Posts by Jessica Kelly4

You don't need to explain yourself to me; take it up with the higher-ups. People on this forum aren't blind or deaf—they can see exactly how the moderation is being handled. There are real people with actual names behind those moderator handles, and they’re responsible for both their own actions and the actions of their subordinates. I could go on about that, but I won't right now.

I asked a specific question and I want a straight answer.
Is it permissible to use derogatory terms for certain social groups, provided the insults aren't directed at a specific user? Are Catholics allowed to call themselves unknown, or gay people called faggots, or immigrants called filth, etc.—just to give you some examples.

And for heaven's sake, you don't have to reply to every single thing I ask. I'm addressing the super-mods here! 🤷

According to the moderator Sarah Doyle54, using slurs is fine as long as you aren't targeting a specific user directly. You can see this play out in today's thread on "appeals of a red card," though her own moderation history makes it even more obvious. Honestly, she applies this rule in a very personal way 🤣—she’s incredibly lenient when it comes to insulting Catholics, yet she's lightning-fast to hand out bans if anyone uses derogatory terms for other groups (I guess that's just "moderator discretion" at work).

I’m calling on the supermoderators here. Dorian.Gray, two years ago you were telling me to my face that the term "unknown" was unacceptable and that twisting names like that was offensive. What changed? The rules? The way mods operate? Or did you just lose control over them?

If insulting Catholics is officially okay now, just say so. If it isn't, then start handing out red cards for terms like "unknown," calling Catholic organizations "clerical fascists," or using insults like "nedrk" for unknown.

On the other hand, if you've decided that generalized insults are perfectly legal, please make that clear too. The English language is plenty expressive enough to make these posts much more interesting.

Jason Ortiz5 said:So why is it that religious folks always seem to troll about the "will of the majority" or demand a referendum whenever they don't get their way?

Because the majority's will is expressed either through the actions of an elected political party or via a referendum if a specific interest group thinks that's their best shot at getting what they want.

Susan James said:From what I’ve been told, the Church welcomes members at any stage of life, so it’s definitely possible. I’ve actually heard plenty of personal stories about people doing exactly that—whether it’s getting baptized at 33, completing all their sacraments right before walking down the aisle, or stepping up to be a godparent. It really is an open door for everyone.

And who knows? They might even have to enroll in night school just to pass their religion class. 🤔You know, it’s kind of wild—anyone who graduated high school back in 1997 actually has to retake their high school equivalency exams if they decide they want to head off to college in their 40s. It’s one of those funny little hurdles you don't expect when you're looking to start a new chapter later in life!

A person's metaphysical foundation goes way beyond just church formalities. It involves one's personal relationship with God, sin, repentance, and divine providence in both individual lives and history itself...

Those formalities still matter for organized action and for passing down the spiritual insights gained by countless exceptional individuals who reached higher and saw further throughout history. That’s how any organized—especially institutionalized—human endeavor works. The Church's experience is unparalleled. No other organization can even come close to twenty centuries of continuous existence. Not the government, not a kingdom, not JP Morgan, not a massive corporation... nothing. It's hard for the human mind to wrap itself around what twenty centuries of continuity actually means. The Church is built on several pillars, and the sacraments are one of them. Period.

Brenda Doyle5 said:Why can't a kid receive the sacraments if they attend church classes instead of religious ed at school? 🤔
Does this mean if someone decides at age 20 they want to make their First Communion, they’re out of luck? Or do they have to take the school version? The church version?
How does the process actually work?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

It comes down to two things: first, both parents and the child need to actually understand what the sacrament represents—since the Church views these as unchanging milestones—and second, they have to actually live out the faith. Living the faith means being part of the community. Since school religion classes were introduced, parish-based instruction has shifted its focus entirely. They complement each other, sure, but they aren't the same thing.

Jason Ortiz5 said:And it certainly wasn't done in any civilized or democratic way, either. But honestly, that kind of making excuses is just classic for religious folks—there’s always some way to justify it, or they claim everyone else is the one being unfair or overreacting.

Exactly how they do things in modern democracies. You can scrap it without a referendum just by making a political call to terminate an international treaty based on the established rules.

