language to describe religious ed and the relationship between the Church and the State, but there's nothing dramatic happening here. In religious ed, kids just draw pictures of Moses and Jesus and then talk about spiritual values.

Wait, are you actually the same person who was basically squealing at the idea of making religious education mandatory, despite being part of the camp that claims to be fiercely against totalitarianism?

Henry Cox78 said:I don't know, I never said that.

Thanks for the long-winded lecture on absolutely everything. 😁

Give me one actual, decent reason why you're against religion in schools, and maybe I'll believe it's not just pure hatred for different worldviews.

Look, you're the one who dragged communism—which, by the way, vanished from this country back when we were all just little kids—into a discussion about keeping religious instruction inside public school buildings. So, I don't really know how to proceed without rambling about everything and anything, 😁
how we aren't living under communism anymore, but rather in a society that actually values a plurality of opinions. 😁 These debates are fascinating because it's becoming pretty obvious that deep down, we're all a bit totalitarian. 😁

But regarding my reasoning:

First off, I feel like we haven't received a straight answer to one very simple question: why can't religious education just take place in church buildings?
I mean, nobody is trying to ban the teaching of the Catholic faith; freedom of religion is protected by law. But why does it have to be in school buildings—places that are primarily designed to educate and prepare people for the workforce?

I’ve yet to see a clear legal basis for why you're demanding entry into state-run school buildings (though I haven't heard a rebuttal to the idea that the "spiritual development" clause was slipped into the Education Act back in 1991 at the behest of the Church, only to be used later as a roundabout justification for religious classes on campus).

So, I still haven't gotten a simple answer to why not just use churches; besides those half-baked excuses like "there's no room" or "we don't have enough laptops."

At its core, what bothers me is the hypocrisy. Like many others here, I think you're fully aware that a lot of kids wouldn't even show up to church for these lessons (which would be a massive failure if it's true).

But hey, as a powerful interest group, you're certainly doing everything you can to hold onto that social influence and the money that comes with it.

For instance, take brisknomad13, who claims to defend religious education and cares so deeply about the moral and spiritual growth of children, yet she's just one person whose entire livelihood seems to depend on the Church and these school programs.

Me? I don't gain a single cent whether religious education stays in schools or not, so I'd like to think I'm coming at this with a lot less hypocrisy than the rest of you.

But what really gets under my skin is how the government hasn't actually fixed the issue for kids who don't attend religious studies classes; honestly, it feels like they're being treated unfairly and even discriminated against.
Look, if we’re saying tax money from every single taxpayer should go toward supporting the Catholic Church, then the state should be using those same collective funds to finance a real solution where no kid is left stranded in a hallway. There should be dedicated space inside the school buildings specifically for students who aren't participating in those religious lessons to hang out. That’s basically the bare minimum the government could do—even if they didn't prioritize it back in the day, they can certainly figure it out now. Personally, I suggested using the school library, which seems like a totally reasonable fix to me.
And I truly believe—or at least I hope—that it would also be in the interest of the Catholic Church to get this sorted out. They really ought to throw their weight behind these demands, especially since, as brisknomad13 mentioned, they represent about 80% of the population, which gives them massive social influence.

So, regarding the question of why the Church would bother caring about people who aren't part of its flock: as someone who isn't a member, I honestly don't know if the Church as an institution advocates for a positive attitude toward everyone, or if they just focus on their own members?

If we're talking about an institution and people who are supposed to care about the well-being of everyone—not just their own—and considering that under the current legal framework they non-selectively take money from all Americans, I think it's shameful that the Church allowed, and continues to allow, this half-baked solution. Their members get the religious education, and for everyone else, it's like "who cares?" This approach just keeps widening the gap in an already deeply polarized American society.

brisknomad13 said:I've said it all, but apparently, people just skip over the answers.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act says in Article 4:
Article 4.
(1) The goals of education in school institutions are:
1. to ensure a systematic way of teaching students, encouraging and improving their intellectual, physical, aesthetic, social, moral, and spiritual development in accordance with their abilities and inclinations,
2. to develop students' awareness of national belonging, preserving historical-cultural heritage, and national identity....(cut)

Like you can see, educational goals are broad, but the part that actually matters here is the bolded bit.
That’s where the Catholic Church stepped in, offering the kind of upbringing they promote (universal and faith-based values) and letting kids get an education "in accordance with their abilities and inclinations"—for the parents who actually want that. By the way, over 80% of people in the last census identified as Catholic, and since schools aren't neutral bystanders but actual formative institutions, having Catholic instruction has legal, universal, and moral ground to exist as a subject.

