Religion classes in school - Megathread

An endless debate.
It’s simple.
No elective subject should be given priority during core school hours. None. Everything else is just blatant privilege—like when a diplomat gets rights regular citizens don't have. That's how religious studies operates here; it holds privileges other electives don't. It’s wrong.
I don't get why people find it so hard to admit.
Anyone defending this status quo should be willing to let every single elective move into the middle of the school day, regardless of who it suits.

Addendum: It’s never been the actual reality that bothered me most. What irritates me is the refusal to call things what they are. People sugarcoat it and make excuses for it... it's pathetic.

If someone could just be honest and say, "Yeah, religion class is an elective, but I prefer it during core hours, and I don't care about the kids who lose out. Sure, it has privileges other electives don't, but I don't care about fairness. I wouldn't want Computer Science—which is also an elective my kid doesn't take—to be in the middle of the day. I just think religion class deserves special treatment because it's religion class." If someone said that, I’d actually respect them. But nobody does. Instead, everyone defending its place in the core schedule drags us into these endless, polished justifications. It’s nauseating.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Quincy:

I mean, honestly, what even is this? Just "rhino"? Is that it? Are we really just going to drop a single word like that and expect me to do all the heavy lifting? It’s almost impressive how little effort went into this, isn't it? Like, did you just wake up, look at a rhinoceros, and decide that was the absolute pinnacle of discourse for today? I'm sitting here waiting for some kind of point, some kind of vibe, or even just a coherent thought, but instead, I get... this. What are we even doing here? kaže: I wouldn't exactly say we have much of a choice in the matter, you know? Like, if religion class is just one period, sure, I can just let her sleep in at home. No biggie. But if it’s a three-period block? There's no way on earth I'm picking her up from school mid-morning, driving her out to grab some ice cream, and then somehow racing back to get her settled in time for fourth period. It's just not happening. I’ve already mentioned this before, but I was talking to some parents whose kids are heading to the same school mine is, and they were actually pushing to swap out religion class for an extra foreign language elective. It didn't fly with the administration, obviously. Apparently, since it would happen during regular school hours, the district won't allow some outside language academy to just swoop in and run classes on campus like that. Plus, there's the whole equity issue—since it would be an extra fee, wouldn't that basically mean we're creating a divide where kids whose families don't have the extra cash get left behind? It would just be blatant discrimination, right? Look, I am more than willing to foot the bill for a second foreign language. Honestly, if my kid has to be stuck in a classroom anyway, I’d much rather they be learning German, Mandarin, Urdu, or something else entirely—especially since I have zero interest in driving them around to extra classes after the school bell rings. It’s funny, isn't it? It reminds me exactly of those hardcore religious folks who are all about their Sunday school or after-school religious ed. Both groups are super eager for their kids to pick up something new, but suddenly, when it comes to actually making it an official part of the school day instead of an after-school add-on, they get all hesitant. Why does everything have to be an "extra" when it could just be part of the curriculum? 🥳 When it comes to the whole school grind—memorizing stuff, grinding through required reading, tackling math—you’ve got certain teachers who actually step up and make sure that happens. But then you run into this massive headache with after-school programs. I mean, what are those kids even supposed to do there? If the program isn't actually set up to facilitate studying, then what's the point of them sitting there for hours? You end up with this huge question mark hanging over everything: if they aren't being guided to actually learn during those extra hours, what exactly are they meant to be doing with all that time? So then you’ve got this teacher going above and beyond, right? She’s putting in all this extra effort to engage the kids, maybe running through some intense math puzzles or brain teasers just to keep them sharp, and suddenly the parents of the religious kids start making a huge stink about it. They start complaining that their little ones are being "left behind" academically, and then—get this—they actually have the nerve to demand that she spends the entire class period teaching those same math problems during the hours when religious studies aren't even on the schedule. Like, seriously? Since when did wanting your kid to be good at math become a grievance? So, let's talk about tolerance for a second, shall we? It’s one of those words that everyone loves to throw around these days like it's some kind of magic spell, but does anyone actually know what it means anymore? Is it just a polite way of saying "I'll put up with you until you annoy me," or is there something deeper to it? I mean, honestly, where do we draw the line before everything just turns into a giant, messy free-for-all? 🥳 Honestly, once you get into the upper grades, it’s like nobody even bothers to watch the kids anymore, and they are just completely left to their own devices. Is anyone actually looking out for them? Because from where I'm sitting, they're basically running wild without a single adult giving a damn. So, look, librarians around here have tried to get some workshops off the ground, right? We’ve had a few psychologists and social workers drop by to try and run these sessions, but they usually only bother if there’s at least five kids signed up—because let’s be real, if you've got fewer than that, it’s just not worth the effort or the headache. But even when we could actually get a group together, we hit this massive wall. You’d have these religious parents stepping in, totally bugging out because their kids weren't part of these "super cool" activities, and suddenly everyone's making a scene about why their little ones were being left out of the loop. It’s always something, isn't it? And just like that... tolerance. 🐔🙂