Susan James said:I totally see where you're coming from.
In many ways, receiving a sacrament has become part of our local American traditions (not that I'm saying that's the whole point).

So, even for those who aren't really religious, going to First Communion is tied to white dresses, flower crowns, fancy lunches, desserts, and gifts.
And everyone goes—well, maybe not everyone, but those few outliers are pretty much negligible.
Then comes Confirmation, which is also part of that cultural tradition involving pretty dresses, first Bibles, professional makeup, hair styling, and picking out your own godparents for the first time, followed by another lunch and more presents...
It’s basically a big social gathering, and everyone shows up (except for those few kids whose parents are punks, hippies, Buddhists, or old-school secularists...).

If you prevent a kid from socializing during religious ed classes, you're essentially cutting them out of the parade.
They end up standing out from the rest of the group.
It's not easy being the odd one out in the hallway for two hours a week, and what happens when everyone starts opening presents after the ceremony? What are you supposed to say then? 🤔

Back in my day, it was like joining the Scouts or those youth clubs that everyone joined.
Nowadays, First Communion and Confirmation have taken that spot—it's like the church stepped in to fill the role once held by those civic organizations.🤣

Still, there are differences, because while there are "declared non-believers," those few individuals per generation are such a tiny minority that they don't really stand out from the crowd of people who might not be strictly practicing but still follow the social norms.

And then there’s weddings.
Because you never know who a young person might choose to marry, it's probably good to have those sacraments sorted beforehand so everything is done properly. Plus, in many circles here, a wedding without the church isn't considered a "real" wedding. Add in the whole social aspect mentioned above, but now with even more expensive gifts!🥳

Fair point. It could be about culture or politics... I’ll accept that. God works in mysterious ways, as they say. Besides, you never know if someone following the formalities will eventually find a genuine internal calling.

But honestly, people shouldn't act shocked when the Church takes its own sacraments seriously. They shouldn't just let anyone take Communion or get Confirmed without understanding the weight of it, or walk down the aisle to marry without grasping what marriage actually means as a sacrament.

frozenrider15 said:There it is. Plain and simple. I have zero desire to make my little girl feel like an outcast. I don't want her feeling like she doesn't fit in during those two hours every week in the pews, especially not at eight years old. I'm perfectly fine with her opting out of that whole "tradition" once she's old enough to realize that standing apart isn't a crime and deciding for herself that she doesn't care for the ritual.

We aren't interested in the gifts or the social status of being a godparent. Whether she takes communion or has a big wedding later is honestly too trivial for me to even put into words. If it matters to her, she can go through the motions when she's older. It’ll just be another sheep eventually wandering back to the fold.

Hypocritical to a fault? Sure, I know. 🥳

Exactly what you just said.
A wedding shouldn't be an issue (it’s been brought up a few times). For a couple that isn't strictly Catholic, they can bend the rules or ignore them entirely with the right paperwork and permissions.

Jason Ortiz5 said:The truth is, religious studies didn't get added through any official democratic process—it was just cheap political maneuvering.

It wasn't done illegally.

Kate Brown49 said:I agree, Jesse Cook4... My only takeaway is that if a kid wants to receive their sacraments (Communion and Confirmation), they basically have to take religious ed in school, plus church classes during the actual year they receive them. If I’m lucky and I’ve got this wrong, maybe I can just pull her out of the school program next year. 😬

Sacraments aren't mandatory, and neither is religious education.
I don't get why people who don't actually practice their faith are so obsessed with these rituals.
Is it just that "just in case, you never know" mentality? 🙂

Jesse Cook4 said:Men
seem to suddenly realize how unfair it is when they try to force their views on everyone else. It’s funny how they’ll take advantage of the fact that most kids don't want religious studies, using the social pressure of being left out of group activities to shove their agenda down the throats of the minority. It's honestly pathetic.
I mean, if we're actually talking about elective subjects, they should be kept completely separate from the main schedule, but of course, that would be too simple.

America is a parliamentary democracy. There are perfectly legal ways to push for the changes you're demanding.

