Posts by Kate Cox2

Jack Gray6 said:I want her to be exposed to the religious culture she’s growing up in. We share quite a bit with Catholics, though there are certainly our differences.

Our family is deeply tied to our specific church; we’re more practical believers than anything else. The kids already know a fair amount about God—we read the Bible together, pray, and sing spiritual songs at home. To them, this is just how faith works; they don't really know any other version of church besides ours. Still, I wouldn't want to pigeonhole her into just our way of believing. I truly believe there are sincere believers within the Catholic Church as well.

Here is a photo of my younger child. By pure chance, she ended up in a religious (Catholic) group at her preschool here in Chicago. We actually hesitated at first, but honestly, the group has been fantastic.

On the flip side, I have no desire to see her stuck in some library or hallway during that hour.

It’s definitely doable. It would probably be best to just coordinate those details directly with the teacher.

Larry Walker24 said:The real number of believers will finally come to light once they introduce a church tax here in the US—then you'll see how that "faithful" percentage drops straight down to 8.6%.

I am honestly just sitting here waiting for that day... once it actually happens, then we can have a proper debate about it. But frankly, that isn't really what we are here to discuss today.

Susan James said:🤣
Are you actually serious right now? 😕

When it comes to teaching classical languages in elementary schools, I could definitely see where you're coming from. But when it relates to learning foreign languages? I have to respectfully disagree.
I honestly don't think it should be mandatory. It would be much better if they just offered it as an optional feature instead. At the expense of American taxpayers. It’s definitely more cost-effective for the community to skip the religious education classes.

I’ll say it again: if you want your kids to grow up with a practical, lived faith, there are certain core principles that every parent needs to understand. It’s something we really have to pass down to them ourselves.
People don't necessarily need to be fluent in French, but why wouldn't we want to give our kids every possible advantage when it comes to their education? It's an interesting comparison—for instance, religious studies at a local church might be free, whereas taking French classes through a language academy usually comes with a price tag.
Honestly, I don't really get the logic behind spending sixteen years studying religion when you could be using those same hours to master a second language. If you look at it from a practical standpoint—like, comparing the value of that time to learning something like Spanish or French—it just doesn't seem to add up for me. Sorry if that sounds blunt, but it feels a bit misplaced.
It’s kind of funny when you think about it—I was just noticing that if you start learning a second language back in the fourth grade, you actually end up spending less total time on it than we spend on religious studies. It makes you wonder who exactly that curriculum is designed for, or what the ultimate goal even is!
It’s funny how we talk about "needs" versus "wants," isn't it? I was thinking about this the other day while I was grabbing a coffee downtown. We often categorize things as absolute necessities—like rent or groceries—but there's also this whole category of subjective needs. These are those little things that aren't technically vital for survival, but they feel absolutely essential for our mental well-being or just to get through the day feeling like ourselves. For me, it might be a quiet hour with a good book or a specific routine in the morning. It’s all about what makes us feel balanced. What do you guys think? Is there something you consider a "need" that others might just see as a luxury? 🤣

I’ve been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately regarding how we handle English in our schools. Right now, it feels like everyone is forced through this one-size-fits-all curriculum, regardless of whether they actually have a foundation in the language or any genuine interest in learning it. It feels a bit rigid, don't you think? Personally, I feel like we should be opening doors to much more than just English during those early elementary and middle school years. We really ought to make a wider variety of foreign languages available in the core curriculum. Even if it means forming smaller, specialized groups for students who are actually motivated—even if that means dealing with some logistical headaches or smaller class sizes—it would be so much more rewarding. Quality over quantity seems like the way to go if we want kids to actually connect with a new language.