Bringing religion back into schools wasn't some dictatorship move; it happened because the political party that won the American elections put it there. That option was chosen by the citizens of the US. Then came the Vatican Treaty, and the Constitution has a clause protecting freedom of religion.

It was a historic chance for the people to decide the quality of education for their own kids.
I mean, who else gets to decide how kids are raised if not the people—the majority?
I don't have anything against Protagoras or brisknomad13 making up their own curriculum, or some feminist group doing the same. If they meet the criteria for an elective, sure, let the kids whose parents want it take the class.

So, religion returned to the classroom after decades, allowing for that "moral and spiritual development based on inclinations and abilities," plus education on national identity (though that happens in other classes too). It all lines up with the Law, the Constitution, and the Vatican Treaty.

If a minority finds that annoying, there's not much they can do right now.
If the majority is unhappy, they can go through the proper channels to change the legal framework.

As for funding or how many hours are assigned to it, if this model isn't cutting it, then that's something that needs to be worked on.

I just finished reading your post, and I have to be honest—at first glance, I was like, "Okay, yeah, there’s some actual logic here." In certain spots, though, it gets a little spooky, but I guess since I'm an atheist, I'm looking at all religions through a totally subjective lens. Personally, I don't think any religion belongs in the classroom; honestly, it baffles me that they even still are, though I suppose a believer probably feels that same sense of bewilderment when they can't wrap their heads around why someone wouldn't believe 😁.

But then it hit me: the Education Act wasn't penned by some enlightened super-being acting solely for the greater good. It was drafted by politicians, just like every other piece of legislation.
And let's be real, those people know exactly what every single word in a law implies, and they definitely know exactly when to be vague, when to be ambiguous, and when to leave things open to interpretation just to suit their needs.

So now, it doesn't seem like a coincidence at all that this provision about "spiritual development" ended up in the education code. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that clause was slipped in specifically because of the Catholic Church, which then uses that exact wording to justify pushing religious education back into our schools.

I’m not even going to touch the rest of it—the whole majority versus minority debate, or the American Catholic crowd—because there’s already been so much written about that we’re basically just running in circles at this point.

Speaking of finding a model that actually works, how do you account for the fact that the democratically elected government in '91 basically just ghosted those kids who don't attend Catholic religion classes? They didn't bother to design any kind of alternative for them during those hours.
It feels like you religious folks completely forgot about them too, and it seems like none of you, in all your spiritual and moral growth, ever thought to advocate for them (especially since you make up the majority, hold the social influence, and—let's be blunt—are collecting their parents' tax dollars, all perfectly legal, of course).

As for me, I don't feel like my kid needs to sit there learning about other religions while everyone else is in religion class. At the same time, I’m certainly not going to hand my child over to those anti-church activist groups either; I don't trust anyone who’s just out there tapping into public funds.

Honestly, it would be enough if the state just provided the funding to ensure the school library stayed open, so kids could just go in, grab a book, and read or review for their next period.

Henry Cox78 said:Religious studies belongs right where it should be—in the classroom.

It’s pretty obvious to me that people like you who hate religious studies only care about one thing: driving down church attendance until faith dies out completely. It’s going to be a total disaster. You guys are just weak—if believers actually fought back and forced everyone into religion, you'd all be whining like cowards. You should be happy just picking your own worldview instead of being so incredibly bold as to try and shove it down everyone else's throats. Well, fat chance. We aren't living under communism anymore, and the era of being pushed around is officially over.