I honestly have no idea how many of these parents aren't even that devout, yet they’re still out here dragging their kids to Sunday school at the local parish just so they can check the box for First Communion in the third grade. Like, if you’re actually that committed to the faith, I guess it makes sense, right? But then again, looking at it from my perspective, I’m just not sure I could pull it all off. Between juggling my actual life and trying to squeeze in religious education sessions in the afternoons, I don't know if I could make the math work without eventually having to sit my kid down and tell them, "Look, you’ve gotta pick a side."

Look, like I’ve already said, I totally get where those parents are coming from—the ones looking at their kid’s watch and seeing a gaping hole in their schedule and wondering, "What on earth is my child actually doing all day?" Honestly, as both a parent and just a person, none of that feels questionable or even worth debating to me. I will always have your back if you're fighting to make sure your kid gets to spend their time actually learning what they’re passionate about. And frankly? I’ll always roll my eyes at the people making a massive drama out of nothing, trying to gatekeep what other kids should be allowed to pursue, whether it's science, a second language, or whatever else. It honestly turns my stomach when I see people who don't even know what they want themselves—let alone what their kids want—yet they feel entitled to swoop in and tell everyone else how they should live or what their children should be doing. It's just exhausting.

That’s exactly why I said it—parents really need to just let their kids be kids and actually let them make their own choices for once. Honestly, this whole headache wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the adults in the room. It isn't the kids causing the trouble, and it's definitely not the religious studies classes; the problem lies exclusively with the parents.

Look, if your kid is spending that hour playing in the backyard or snacking on some Takis, I’m really not going to lose any sleep over the fact that my kid wants to do something different—even if they're being "denied" because of religious studies. My child made the choice to take religion; nobody forced them into it, and it’s certainly not their place to strip away someone else's options just to get what they want....

The after-school staff at the local elementary school are literally paid to keep those kids entertained once the homework is out of the way....So when certain idiots start making a scene, let them scream, honestly, because our entire education system tends to go overboard with everything... Back when I was a kid in grade school, we didn't have elective religious studies, sure, but parents didn't get to pick which grade level or even which language we studied... The school just dictated the curriculum and that was that. Nowadays, parents are allowed to choose almost everything, and then certain people think they have the right to demand absolutely anything under the sun... And frankly, we need to put an end to that, not for my sake, but for the sake of all the kids... Because if someone can't wrap their head around the idea that you can't build a whole classroom based solely on my personal preferences, then that classroom simply cannot exist... My kid can't be in two places at once, so a decision has to be made, plain and simple; there isn't a third option. Depriving someone of what they actually want just so my kid can do the exact same thing is pure stupidity, especially when it's happening during the time my kid is busy doing what they actually enjoy...

At our local school, the library is always open and anyone can drop in whenever they feel like it. The older kids are smart enough to decide how they want to spend that hour anyway; the ones who actually care about their GPA will always find something to study, while the ones who don't? Well, their heads are already somewhere else entirely... So I really don't see the issue here... And I honestly can't stand the parents who throw a fit because their kid has a gap in their schedule due to religious studies, yet they don't say a word when their kid skips math class entirely...

There's zero tolerance on either side, obviously, but it's not about you or me—it's about the people who cause a massive drama storm just because the whole world doesn't revolve around their child and everyone isn't constantly catering to their every whim...
Every parent cares about their own child, and there's nothing wrong with that. What *is* wrong is when I try to take something away from your kid just because my kid won't be able to do it, or when you try to do the same to mine just to satisfy your own... So now the question is: are all parents and all kids supposed to regress to the level of toddlers over these tiny little grievances, or are we all going to step up, shut down this behavior, and find a way to accommodate all the kids instead of just our own?