As for the specialists on the team, I’ll just say there's a real mix of people involved. It's a pretty diverse group, including professors from all sorts of different departments.
The reality is that if you’re a talented psychologist, you can land some really lucrative gigs in the private sector—think HR departments at big companies like Google or even working within the high-stakes world of professional sports. On the flip side, if you go the route of public schools or social services, the pay tends to be much more modest. $2000 Aside from those working in transportation, you mostly see rare enthusiasts who actually want to change the world—or, much more frequently, people who just can't find anything better to do (especially when it comes to the paycheck).
Religious groups tend to focus their efforts almost exclusively on schools. They all have the same agenda: trying to reshape the world (in the wrong direction), which is why they can't seem to find a better way to exert influence. When you combine those two forces, everything just falls apart. It ends up being a mess that costs the government way more in the long run than simply hiring one psychologist for every three schools—someone who actually tracks data and real issues, rather than someone trying to wave a magic wand to make violence disappear.
If you’re looking to file a formal complaint against a psychologist, you have a few different routes depending on what happened. You could reach out to the state licensing board, the Department of Education, or even the Department of Health and Human Services. It makes me wonder, though—if we were dealing with a school principal, who exactly would we be reporting them to, and what kind of results should we realistically expect from that process? 🤔

If you’re dealing with issues regarding a teacher, you shouldn't feel like you have to just sit there and take it. You can absolutely escalate the matter by reporting them directly to the principal, reaching out to the school's counseling department, or even contacting the local school district office. There are always channels available to ensure these concerns are heard by the right people.
Honestly, asking what someone needs to learn after sixteen years of religious education is a question from someone who clearly isn't invested in the subject matter at all. Trying to explain it would be a complete waste of breath. It’s not that you wouldn't grasp the concepts; it’s simply that you have no desire to understand them. You’ve already reached your verdict on this topic. You have your stance, your conclusions are set in stone, and I can tell you—along with anyone else—that no amount of reasoning is going to sway you. You hold this deep-seated negativity toward the Church, and you are incredibly determined to cling to it. You aren't looking for an evolution of thought. This thread isn't even intended to change anyone's mind; it exists primarily as a designated space for those who just want to vent their disdain for the Church, allowing them to blow off steam in a way that actually follows the forum rules. 😉
In our American educational system, trying to determine exactly how many hours someone should spend studying a subject over several years is a question that simply doesn't have a universal answer. It’s incredibly complex. Personally, I feel that forcing a student to study the circulatory system of endemic rodent species is an absolute waste of time and a complete drain on their mental energy—much like how you find studying religion to be.

To conclude—my core argument was simply this: since we claim to live in a nation built on democracy and tolerance, I fail to see the issue with people wanting religious education in schools. Some will want it, some won't, and those who do can attend. Isn't that precisely what democracy and tolerance are supposed to look like? 🤔

As for the matter of taxpayer obligations—take my own situation, for example. I personally have no desire to see a single cent of my paycheck funneled into professional football. Not for the sport itself, nor for the renovation of a stadium like Yankee Stadium or any other arena in this country. Frankly, I couldn't care less about football, yet I don't want my hard-earned money subsidizing it. And yet, it happens. No one asks for my input... and what can you do? A few dollars from your check goes to religious studies, a few dollars from mine goes to football... you just have to accept it and move on.

Susan James said:The school—specifically the principal or the scheduler—handles those scheduling issues for subjects like German, computer science, or Latin, but they never do the same for religion.
It’s basically set up however it suits the religion teachers best.

It’s great that you’ve had positive experiences, and I believe things might be better managed in your part of the country (like some other things, for example, civics), but please believe us when we say it isn't like that in a major metro area. My child’s friend lives in a small town about 25 minutes outside of the city, and the local kids looked at her like she was an alien when she mentioned she wasn't taking religion. They didn't even realize you had the option to opt out.
The parents there are that classic crowd that gathers at the local church every Sunday; every kid in the school takes the class, receives all the sacraments, and gets the blessing at home. (Though if you actually ask them about their faith, they often know very little because it's just a tradition.)
I don't have time to type out everything about how religion class looks there or how the teacher handles the kids, but it was really interesting talking to the children about it.