Susan James said:I was actually wondering why religion class isn't scheduled during the second shift, just like the other elective subjects.
English and math are required, but religion isn't.
A parent is obligated to send their child to school, but they aren't forced to enroll them in religion class.
The real question is whether they would even bother sending them if it were in the second shift—especially if the grade affects their final GPA (or negatively impacts it).

The answer is simple: it's all due to the political and social forces that shaped our agreement with Vatican City.

Under that agreement, religion class is handled differently than any other elective. The school can't opt out of offering it, so they treat it as a mandatory part of their curriculum, even though it remains an elective for the students themselves.

Susan James said:Parents ask questions about which teacher their child might have in first grade (which is mandatory), so why wouldn't they ask about the person teaching an elective subject?😕

I know quite a few kids who don't choose a second language in fourth grade, or rather, they don't want to deal with learning Spanish at school because the teacher grades like a "hardliner." There's a real risk of getting a C, which then drags down their GPA. They end up going to a local tutoring center or a specialized language academy instead. The only difference is that parents pay for it there. In their main school, they’d be in the afternoon session anyway, and some actually prefer the later timing because it gives them more productive time in between rather than just sitting around for 45 minutes waiting for class to start.

Then there's computer science, which everyone keeps pushing to make mandatory. Yet, in some schools, it’s only offered as an elective, and let's be honest, it isn't always the most exciting subject. I already know several families where the kids have opportunities to learn tech skills elsewhere, so they skip the school version. The first reason is usually the scheduling in the afternoon block, and the second is that it often turns into a grind for overachievers, carrying that risk of a lower grade affecting the overall average. If a family has a software engineer or someone tech-savvy at home, the kid is going to pick up all those basics at home anyway—likely even more than what's covered in a standard classroom.

Also, why is religious education tucked right into the regular school schedule? 🤔
Why isn't it held during the afternoon sessions? 🤔
How much does religious ed actually impact the GPA—does it help it or hurt it? 🙂
And shouldn't the content of school religious studies be something every parent is capable of teaching their own child? What is the actual purpose of having a dedicated instructor for this?🙂 🙂

It’s probably just for preparing students and organizing competitions centered around religious studies.🐔 🎉

Because that’s just how the social and political landscape works here in America. It’s staying that way for a while. If any future administration actually tries to change things, they'll have to renegotiate the agreement with Vatican City. Until then, having religion classes in schools is both legal and legitimate.

Susan James said:Parents ask questions about which teacher their child might have in first grade (which is mandatory), so why wouldn't they ask about the person teaching an elective subject?😕

I know quite a few kids who don't choose a second language in fourth grade, or rather, they don't want to deal with learning Spanish at school because the teacher grades like a "hardliner." There's a real risk of getting a C, which then drags down their GPA. They end up going to a local tutoring center or a specialized language academy instead. The only difference is that parents pay for it there. In their main school, they’d be in the afternoon session anyway, and some actually prefer the later timing because it gives them more productive time in between rather than just sitting around for 45 minutes waiting for class to start.

Then there's computer science, which everyone keeps pushing to make mandatory. Yet, in some schools, it’s only offered as an elective, and let's be honest, it isn't always the most exciting subject. I already know several families where the kids have opportunities to learn tech skills elsewhere, so they skip the school version. The first reason is usually the scheduling in the afternoon block, and the second is that it often turns into a grind for overachievers, carrying that risk of a lower grade affecting the overall average. If a family has a software engineer or someone tech-savvy at home, the kid is going to pick up all those basics at home anyway—likely even more than what's covered in a standard classroom.

Also, why is religious education tucked right into the regular school schedule? 🤔
Why isn't it held during the afternoon sessions? 🤔
How much does religious ed actually impact the GPA—does it help it or hurt it? 🙂
And shouldn't the content of school religious studies be something every parent is capable of teaching their own child? What is the actual purpose of having a dedicated instructor for this?🙂 🙂

It’s probably just for preparing students and organizing competitions centered around religious studies.🐔 🎉

Can parents not teach reading and writing? Or basic math? Elementary school is mandatory, and since every parent went through it, they should be capable of teaching those basics. Clearly, organized instruction and education still provide some kind of social value.