Watching the parents in my daughter's class, it's always the same group making noise—people who don't even know what they want themselves, and their kids don't know either, unlike the parents who actually have a clue and whose kids follow suit.... It's always some ridiculous drama over nonsense, like why my kid wasn't picked for the best costume, why my kid's photo didn't make it onto the bulletin board, why a test shouldn't be canceled just because my kid got an F, or why my kid sits next to certain classmates... It's always the same crowd, the same trivial nonsense, and always the same lies and attempts to manipulate the situation.

If they’re so committed, why wouldn't they take them from first through eighth grade?
Why only in third?
Is it just for the sake of the ceremony?

Think about the parent who is desperate for their child to learn English using top-tier methods—they’ll drive them to a Kumon center on a Friday at 6 PM.
They know the local public school isn't going to teach it effectively (you can see the other threads discussing how foreign languages are handled in our schools)
Or they’ll sign them up for French classes at a local academy because there’s no language program offered in their neighborhood school.

There are church-based religious classes, and there are private language schools.
So why is religious education being pushed into the school curriculum, while things like foreign languages—especially the better methods or preferred languages—aren't available? It’s interesting how motivated parents are to drive their kids to activities right after work and pay for them, yet they won't do that for church.

I personally know parents who pulled their kid out of an after-school coding club simply because it was the seventh period in the afternoon (meaning the child would have had to stay until 4 PM).
But since it was the afternoon shift, having that extra hour or two felt like too much.
Instead, they chose to have the child be educated by a family member.
Just so the kid doesn't have to spend the entire workday stuck at school.
To me, for a true believer, faith is something that can and should be taught by the family. Not by a school. Within the family. Around the dinner table.
If parents are willing to teach their children foreign languages or computer science, why wouldn't they pass on their religious knowledge and beliefs? Why do they need a teacher for that?
Why does it need to be part of a formal curriculum?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Quincy:

I mean, honestly, what even is this? Just "rhino"? Is that it? Are we really just going to drop a single word like that and expect me to do all the heavy lifting? It’s almost impressive how little effort went into this, isn't it? Like, did you just wake up, look at a rhinoceros, and decide that was the absolute pinnacle of discourse for today? I'm sitting here waiting for some kind of point, some kind of vibe, or even just a coherent thought, but instead, I get... this. What are we even doing here? kaže: I wouldn't exactly say we have much of a choice in the matter, you know? Like, if religion class is just one period, sure, I can just let her sleep in at home. No biggie. But if it’s a three-period block? There's no way on earth I'm picking her up from school mid-morning, driving her out to grab some ice cream, and then somehow racing back to get her settled in time for fourth period. It's just not happening. I’ve already mentioned this before, but I was talking to some parents whose kids are heading to the same school mine is, and they were actually pushing to swap out religion class for an extra foreign language elective. It didn't fly with the administration, obviously. Apparently, since it would happen during regular school hours, the district won't allow some outside language academy to just swoop in and run classes on campus like that. Plus, there's the whole equity issue—since it would be an extra fee, wouldn't that basically mean we're creating a divide where kids whose families don't have the extra cash get left behind? It would just be blatant discrimination, right? Look, I am more than willing to foot the bill for a second foreign language. Honestly, if my kid has to be stuck in a classroom anyway, I’d much rather they be learning German, Mandarin, Urdu, or something else entirely—especially since I have zero interest in driving them around to extra classes after the school bell rings. It’s funny, isn't it? It reminds me exactly of those hardcore religious folks who are all about their Sunday school or after-school religious ed. Both groups are super eager for their kids to pick up something new, but suddenly, when it comes to actually making it an official part of the school day instead of an after-school add-on, they get all hesitant. Why does everything have to be an "extra" when it could just be part of the curriculum? 🥳 When it comes to the whole school grind—memorizing stuff, grinding through required reading, tackling math—you’ve got certain teachers who actually step up and make sure that happens. But then you run into this massive headache with after-school programs. I mean, what are those kids even supposed to do there? If the program isn't actually set up to facilitate studying, then what's the point of them sitting there for hours? You end up with this huge question mark hanging over everything: if they aren't being guided to actually learn during those extra hours, what exactly are they meant to be doing with all that time? So then you’ve got this teacher going above and beyond, right? She’s putting in all this extra effort to engage the kids, maybe running through some intense math puzzles or brain teasers just to keep them sharp, and suddenly the parents of the religious kids start making a huge stink about it. They start complaining that their little ones are being "left behind" academically, and then—get this—they actually have the nerve to demand that she spends the entire class period teaching those same math problems during the hours when religious studies aren't even on the schedule. Like, seriously? Since when did wanting your kid to be good at math become a grievance? So, let's talk about tolerance for a second, shall we? It’s one of those words that everyone loves to throw around these days like it's some kind of magic spell, but does anyone actually know what it means anymore? Is it just a polite way of saying "I'll put up with you until you annoy me," or is there something deeper to it? I mean, honestly, where do we draw the line before everything just turns into a giant, messy free-for-all? 🥳 Honestly, once you get into the upper grades, it’s like nobody even bothers to watch the kids anymore, and they are just completely left to their own devices. Is anyone actually looking out for them? Because from where I'm sitting, they're basically running wild without a single adult giving a damn. So, look, librarians around here have tried to get some workshops off the ground, right? We’ve had a few psychologists and social workers drop by to try and run these sessions, but they usually only bother if there’s at least five kids signed up—because let’s be real, if you've got fewer than that, it’s just not worth the effort or the headache. But even when we could actually get a group together, we hit this massive wall. You’d have these religious parents stepping in, totally bugging out because their kids weren't part of these "super cool" activities, and suddenly everyone's making a scene about why their little ones were being left out of the loop. It’s always something, isn't it? And just like that... tolerance. 🐔🙂