Something I occasionally wonder about is how it will work for someone looking to buy some land and build a house in one of those beautiful locations, but who doesn't want their child to take religion classes. It's easy to talk when you're living in the heart of the city...🙂

Let it be offered at school, but let it have the same standing as German or Italian (both in terms of scheduling and student numbers required to form a class), and it shouldn't need to be taught for more than two years. Honestly, it shouldn't.
Maybe four years if it's only once a week.

Religion teachers are paid quite well for their work. Often more than physics or chemistry teachers, even though those seem much more essential to a student's education.
And I'll say it again: any parent can teach their child the basics of faith (if they are believers), but you can't exactly teach physics at home. We send our kids to school to learn things, not just to ensure teachers have jobs.

I never said I didn't believe you; I am simply saying that this needs to be resolved. It can be solved if things were organized differently.
What one person finds useful, necessary, or unnecessary is entirely subjective.
For instance, I could argue that the specialized administrative services are a total waste of taxpayer money because they don't produce anything concrete—especially the psychologists. Out of all the ones I know, only one actually does what she was trained to do, and she does it with immense passion and expertise. She used to work at a major metropolitan center, and now she is at my child's school. All the other psychologists I have dealt with in schools haven't just failed to do their jobs, they were incredibly unprofessional. For example, in front of eighth graders, they would mock a teacher who had just started working, commenting on how "crazy" it was to give beginners the eighth grade, and then they would sit there with the students for an entire period, laughing along with them while the teacher tries to teach. So, I repeat: everyone draws conclusions based on their own experience. Physics is fundamentally necessary, as is math. Fine. But French, Greek, Latin, technical studies, psychologists, and pedagogues?? Well, everyone will tell you what they think based on their own subjective opinion. It is the same for religion class—those who want it and have good experiences will say it is essential, and vice versa.

Sarah Hall53 said:The only thing is, according to the district regulations regarding class sizes, you need at least 15 students for an elective course—unless we're talking about religion classes, where they can actually get things moving with even smaller groups ☕
and remember a few years back when the Secretary of Education sent out that memo telling schools to schedule religious studies at the very beginning or end of the day? The bishops jumped up faster than Jack in the Box and started screaming "Vatican treatyyyyyyyy!"

Yes, it’s technically possible. Though, to be perfectly honest, I really don't know for certain. In my practical experience working in schools—and believe me, I have worked them all, from tiny rural one-room schoolhouses to large urban campuses and everything in between—I have never once seen a religious studies class scheduled right in the middle of the standard academic block. The only exception might be for children enrolled in full-day after-school programs, but in those cases, my colleagues don't mind either way; they are already on the clock at the school anyway, and they actually find it quite helpful to have someone else "lighten the load" for a large portion of the students...

Susan James said:What kind of questions are these?😕

It's a fact that everyone won't be happy, but why is it that religious studies always seems to be placed at the very beginning or end of the day, or frequently tucked right in the middle of the schedule, while subjects like computer science or German aren't? They almost always get pushed to the second shift.

And let's not forget we're talking about a subject that lasts eight years in school, whereas German is five and computer science is four. In the interest of fairness, wouldn't it make sense to occasionally put religious studies in the second shift too? Just logically speaking, so that students who have patiently sat through three years of religious studies if they want to study German don't have to wait around during the first period of the second shift.
A little tolerance and justice—isn't that what you teach and preach in church?

Also, like Mad mentioned, they'll just combine two groups for German (even though it would be much better for them to learn in smaller groups where the teacher gets two extra hours), yet religious studies is always held strictly by individual classroom. That's just to ensure nobody misses a period.

Yes, theoretically everything would be fair, but that is a matter for principals and registrars to resolve. Here in our district, all elective subjects hold equal status and are positioned similarly at the start or end of the school day; consequently, students arrive earlier or stay later depending on which elective they are enrolled in.
If things are being handled differently elsewhere, then the individual school needs to address it. I also find it perfectly logical that if an overwhelming majority—or perhaps the entire class—chooses one specific elective, it might end up placed in the middle of the schedule (which I have witnessed several times). Based on my experience within our county, this is how it works. I cannot say why things are different in a major city like Chicago; you would really need to speak with the principals there.