The era of oppression isn't over; it's just shifting depending on who's doing the pressing. Honestly, whether it's the left or the right doesn't matter much to me because, ideologically speaking, I sit somewhere in the middle. So, imagine this: even though I'm an atheist, I still consider myself someone with a really strong sense of national identity.

Anyway, I’m not against religious education as a concept itself—meaning, it never crosses my mind to ban anyone from being a believer, a queer, or a 35-year-old woman choosing to have a third abortion after already having two kids (though I definitely have opinions on every group mentioned here). My issue is specifically with keeping it in public schools.

What really gets to me are people like you, who equate opposing religious instruction in school buildings with threatening the very survival of Catholicism, and then immediately leap to talking about Communism.

If you're curious about what I think regarding Communism: I believe it was a deeply unfortunate period in our history, and we're still feeling the fallout today.
However, I don't view it as tragic because someone "banned" faith—and I put that in quotes, because everyone I knew went to church and participated in all the rites without any issues; we lived in the outskirts of Monterey. I see it as tragic because it crushed the middle class and left us ruled by the rural crowd.
We’re still feeling that rule by the rural population today, and it’s going to take decades to recover from the loss of the civic layer that ended up leaving the country.
But what truly scares me is the fact that the citizens are still fleeing the country while the rural types stay behind.

But getting back to the point:
That whole "there isn't enough space" excuse you're using is just shameful.
For you, or anyone else, to claim that, we would first have to reach a point where kids are flocking to parishes for religious instruction in such massive numbers that they can't even fit inside.

Only then could the Church ask the government to hand over school buildings for religious studies, simply because the needs of the American people are so vast that the Church can't meet them (at least until they build enough of their own facilities).

In that scenario, the state could provide the buildings for use outside of regular school hours.

But that hasn't happened. It was never actually established that there’s a shortage of space.

The way you're acting today is exactly how the party used to act back in the day. Once you realize that, IMO, you might actually become better people and more sincere believers.

Henry Cox78 said:Demand for religious education is huge, but there just isn't enough room, so it makes more sense to go where the space actually exists. You seem really worked up about this whole religion thing. It’s not enough for you guys to just opt out yourselves; you think everyone else should quit too. That's just not gonna happen.

Honestly, that argument about lack of space isn't nearly as convincing as your attempt to twist the logic from "religious studies belongs in church facilities" into "you're demanding that everyone else stop being believers."

It’s pretty interesting, though, how you actually admit that moving religious education strictly into church buildings would end up shrinking the number of "believers" in the long run.😉

Henry Cox78 said:It's because there just isn't enough room in the churches to fit all those kids. It's like asking why the Los Angeles Dodgers games aren't played in some tiny gym. 😁

Look, we haven't actually met online, so I can't really tell if you're being dead serious right now or if you're just messing with me.

And if we're going to bring up the Los Angeles Dodgers, the real question is how everyone manages to cram into the stadium on Sunday, yet suddenly there’s "not enough space" for practice sessions during the week?

brisknomad13 said:School religion classes and parish catechesis have always been two totally different things.
Parish catechesis is all about that deep, spiritual connection—it’s where you actually live out the sacraments and grapple with faith on a real level. School religion classes are different; they're more about the long game, teaching the fundamentals through a mix of head knowledge, heart, and actual action.

Since Christianity is so baked into our history and what makes us who we are, I think people were right to back the politicians back in the nineties who wanted to bring religious studies back into the schools.

If a school decides to sandwich religion class right in the middle of the day, we need to do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
If a kid isn't doing Sunday school, they shouldn't just sit around waiting. I'm with you on that.

I’ll be honest, I’m not super familiar with how "parish catechesis" actually works (if I’m reading you right, is that just people gathering at the local church while getting ready for things like First Communion?), but you still haven't quite hit my point:

If we want religion class to be that comprehensive experience that touches on a student's intellect, emotions, and daily life, why can't that just happen within church facilities instead?

Quincy:

Since Christianity is so deeply woven into the fabric of our history and our American identity, I honestly believe it was the right move back in the nineties when people backed the political candidates who fought to get religious education back into the public school system.

But what's the catch?

Are you worried that if we just kept religion classes strictly within the church walls, it would somehow weaken our national identity?