I honestly have no idea how many of these parents aren't even that devout, yet they’re still out here dragging their kids to Sunday school at the local parish just so they can check the box for First Communion in the third grade. Like, if you’re actually that committed to the faith, I guess it makes sense, right? But then again, looking at it from my perspective, I’m just not sure I could pull it all off. Between juggling my actual life and trying to squeeze in religious education sessions in the afternoons, I don't know if I could make the math work without eventually having to sit my kid down and tell them, "Look, you’ve gotta pick a side."

Look, like I’ve already said, I totally get where those parents are coming from—the ones looking at their kid’s watch and seeing a gaping hole in their schedule and wondering, "What on earth is my child actually doing all day?" Honestly, as both a parent and just a person, none of that feels questionable or even worth debating to me. I will always have your back if you're fighting to make sure your kid gets to spend their time actually learning what they’re passionate about. And frankly? I’ll always roll my eyes at the people making a massive drama out of nothing, trying to gatekeep what other kids should be allowed to pursue, whether it's science, a second language, or whatever else. It honestly turns my stomach when I see people who don't even know what they want themselves—let alone what their kids want—yet they feel entitled to swoop in and tell everyone else how they should live or what their children should be doing. It's just exhausting.

That’s exactly why I said it—parents really need to just let their kids be kids and actually let them make their own choices for once. Honestly, this whole headache wouldn't even be an issue if it weren't for the adults in the room. It isn't the kids causing the trouble, and it's definitely not the religious studies classes; the problem lies exclusively with the parents.

Look, if your kid is spending that hour playing in the backyard or snacking on some Takis, I’m really not going to lose any sleep over the fact that my kid wants to do something different—even if they're being "denied" because of religious studies. My child made the choice to take religion; nobody forced them into it, and it’s certainly not their place to strip away someone else's options just to get what they want....

The after-school staff at the local elementary school are literally paid to keep those kids entertained once the homework is out of the way....So when certain idiots start making a scene, let them scream, honestly, because our entire education system tends to go overboard with everything... Back when I was a kid in grade school, we didn't have elective religious studies, sure, but parents didn't get to pick which grade level or even which language we studied... The school just dictated the curriculum and that was that. Nowadays, parents are allowed to choose almost everything, and then certain people think they have the right to demand absolutely anything under the sun... And frankly, we need to put an end to that, not for my sake, but for the sake of all the kids... Because if someone can't wrap their head around the idea that you can't build a whole classroom based solely on my personal preferences, then that classroom simply cannot exist... My kid can't be in two places at once, so a decision has to be made, plain and simple; there isn't a third option. Depriving someone of what they actually want just so my kid can do the exact same thing is pure stupidity, especially when it's happening during the time my kid is busy doing what they actually enjoy...

At our local school, the library is always open and anyone can drop in whenever they feel like it. The older kids are smart enough to decide how they want to spend that hour anyway; the ones who actually care about their GPA will always find something to study, while the ones who don't? Well, their heads are already somewhere else entirely... So I really don't see the issue here... And I honestly can't stand the parents who throw a fit because their kid has a gap in their schedule due to religious studies, yet they don't say a word when their kid skips math class entirely...