And as for group sizes—regardless of what the official regulations state—you really have to go on a bit of an odyssey to see the principal. When a principal actually wants to help, they will merge Religious Studies, French, and Computer Science into a single group of 25 students. Conversely, they could just as easily find a way to accommodate everyone by providing individual groups and increasing teaching hours. I have seen this happen countless times. When a principal is willing to assist, a solution is always found. When they aren't, they can make life difficult for any elective teacher—or just one specific person, depending on who they favor, wouldn't you agree?

Peter Doyle2 said:I'd just like to point out that it isn't actually true that every country has some form of religious education built into the school system—because where I live, it doesn't exist (Canada). Sure, there are private Catholic schools, but you won't find religious studies in the public schools. Instead, kids have Sunday School—held at their churches.

If you would be so kind as to return to my previous post and give it another careful reading, you will notice that I specifically wrote "in ALMOST the entire world." I used the word almost, not that it occurs in the entirety of the globe. I am quite aware of how things work in Canada.

rowdypanther12 said:I have no idea where you live, but it sounds like somewhere lovely 😂
I live in a part of Chicago that isn't exactly known for being religious or overly patriotic, so my little girl has already dealt with all sorts of situations 😁
She’s got a sharp tongue and handled everything just fine, but I can still tell it bothers her that one girl won't play with her because she doesn't attend Sunday school.
I explained to her that it isn't her fault—that someone else just didn't teach that child better—but the topic still pops up in our conversations from time to time.
Luckily, it doesn't upset her deeply; she isn't heartbroken or anything, she just finds the whole thing confusing and a bit silly.
If you're curious, I could write out some of the things she's heard while growing up in this trendy neighborhood 😁

I’m out in the suburbs of Phoenix. I have never heard anything quite like that... regardless, it is just pathetic, whether the discrimination is over a school subject, religion, the color of someone's sneakers, or whatever else.
But let’s be clear: it isn't the subject matter at fault, it's the idiots who raise their children to act that way.
My daughter has been laughed at during gymnastics practice numerous times just because she actually follows the coach's instructions perfectly; even when the instructor isn't looking directly at her, she finishes every single drill to the letter, while the other girls slack off the moment they think no one is watching and then turn around to mock mine.
So, what am I supposed to do with this? What is the takeaway here? Should I stop sending kids this age to team sports altogether? Is it the coaches' fault, the gym, the sport itself? Or is it simply the parents who have conditioned their children to ridicule anyone they can find a reason to pick on?

rowdypanther12 said:It’s true that people will act hostile everywhere you go, but please let me be a parent who wants to protect my child from being exposed to that in school, and doesn't want them forced into religious studies during class hours.

I decided not to enroll my kid in religion classes because I believe they need to learn how to deal with idiots, and it's my job to teach them not to hang their head or force themselves to fit in just to please others.
But honestly, I'd much rather we tackle these life lessons through easier, less controversial topics than diving straight into religion here in the States.

I honestly find it hard to believe that there are actually people out there who think they’re somehow superior or "different" just because they choose to attend—or skip—religion class. It sounds so incredibly elitist. To be perfectly honest, I have NEVER encountered anyone like that in real life. In fact, the only time I ever read about people judging others over whether they participate in religious studies or follow a specific faith is right here on this forum. I have truly never heard someone mock another person simply because of their stance on religion classes, regardless of what denomination it might be... good grief.

rowdypanther12 said:Hey everyone, I need your take on this.
Let's be honest and not pretend we live in such an advanced society where attending religious education classes is just like signing up for a German language course.

Anyone claiming they're the same thing either isn't seeing reality or simply refuses to.
Can any of you actually imagine someone saying something like
"I'm not playing with you because you don't take German lessons, and anyone who skips them is a bad person"?