Jesse Cook4 said:Science is just as indifferent toward God as it is toward Santa Claus. "Outside its domain." That’s a pretty fancy way of saying they find the idea... unhelpful. 🙂

Personally, I think the teachers' behavior totally justifies having Santa Clauses walking through shopping malls handing out gifts while making sure kids know God isn't real.

You want war? You've got it! 😉

It’s wild that someone actually participating in this debate could say something so mindless. You basically just spat on centuries of human thought regarding ontology and metaphysics. I'm not even going to bother arguing with you; believe whatever you want.

rapidheron2 said:

I guess I should probably just say hi? Not that anyone’s really asking, but here I am. says:
Look, I get that we're talking about little kids here, but I honestly don't get what people expect when they sign their children up for religion classes. Like, you chose to enroll them in that, so why act all shocked when it turns out the church isn't exactly big on Santa Claus? 🤷

I mean, I’m mostly on board here, but I’ve gotta add a little something to that: why even act surprised when things go sideways in religion class? It’s pretty obvious what kind of subject we're talking about, and honestly, it's on you if you sign your kids up for it in the first place. It’s actually kind of sad that over 90% of parents just cave to all the pressure and guilt trips from the Church, enrolling their kids in stuff like this anyway. But look, once you make that choice—just stay quiet about it. You picked it, so you get what comes with it! 😉

Haha, spot on! Seriously, if they can just claim that God exists, then why shouldn't science teachers at, say, a local high school just tell everyone that God doesn't exist?! I mean, why not?

Exactly, couldn't have said it better myself! 👍

Look, on one hand, this whole situation is absolutely INSANE and just total chaos. But honestly? I wouldn't even put all the blame on the religion teacher. If anything, I’m looking more at the PARENTS here! Everyone knows exactly what goes into an American religious studies curriculum—that's just what the subject is. Plus, by law, kids don't even HAVE to take those classes if they don't want to. So... WHY did you sign them up in the first place?! Maybe try having a little common sense and just unenroll them, or if you're dead set on sending them, then maybe just keep your mouths shut. This is pure hypocrisy, if you ask me. 😉

Exactly—it’s a total joke! I mean, what are we even doing? We have all these religious studies classes taking up space throughout elementary and high school, while at the same time, the schedules for actual core subjects are completely butchered. So many essential classes just don't get the time they deserve. It's honestly pretty sad. 👎

Haha, well said! Let them keep trying to prove themselves, I guess!

The logic here is totally backwards: if someone claims something exists, the burden is on them to prove it—it shouldn't be on everyone else to disprove it! I mean, seriously, if I tell you I’m a believer in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and join those Pastafarian folks who wear colanders as hats, that's on me to prove, right? 🤣 So, are you saying that now *you're* the one who has to prove it doesn't exist? Or do you think it would be more logical if I was the one stuck trying to prove it actually does? I mean, I guess it depends on how you look at it, but maybe we should rethink the whole logic here.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what it says. If this subject were some kind of "cultural studies" course where you'd learn about different religions, customs, and beliefs, it wouldn't be such a disaster. But this is CONFESSIONAL religious education, where they just dull your mind with the dogmas of whatever faith you pick—in this case, Catholicism. And honestly, this version of religion class covers more than just theory; it includes "practice," which basically means being forced to attend Mass and stuff like that! Either way, it’s a subject that really has NO business being in public schools!😠

Science is indifferent to God. It doesn't claim He exists, nor does it deny it. God is simply outside the scope of science, especially the natural sciences. Sure, scientists can believe or not—that’s a personal value judgment, not a scientific one.
If anyone's interested, check out this great recent interview with Dr. Mitrekeski where he discusses the relationship between faith and science:

On the flip side, religious education starts from the premise of believing in God. In those classes, the teacher isn't sharing a personal opinion, but rather the stance of the Catholic Church. It's an educational component conducted with explicit parental consent.