There's zero tolerance on either side, obviously, but it's not about you or me—it's about the people who cause a massive drama storm just because the whole world doesn't revolve around their child and everyone isn't constantly catering to their every whim...
Every parent cares about their own child, and there's nothing wrong with that. What *is* wrong is when I try to take something away from your kid just because my kid won't be able to do it, or when you try to do the same to mine just to satisfy your own... So now the question is: are all parents and all kids supposed to regress to the level of toddlers over these tiny little grievances, or are we all going to step up, shut down this behavior, and find a way to accommodate all the kids instead of just our own?

Watching the parents in my daughter's class, it's always the same group making noise—people who don't even know what they want themselves, and their kids don't know either, unlike the parents who actually have a clue and whose kids follow suit.... It's always some ridiculous drama over nonsense, like why my kid wasn't picked for the best costume, why my kid's photo didn't make it onto the bulletin board, why a test shouldn't be canceled just because my kid got an F, or why my kid sits next to certain classmates... It's always the same crowd, the same trivial nonsense, and always the same lies and attempts to manipulate the situation.

In my opinion, a child—especially a first grader—shouldn't be making decisions that adults are ultimately responsible for.
I agree that the real issue lies with parents enrolling their children in religious classes, particularly when those aren't choices the child made. Then, depending on how that third period goes, the CHILD ends up deciding whether they want to stick with religious studies or not.
And that shouldn't happen.
It’s just like how a child shouldn't feel pressured to quit religious studies just because eight of their classmates get to sleep in two days a week because they don't have that class, or because those eight kids are spending their time with a really cool librarian or counselor and realize they're having more fun than the kids in religious studies.

We shouldn't dump that kind of responsibility on a child—making choices based on religious affiliation.
No matter how you look at it, there is always some level of "pressure" to conform to the majority, especially when you're young and just want to fit in with your peer group.

I’ll step away from the main topic for a second.

The Supreme Court recently handed down an acquittal for a religious instructor, ruling that her comments didn't actually label homosexuality as "depravity" or a "disease"—instead, she merely characterized it as "disordered" and "contrary to natural law." This really gets me thinking—for all the parents out there whose kids are enrolled in religious education classes, are you actually aware that there is roughly a 5% to 10% chance your child might be gay? I can't help but wonder how those kids feel in those moments, sitting there while they are told their own inclinations are nothing more than "disordered" or "against nature." Honestly, what kind of damage does that do to a fragile adolescent psyche—listening to such things about feelings they don't even fully understand themselves?

Quincy:

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one, but I just had to jump in and share my thoughts because it’s been weighing on me all day. There's just something about the way things are unfolding right now that feels so heavy, you know? It’s like we're all just watching this slow-motion train wreck happen in real time, and I can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed by the sheer scale of it all. I was sitting here thinking about what everyone else has been saying—and I mean really listening to the points being made—and it strikes me how much we all want the same thing: some kind of clarity or sense of fairness, even if it feels totally out of reach at the moment. It’s exhausting, isn't it? Just trying to make sense of the chaos while everyone is shouting over each other. I'm curious to see how this plays out, though, because even when things feel hopeless, there's always that tiny flicker of interest in seeing if anyone actually steps up to fix the mess. kaže: Wait, hold on a second—which kids are we actually talking about here, and what's the deal with them being left without support? I feel like there’s a huge part of the story missing if we don't dive into the "why" behind it all. Is this about the systemic gaps in our foster care system, or are we looking at specific neighborhoods where the local services just aren't stepping up? I'd love to get some more context so we can really dig into the root causes here.

I honestly can't think of a single good way to name them.

Quincy:

I honestly can’t get over how much people are still debating this! It feels like we’ve been circling the same drain for weeks, doesn't it? I was just reading what Nicole James had to say about the whole situation, and while I see where she's coming from, I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here. It's one of those things that seems so black and white on the surface, but once you start digging into the actual implications—especially with how the Supreme Court might look at it down the road—everything gets incredibly messy. I mean, don't get me wrong, I totally hear rustydrifter10 on this one too; there’s definitely some merit to that perspective, even if it feels a little bit extreme to me. But man, when you really sit back and think about the ripple effects across the country, it’s pretty wild. It’s not just a local issue anymore; it’s something that’s going to shape the conversation for a long time. I'm curious to see if anyone else feels that same sense of hesitation, or if I'm just overthinking the entire thing! kaže: So, just to clear things up for everyone: teachers in grades 1 through 4 are required to stay right there with their students during that period. Meanwhile, the librarian is busy working with the older kids in the upper grades, but keep in mind that the library itself stays open for everyone all the time!