The core of this issue lies with certain individuals. Anyone who attempts to raise their children to harbor hatred toward others based on race, religion, or nationality is a first-class idiot, and that won't change regardless of whether religion is taught in schools or not. A person with that kind of malice will find a way to project their hate wherever they go. Fortunately, though, not everyone is like that.

James Alvarez2 said:Well, I am talking about exactly that. Move religion class to an after-school slot or have them go to church, and I'll go to church. I help get the kids ready for sacraments. I prep them for singing, for Christmas/Easter shows, for reading, altar serving....
So what now?
You're saying it's easier for you if your kid has religion during regular school hours instead of an after-school slot.
Fine, let's just shove sports, music, and foreign languages right into the middle of the school day too, just so every parent can have it easy.

The kids who don't take computer science wait for regular classes or they just show up later than the kids who do take computer science?

And I don't get how you don't see the difference between kids waiting for computer science because they picked an elective, and kids forced to wait two hours for regular classes because someone shoved religion right in the middle of their schedule?

For instance, computer science—which is an elective—is scheduled right before Italian, which is also an elective. However, because the computer science course only runs for one period, whereas the Italian program doesn't follow that same structure, the kids who are only signed up for Italian end up stuck with a two-hour gap in their schedule. It’s quite inefficient, really.

The school my child attends offers an incredible array of extracurricular activities—everything from guitar lessons and judo to karate, German language classes, and soccer. These are all the kinds of things that parents usually end up paying extra for on the weekends, but here, they’ve integrated everything directly into the school schedule right after the standard classes wrap up. It’s such a relief to have it all organized within the school building; you can get everything finished there and finally come home with some actual peace of mind.

So, here is my core point—I realize that we first need to tackle the issue regarding the hourly schedule (which, let’s be honest, isn't even a standard feature at every school), but when it comes to the subject itself, I firmly believe it belongs in the curriculum. Now, what I am truly wondering is this: whose desire carries more weight here, and who actually holds the greater right to decide?
Is it better to cater to those who want it, or those who don't? Honestly, you can never please everyone—it's just an impossible standard to meet. In my view, the only logical way to handle things is to ensure that those who truly desire it receive it, while leaving those who have no interest in it out of the equation entirely.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:Those aren't scientific facts. They're beliefs.

Imagine if we taught astrology instead. Lesson one: the influence of Mars and Jupiter in conjunction. Chapter two: harmonic versus non-harmonic aspects.

As much as anyone might find it "useful" for self-discovery or trying to understand the people around them—and look, I get the appeal—astrology isn't science, plain and simple. It has no business being part of a school curriculum.

Honestly, I couldn't care less. If it isn't mandatory, let them teach astrology for all I care... religious studies isn't compulsory for anyone either...

Tyler Ruiz502 said:The fundamental issue with religious education in our schools is that it’s the only subject where what you're "learning"—and subsequently being graded on—isn't actually based on objective facts. For me, that alone is enough reason to pull my kid out of the system entirely; I just can't stand seeing it treated with the same academic weight as anything else.

In other parts of the world, they handle it differently—it's taught as a non-denominational study of religious culture, essentially just providing information about various faiths rather than preaching them.

Well, just because you don't view them as facts doesn't change anything; that is merely your personal perspective. To believers, those truths are absolute. In the US, for instance, if you look at certain private institutions, they teach Evangelical Lutheranism specifically.
In other places, you might see Orthodox teachings offered as an elective... and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religi...cation#USA

Sarah Hall53 said:Look, I’m just saying—I really want my elective foreign language class to be its own thing on the schedule, you know? Not some weirdly merged group session where everyone is crammed together. Anyway, James Alvarez2, where are you hiding? Please, just listen to me on this one!
Oh, right. I forgot. We don't exactly have those federal treaties in place that would actually make that happen for us. ☕