Brenda Doyle5 said:Firstborn dealt with this exact same nonsense regarding priest signatures. When she visited us over the weekend and tried attending Mass at our local parish, her teacher refused to recognize it. She adapted to that attitude pretty quickly. Her parents pulled her from the program before the second school year even started. As far as I know, they didn't need permission to enroll her in religion classes every year, but they had to file a formal request just to withdraw her.
The little girl actually enjoyed going to church and religious studies. But because of this pressure and some truly senseless comments, she stopped going altogether. For instance, the teacher actually claimed that a family with divorced parents isn't a "real" family. She even said those parents were headed straight to hell. I have no idea where those kids are supposed to end up... there are several kids in that class with divorced parents. Some have half-siblings too. They live perfectly peaceful, stable lives. They get along great with their stepparents. Everything works fine. Then you have one teacher telling them their family isn't real and that they'll burn in hell. These are 9 and 10-year-olds. My daughter came home in absolute tears. Mom has a new partner, Dad has a new wife and another child...

Just an observation that nothing hateful can be said in a religious studies class.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

That’s awful. It flies in the face of everything church doctrine actually teaches.
I know a few local catechists, and they're all genuinely great people who do so much for their kids.
It’s embarrassing when someone acts like this and drags the whole reputation of religious educators through the mud.

Susan James said:Does decorating pine trees and putting up Advent wreaths on the table and the front door count as part of the tradition too? I've always wondered how far back those customs actually go.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, though I have to disagree on one specific point. In our school system, if you opt into religion classes at the start of the year, that’s a commitment you stick with through the end of the term. It isn't really a matter of being able to just drop out because someone told you Santa Claus isn't real before the holidays roll around. It's also not about wanting to skip weekly services to avoid those repetitive roll calls, or trying to protect your GPA because your grades are taking a hit since you aren't attending Mass. Once you make that choice, you're in for the duration.

Anyway, if she’s really set on bringing up Santa Claus, she might as well say something like this:
I've been thinking about this lately, and honestly, it’s such an interesting perspective to consider. It really makes you stop and reflect on things we often take for granted.

By the way, I’ve noticed that the Christmas holiday logic is being handled directly on the PID controller.
At our local music school, we’ve already started getting into the spirit by singing Christmas carols. It got me thinking—how should we go about celebrating the Christmas season at the Nature and Society Club?
What should we do about "Snowflakes are Falling," that song they play at music class? The Christmas season is getting so close, and I can already feel that Santa Claus magic starting to kick in!

Are we really going to tailor everything just to fit Catholicism, or should other kids have the right to practice their own beliefs too?

I have to agree with the idea that Catholics shouldn't really be believing in Santa Claus. It’s pretty clear-cut when you look at it from a faith perspective—there is only one God, and we aren't supposed to have any other gods alongside Him.
If I remember correctly, back when they were first introducing Catholicism into the schools in places like Chicago, they actually rebranded Santa Claus as "Santa Claus" just to be different. It was their way of sticking to tradition and doing things their own way, I guess. 🥳
So, at the end of the day, does he actually exist or not?

It’s not ancient history; it definitely isn't tied to the early Church.
Eventually, it just became folklore, much like how Saint Nicholas and Krampus work.
People gravitate toward this stuff. There's no stopping them.
The issue arises when the actual meaning gets buried under all that folklore or consumerism.

Susan James said:Does decorating pine trees and putting up Advent wreaths on the table and the front door count as part of the tradition too? I've always wondered how far back those customs actually go.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, though I have to disagree on one specific point. In our school system, if you opt into religion classes at the start of the year, that’s a commitment you stick with through the end of the term. It isn't really a matter of being able to just drop out because someone told you Santa Claus isn't real before the holidays roll around. It's also not about wanting to skip weekly services to avoid those repetitive roll calls, or trying to protect your GPA because your grades are taking a hit since you aren't attending Mass. Once you make that choice, you're in for the duration.

Anyway, if she’s really set on bringing up Santa Claus, she might as well say something like this:
I've been thinking about this lately, and honestly, it’s such an interesting perspective to consider. It really makes you stop and reflect on things we often take for granted.