That just isn't true, and honestly, I can't say I'm surprised. At my kids' elementary school, the library was basically a ghost town since it was closed most of the time anyway, but even when it was open, there wasn't a single desk or chair in the entire place where a kid could actually sit down to read.

Quincy:

I really think we need to talk about Tanita. I’ve been sitting here thinking about it all morning, and honestly, there’s just something about her that stays with you. It’s hard to put into words exactly why she hits so different, but when you listen to those melodies, it feels like she’s telling a story that belongs to everyone, even if it’s deeply personal. There’s this warmth in her voice—it’s like a conversation over coffee on a rainy afternoon in Seattle—that just pulls you right in. It’s not just music; it’s an atmosphere. I find myself looping her tracks just to catch that specific mood again. What do you guys think? Does anyone else get that same feeling, or am I just getting overly sentimental today? kaže: If we’re actually reaching the point where we have to go out and specifically motivate a fifth or eighth grader just to get them interested in religious studies, then you really have to ask yourself: is the issue actually within the curriculum itself? It makes me wonder if the way we're teaching faith is fundamentally disconnected from how kids actually see the world today.

I totally agree. It isn’t just about what happens in religion class; the real issue runs much deeper. We’re looking at systemic failures within our churches, our public school systems, and even the government itself. All of these institutions have collectively allowed us to reach a point where we have children sitting around with absolutely nothing to do, just waiting for the clock to run out while everyone else is busy with their elective courses. It shouldn't be our responsibility to scramble for ways to keep them engaged and occupied just because the system failed to provide a cohesive curriculum for everyone.

Quincy:

I really wish someone would explain what tanita means in this context! I feel like I'm missing out on some major inside joke here. kaže: Honestly, I think we both know deep down that nobody actually bothered to ask us for our input on this. It’s just one of those things where the politicians shake hands, sign all the paperwork, and hammer out their own little deals behind closed doors without a second thought for what the rest of us think.

Wait, why on earth are you sticking up for them and their decision?
And why didn't you actually give me an answer on where your numbers come from? I mean, seriously—why should a minority have to shoulder all the negative consequences just because of what the majority wants?

Quincy:

I honestly can't stop thinking about that whole situation we were discussing earlier, and I feel like there's so much more to unpack if we really want to get to the heart of it. It’s one of those things where you think you have a handle on the facts, but then you dig just an inch deeper and realize the implications are way broader than anyone initially suspected! I was actually chatting with Nicole James about this the other day, and even she was saying how much the landscape seems to be shifting under our feet lately. It’s wild, isn't it? You expect things to stay steady, but then a decision comes down from the Supreme Court and suddenly everything you thought you knew about the rules of the game is completely upended. It makes you wonder what the next move will be, because once that domino falls, there's no going back. I'm curious to see if anyone else is feeling that same sense of uncertainty, or if I'm just overanalyzing the whole thing—though, let's be honest, a little overanalysis never hurt anyone when the stakes are this high! kaže: Honestly, none of these elective subjects have anything worth actually digging into during a mid-term. Not one of them. Everything else is just a bunch of obvious perks—it’s like when some guy walks around with diplomatic immunity and gets all these special rights that regular citizens just don't have. It's the exact same deal with religious education here; it gets these specific privileges that no other elective subject receives. And frankly, it’s just not right. And honestly, I just don't get why some people find it so incredibly difficult to just admit when they're wrong.

I couldn't agree more—sign me up.

Nicole James said:I’ll step away from the main topic for a second.

The Supreme Court recently handed down an acquittal for a religious instructor, ruling that her comments didn't actually label homosexuality as "depravity" or a "disease"—instead, she merely characterized it as "disordered" and "contrary to natural law." This really gets me thinking—for all the parents out there whose kids are enrolled in religious education classes, are you actually aware that there is roughly a 5% to 10% chance your child might be gay? I can't help but wonder how those kids feel in those moments, sitting there while they are told their own inclinations are nothing more than "disordered" or "against nature." Honestly, what kind of damage does that do to a fragile adolescent psyche—listening to such things about feelings they don't even fully understand themselves?

I can tell you from experience that it feels anything but good. Being told there was something wrong with me caused me plenty of issues during early puberty, though luckily I moved past that mindset. It’s just not okay to hear people talking about you in such a nasty way during class—whether it's religion or any other subject! You just stare at the floor, turn bright red, and wait for the lecture to end.