I simply cannot get involved in those kinds of high-level policy decisions... that is something that needs to be settled with the school board and the Department of Education... I honestly don't know how those bureaucratic processes even work. I can certainly empathize with the frustration some colleagues feel if they see others in a more advantageous position; I truly understand that.
But that is hardly a justification for everyone to go out with pitchforks and torches against religious education, trying to burn it at the stake and fire every single instructor in the field.
We need to solve the actual problems, I agree. However, this isn't the first, last, or even most significant instance of inequality among faculty members in schools—regardless of which subject they teach. Even if we were to fix the elective scheduling issue, someone else would inevitably end up under the microscope. While we shouldn't sweep issues under the rug, it’s unreasonable to suggest that the entire subject should just be removed from the curriculum because of it.
Speaking as a parent, I find it perfectly appropriate that such a subject remains available in our schools, and I am quite pleased that it does...
Therefore, if the discussion regarding religious education in schools is focused on how to resolve scheduling gaps for students or addressing why certain teachers lack the same working conditions as their peers in religious studies—then by all means, let's discuss that.

But let’s be realistic: that isn't what is actually happening here. This whole debate is being used as just another excuse to disparage religious education and the Church in general. Everyone seems eager to scrap the entire subject just because of scheduling headaches... give me a break, that's not even the real issue. Most people here are simply allergic to organized religion, so they are using children's scheduling conflicts as a convenient argument to eliminate the subject entirely.

Take our local situation, for example: more students opt for religious studies when it's scheduled at the very beginning or the very end of the day, whereas fewer students choose computer science, which is always scheduled before other electives in a block period. And yet, nobody ever complains about the kids who don't take computer science having to sit through a block period waiting for their other classes to start...
Are we going to start attacking computer science now too? 🤔

frozenrider15 said:My kid attends Mass and sings in the church choir because they genuinely want to. It isn’t some forced obligation. I go along too, simply because I feel like it. But look, try to grasp the fact that we aren't a monolith. You demand that your perspective be understood and respected, yet you ignore the reality that others are doing the exact same thing with views that clash with yours. Not everyone is "easy-going" when things don't align with their personal compass. I don't make a scene over most trivialities—especially if they don't affect me or if they suit my lifestyle. Much like how religious education fits perfectly into your schedule.

The cold, hard truth is that every other elective subject is scheduled outside of core hours, and that is precisely what irritates people about religious studies. It creates a dilemma. Parents are essentially backed into a corner where, if they want their child to remain integrated with the rest of the class, they face an awkward logistical mess. There is a massive difference between a high schooler spending two hours a week elsewhere and a little first-grader being pulled away from their peers. That is the first point. Furthermore, older students shouldn't be put in that position either, though they have more agency. An older kid can manage two 45-minute blocks of being elsewhere much better than a kindergartner who doesn't even comprehend why they are being singled out or why there is a gap in their day. Most of them would probably rather just be home an hour earlier.

It is remarkably easy to preach tolerance and wonder why someone else is "overreacting" when the situation in question happens to be perfectly convenient for you.

Any existing errors ought to be corrected, certainly. However, looking at this thread, ninety percent of the posts are arguing that religious education should be removed from schools entirely, and this scheduling issue is merely being used as a supporting argument. If the problem is truly just the timetable, then let's fix the timetable! Why suggest removing the subject altogether? That implies there is a much deeper issue at play here...

@Sarah Hall53—I’ve been working in the school system for fifteen years now, covering just about every district in my state, so I can certainly speak from firsthand experience. And, as I mentioned earlier, I am strictly speaking about my own local area; why things differ in other parts of the country? Honestly, I have no idea, as I can only report on what I see in my own backyard. But the reality remains: anyone who is looking for a reason to complain will invariably find one. It is especially true when they have a specific grievance, much like how many people seem to harbor a grudge against religious education classes. While I am aware that you encounter all sorts of different principals out there, I truly believe that most of them simply do their absolute best with the tools they are given, even when it comes to the headache of organizing schedules and assigning homeroom teachers.

frozenrider15 said:Regarding that point about sitting in a freezing church on Saturdays with some "old fossil" of a priest—you might be in for a rude awakening if that's what it takes for your little one to receive First Communion or Confirmation. From what I understand, school religious ed is one thing, but you still have to attend parish classes to prepare for the sacraments. As for what kind of priest or nun you'll end up with... who knows. But it’s eye-opening to hear you speak that way about someone you might actually have to entrust with your child's spiritual upbringing. You might realize later that things aren't quite as black and white as you're painting them.