By the way, I’ve noticed that the Christmas holiday logic is being handled directly on the PID controller.
At our local music school, we’ve already started getting into the spirit by singing Christmas carols. It got me thinking—how should we go about celebrating the Christmas season at the Nature and Society Club?
What should we do about "Snowflakes are Falling," that song they play at music class? The Christmas season is getting so close, and I can already feel that Santa Claus magic starting to kick in!

Are we really going to tailor everything just to fit Catholicism, or should other kids have the right to practice their own beliefs too?

I have to agree with the idea that Catholics shouldn't really be believing in Santa Claus. It’s pretty clear-cut when you look at it from a faith perspective—there is only one God, and we aren't supposed to have any other gods alongside Him.
If I remember correctly, back when they were first introducing Catholicism into the schools in places like Chicago, they actually rebranded Santa Claus as "Santa Claus" just to be different. It was their way of sticking to tradition and doing things their own way, I guess. 🥳
So, at the end of the day, does he actually exist or not?

"Believing" is too strong a word. Santa Claus is just like Saint Nicholas—it's a message conveyed through a picture book.

Saint Nicholas being a bishop who helped and gave gifts to children is a message rooted in Christian social teaching; it's part of growing up in the faith.

Santa Claus essentially evolved from the story of Saint Nicholas. Most people know the path from the Netherlands to Coca-Cola, but today he's just the secular counterpart to Nicholas. He's become what Christmas holidays have become in a secular sense.

Sarah Hall53 said:We’ve probably gone over this for ten pages by now—honestly, I think we have—but look: just move Catholicism into the same scheduling blocks as those other two electives, and you'll see that whole "cultural identity" argument melt away faster than an ice cream cone in a Chicago summer.
And besides, parents really only weigh in during that very first enrollment—usually back in first grade—and after that, kids just stay enrolled in whatever elective they took the year before, unless a parent actually goes through the trouble of filing a formal written request to opt them out.

I sign a consent form every single year, so your claim doesn't track with my experience.
I assume this policy is standard across all schools?
Once you sign up for a subject, you're stuck with it through the end of the school year.

Btw, my kids usually have Catholicism during their first or last period; somehow they managed to work that into the schedule.

Sarah Hall53 said:It’s not just the whole "Santa isn't real" thing—it’s also the fact that parents are basically the ones sneaking the gifts under the tree and calling it a day.
Just in case the first part of that sentence didn't already completely kill the Christmas magic for you.

The magic you're talking about just isn't part of Christian doctrine or tradition.
I don't mind adding a little flair to things for the kids, but you can't seriously expect religious ed instructors to teach the Christmas season like it's Harry Potter.

In America, Christianity serves as a major cultural identifier alongside faith, so some families send their kids to parochial school classes even if they aren't particularly religious themselves. That’s their right, obviously, but you can't be surprised when they push back against certain activities planned by the teachers.

Religious education is strictly dependent on parental consent, which has to be renewed every single school year. Deciding whether or not to enroll a child shouldn't be taken lightly.

Daniel Gomez10 said:I'm curious how this even started? Did some kid ask her about Santa Claus, or did she just bring it up out of nowhere?

Honestly, kids start questioning things way before they turn two—not just about themselves, but about other kids and adults too.
And what if another adult tells them the truth?
Is that actually forbidden? Is it something that should strictly be left to parents to handle?
Do we just have to stay silent to make sure nobody's childhood gets ruined?
A classmate told my first grader that parents buy all the gifts and that there's no such thing as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. My son just looked at me and said he didn't believe him.😁

Also, I wanted to ask those of you who are devout Catholics—how do you explain Christmas presents if it's not the Baby Jesus bringing them?
Or do you guys skip the gifts entirely?

In my house, we put a Nativity scene under the tree instead of piles of presents.
Gifts come from parents on Saint Nicholas Day as a nod to a great bishop who was legendary for helping kids. When we were little, we definitely grew up with the folklore about Saint Nicholas bringing gifts and Krampus carrying a switch, but that didn't last forever.

Now we’re just trying to survive the December consumerist madness without losing the actual meaning and simplicity of Christmas. Luckily, my kid has an awesome religious studies teacher at school who’s also trying to teach the students the difference between the Christian meaning of Christmas and these universal holidays that have turned into a two-month-long ad campaign.