As for that acquittal, it doesn't surprise me much. If a professor can claim homosexuality is a disease and still get cleared by the Supreme Court, why wouldn't a teacher get the same treatment for calling it "merely" unnatural?

rustydrifter10 said:Quincy:

I honestly don't even know where to begin with this one, but I just had to jump in and share my thoughts because it’s been weighing on me all day. There's just something about the way things are unfolding right now that feels so heavy, you know? It’s like we're all just watching this slow-motion train wreck happen in real time, and I can't help but feel a bit overwhelmed by the sheer scale of it all. I was sitting here thinking about what everyone else has been saying—and I mean really listening to the points being made—and it strikes me how much we all want the same thing: some kind of clarity or sense of fairness, even if it feels totally out of reach at the moment. It’s exhausting, isn't it? Just trying to make sense of the chaos while everyone is shouting over each other. I'm curious to see how this plays out, though, because even when things feel hopeless, there's always that tiny flicker of interest in seeing if anyone actually steps up to fix the mess. kaže: Wait, hold on a second—which kids are we actually talking about here, and what's the deal with them being left without support? I feel like there’s a huge part of the story missing if we don't dive into the "why" behind it all. Is this about the systemic gaps in our foster care system, or are we looking at specific neighborhoods where the local services just aren't stepping up? I'd love to get some more context so we can really dig into the root causes here.

I honestly can't think of a single good way to name them.

Quincy:

I honestly can’t get over how much people are still debating this! It feels like we’ve been circling the same drain for weeks, doesn't it? I was just reading what Nicole James had to say about the whole situation, and while I see where she's coming from, I can't help but feel like we're missing the forest for the trees here. It's one of those things that seems so black and white on the surface, but once you start digging into the actual implications—especially with how the Supreme Court might look at it down the road—everything gets incredibly messy. I mean, don't get me wrong, I totally hear rustydrifter10 on this one too; there’s definitely some merit to that perspective, even if it feels a little bit extreme to me. But man, when you really sit back and think about the ripple effects across the country, it’s pretty wild. It’s not just a local issue anymore; it’s something that’s going to shape the conversation for a long time. I'm curious to see if anyone else feels that same sense of hesitation, or if I'm just overthinking the entire thing! kaže: So, just to clear things up for everyone: teachers in grades 1 through 4 are required to stay right there with their students during that period. Meanwhile, the librarian is busy working with the older kids in the upper grades, but keep in mind that the library itself stays open for everyone all the time!

That just isn't true, and honestly, I can't say I'm surprised. At my kids' elementary school, the library was basically a ghost town since it was closed most of the time anyway, but even when it was open, there wasn't a single desk or chair in the entire place where a kid could actually sit down to read.

Quincy:

I really think we need to talk about Tanita. I’ve been sitting here thinking about it all morning, and honestly, there’s just something about her that stays with you. It’s hard to put into words exactly why she hits so different, but when you listen to those melodies, it feels like she’s telling a story that belongs to everyone, even if it’s deeply personal. There’s this warmth in her voice—it’s like a conversation over coffee on a rainy afternoon in Seattle—that just pulls you right in. It’s not just music; it’s an atmosphere. I find myself looping her tracks just to catch that specific mood again. What do you guys think? Does anyone else get that same feeling, or am I just getting overly sentimental today? kaže: If we’re actually reaching the point where we have to go out and specifically motivate a fifth or eighth grader just to get them interested in religious studies, then you really have to ask yourself: is the issue actually within the curriculum itself? It makes me wonder if the way we're teaching faith is fundamentally disconnected from how kids actually see the world today.

I totally agree. It isn’t just about what happens in religion class; the real issue runs much deeper. We’re looking at systemic failures within our churches, our public school systems, and even the government itself. All of these institutions have collectively allowed us to reach a point where we have children sitting around with absolutely nothing to do, just waiting for the clock to run out while everyone else is busy with their elective courses. It shouldn't be our responsibility to scramble for ways to keep them engaged and occupied just because the system failed to provide a cohesive curriculum for everyone.

Quincy:

I really wish someone would explain what tanita means in this context! I feel like I'm missing out on some major inside joke here. kaže: Honestly, I think we both know deep down that nobody actually bothered to ask us for our input on this. It’s just one of those things where the politicians shake hands, sign all the paperwork, and hammer out their own little deals behind closed doors without a second thought for what the rest of us think.

Wait, why on earth are you sticking up for them and their decision?
And why didn't you actually give me an answer on where your numbers come from? I mean, seriously—why should a minority have to shoulder all the negative consequences just because of what the majority wants?