I recognize that for parents who don't want their kids in school religion classes, it becomes a logistical nightmare if the class isn't part of the regular daily schedule. There are plenty of schools like that out there, even if they aren't on your radar.
We are all different, and our kids are different too. Your daughter might actually enjoy skipping elective technical or art classes if they were held during the school day, but personally, I wouldn't be thrilled if my kid had to sit in a hallway for two hours a week because of a religious studies class. In fact, I don't think she'd feel comfortable at all—especially in first grade when everything is new and she doesn't know anyone yet, only to be pulled out of class twice a week because, well, she isn't attending the religion lesson. My child was exactly like that; I certainly wouldn't call being singled out a "reward" or a "gift of free time." But, my child is who she is, and that's why we enrolled her in religion, regardless of whether she ever receives the sacraments or not.

Oh, of course I am aware of that... precisely because I am a believer myself. I am a regular attendee at my local parish and I am intimately familiar with how the sacramental preparation classes are conducted there. To put it briefly: they take place on Sundays after Mass, and I find that perfectly acceptable since she receives all the other instruction during her school hours. Since we are already at Mass together every single Sunday, she understands the significance of it, and it won't come as a shock to her. I often hear children of my friends saying things like, "In third grade, we'll HAVE to go to Mass." Given that I am a person of faith and we attend Mass every Sunday without fail, such a statement speaks volumes to me about their upbringing. My child has been raised within the faith since birth; to her, this is entirely natural and normal. If it so happens that our pastor changes right when she is due for her sacraments, or if we do happen to be assigned some grumpy old man, I will simply find a more suitable arrangement for myself and my daughter.
In any event, it is a great relief to me that we have religious education offered in our schools, and frankly, it suits ME just fine. And that is coming from me, someone who pays taxes just like those who find it so objectionable.
Since religious studies is an elective rather than a mandatory requirement, I cannot see a better or more reasonable solution than this. Everyone wins. Those who want it can participate, and those who don't have no obligation. It is as simple as that.

As for the scheduling, goodness knows that sometimes things don't go according to plan, and I certainly understand that managing schedules is difficult... I truly do. But occasionally, a simpler approach just isn't feasible. That shouldn't be a reason for such immense drama...
Our children will encounter a million more foolish, awkward, or unfair situations in their lives; this little hurdle certainly won't break them.
Goodness, what am I supposed to do, sit here and wail over technicalities and the fact that my child MIGHT HAVE TO learn certain things? Honestly, I cannot think of anything more nonsensical in our entire educational system. Though, I suppose I could criticize it too—after all, they are the ones funded by our tax dollars to fill up these schedules.
Unlike math or some other subject you might find tedious, you don't *have* to take religious studies.
But there are those of us who want it, and surely our wishes deserve to be respected as well? Or is it only the grievances of those who feel slighted that actually matter??

I must confess, I find myself utterly perplexed by this entire uproar regarding religious education in our schools, especially since it isn't even mandatory 🤷
. In nearly every corner of the globe, there exists some iteration of religious studies or perhaps a course on world religions. Take Finland, for instance—a nation whose educational model we all strive to emulate—where religious culture is actually a required subject...

I am unsure how things are managed in other states, but in my particular county, I cannot name a single school where religion is part of the standard daily schedule. It is typically slotted at the very beginning or end of the day whenever possible. I realize there are certainly exceptions to this, but my assumption is that administrators do this simply because they lack any other viable solution; often, it is quite impossible to coordinate everything perfectly when many instructors are juggling responsibilities across multiple different schools...
Furthermore, I have to say, I fail to grasp this sudden outcry concerning our colleagues in religious education and their salaries. It is hardly such a staggering sum that it would significantly impact the national budget... If the grievance is that these funds are being carved out from our own paychecks—well, surely it is obvious that one cannot satisfy everyone’s every whim. For example, personally, I wouldn't want a single cent of my tax dollars going toward professional football or various interest groups whose activities are entirely opaque. Or, if we are being truly blunt—my taxes shouldn't be funding a professor of French or Greek if my child will never study those subjects, so why bother?..

Every religious instructor I know holds a degree in theology after five years of university. I am aware there are some who specialize in catechesis, but those tend to be older individuals who likely completed their studies during the more turbulent decades of the last century... Nowadays, students graduate with theology degrees, and since these are essentially philosophy and theology faculties, they are qualified to teach ethics and philosophy as well. Apparently, some even step in to cover Latin classes because there is such a frequent shortage of qualified staff...
It strikes me that this whole controversy is largely manufactured by the media and persistently fueled by them. I simply cannot understand why, in a democratic country where we supposedly champion tolerance, there is constant sensationalism surrounding a subject that is elective. No one is forcing you to enroll. If certain parents enroll their children simply because a grandmother is praying or because they are worried about what the neighbors might think, then that is an individual issue, not a flaw in the curriculum itself.
To my mind, technical drawing or shop class is a far more baffling subject; no one asks me if I want my child to learn it... if only those were electives! Or consider art and music, which in my opinion should either be elective or extracurricular, as not everyone possesses a passion for drawing or singing. But that is merely my perspective... if the media suddenly decided to incessantly attack technical or art classes, I suspect a separate debate would erupt here regarding whether we even need them, where our money is going, and why certain schedules are being manipulated.
Still, it is wonderful that in our country, someone actually HAS a job. I would never dream of jeopardizing someone's livelihood just because people are complaining about salaries that are lower than the travel reimbursements provided to members of Congress.
In my view, it is an elective choice; whoever wants to go, goes, and whoever doesn't, doesn't. I see absolutely no problem with it...
As for those schools where the class falls in the middle of the day and kids are left waiting in the hallways, I realize that can be inconvenient for some. However, from what I can see, the children actually enjoy having a little downtime; they love going outside to play, and sitting with a librarian for an hour isn't exactly a high-stress ordeal. Generally speaking, I believe parents overreact to certain matters, and the media loves to stir the pot because, for some reason, this topic is incredibly profitable for them.
My child attends religious education because I want her to, and because we are believers. It is much easier for me if it occurs during regular school hours; otherwise, I wouldn't be able to drive her there due to all our other commitments and her extracurricular activities, and I would truly regret it. Since we are supposed to be a tolerant society (particularly the community in which I live 🙄), then we ought to respect those who make this choice... I want this, I pay my taxes, and I want a trained theologian who has completed pedagogical training to teach my child in a school setting, rather than having her sit in a cold church on a Saturday with a priest who might be brilliant, or might just be some old crank who has no rapport with children...

Good grief, I mean, what are all these debates even revolving around? It feels like the classic tactic: throw the people a crust of bread so they can bicker over nonsense while we do whatever we please in the background.

Maria Fisher46 said:MPIX—which stands for Mean Peroxidase Index—is a bit tricky. A higher value might point toward things like megaloblastic anemia, an infection, or certain types of leukemia. On the flip side, a lower value can be seen in cases involving congenital or acquired peroxidase deficiencies, which have been noted in certain forms of sepsis...

It’s funny how life works; you ask a question and get exactly what you deserve.

I have essential thrombocythemia and I'm currently on pegylated interferon. About three weeks ago, I dealt with a sore throat and took a course of antibiotics. I'm 36 years old.
I usually have my blood work done every three to four weeks—though there have been times when I've had it checked even twice in a single day—but I have never seen this specific item on any of my previous reports, and I always make sure to get very detailed panels. Since ET itself is technically classified as a type of leukemia, I really wouldn't want to deal with another diagnosis being tacked onto my record...

I already found what you posted, but I am still curious about what other possible causes might exist.

What could be causing a low MPXI? Mine is sitting at -16