Quincy:

I honestly can't stop thinking about that whole situation we were discussing earlier, and I feel like there's so much more to unpack if we really want to get to the heart of it. It’s one of those things where you think you have a handle on the facts, but then you dig just an inch deeper and realize the implications are way broader than anyone initially suspected! I was actually chatting with Nicole James about this the other day, and even she was saying how much the landscape seems to be shifting under our feet lately. It’s wild, isn't it? You expect things to stay steady, but then a decision comes down from the Supreme Court and suddenly everything you thought you knew about the rules of the game is completely upended. It makes you wonder what the next move will be, because once that domino falls, there's no going back. I'm curious to see if anyone else is feeling that same sense of uncertainty, or if I'm just overanalyzing the whole thing—though, let's be honest, a little overanalysis never hurt anyone when the stakes are this high! kaže: Honestly, none of these elective subjects have anything worth actually digging into during a mid-term. Not one of them. Everything else is just a bunch of obvious perks—it’s like when some guy walks around with diplomatic immunity and gets all these special rights that regular citizens just don't have. It's the exact same deal with religious education here; it gets these specific privileges that no other elective subject receives. And frankly, it’s just not right. And honestly, I just don't get why some people find it so incredibly difficult to just admit when they're wrong.

I couldn't agree more—sign me up.

The librarian usually puts in about seven hours a day. In terms of student numbers, we typically see around three to four classes per grade level, though some schools tend to run a bit larger with five or six.
If you look at the math, it just doesn't add up. Even if a librarian actually wanted to engage with those kids who believe in all that pseudoscience, they wouldn't have the time. They aren't on the same shift as them every single day, so there's just no way to make it happen.
He’s got quite a bit on his plate beyond that. On top of everything else, he'll need to run workshops, handle book tours, bring kids along to signings, and organize meet-and-greets with authors. It's definitely going to keep him busy!
It’s the exact same story when you look at the rest of the professional consultants and specialists on the team.
It feels like parents today expect school psychologists and counselors to be little miracle workers. They aren't just looking for help with school bullying or social issues; they’re also expecting these professionals to step in and somehow fix kids who don't follow traditional religious or moral teachings. It’s a lot to ask one person to handle.
When is all of that actually happening?

It feels like our professional staff is being asked to step in and babysit kids just because their parents don't want to send them to religious education classes. It’s a bit much, isn't it?

Susan James said:The librarian usually puts in about seven hours a day. In terms of student numbers, we typically see around three to four classes per grade level, though some schools tend to run a bit larger with five or six.
If you look at the math, it just doesn't add up. Even if a librarian actually wanted to engage with those kids who believe in all that pseudoscience, they wouldn't have the time. They aren't on the same shift as them every single day, so there's just no way to make it happen.
He’s got quite a bit on his plate beyond that. On top of everything else, he'll need to run workshops, handle book tours, bring kids along to signings, and organize meet-and-greets with authors. It's definitely going to keep him busy!
It’s the exact same story when you look at the rest of the professional consultants and specialists on the team.
It feels like parents today expect school psychologists and counselors to be little miracle workers. They aren't just looking for help with school bullying or social issues; they’re also expecting these professionals to step in and somehow fix kids who don't follow traditional religious or moral teachings. It’s a lot to ask one person to handle.
When is all of that actually happening?

It feels like our professional staff is being asked to step in and babysit kids just because their parents don't want to send them to religious education classes. It’s a bit much, isn't it?

If the administration isn't competent enough to grasp that electives are actually elective—and should be scheduled outside of core hours—then sure, they can go ahead and organize childcare for students who are stuck under their supervision during the school day.

Austin Vaughn3 said:If the administration isn't competent enough to grasp that electives are actually elective—and should be scheduled outside of core hours—then sure, they can go ahead and organize childcare for students who are stuck under their supervision during the school day.

From what I understand, they don't actually handle the scheduling themselves.
But honestly, it wouldn't hurt to ask the school secretary to keep an eye on the kids while they aren't in religion class. 😬

It also wouldn't be a bad idea if the principal stepped up once in a while, too. Maybe they’d try harder to overlook those religious agreements or at least follow the guidelines set by the Department of Education. 😍

rustydrifter10 said:Look, it isn't really about the number of kids involved; it's about the specific situation they're stuck in. Just imagine you've got two kids, and one wants to take religious studies while the other doesn't. For that first child, we could easily arrange for them to attend during the first period, the last period, an after-school session, or even at a different campus where the curriculum fits better. But if we force them into a class right in the middle of the school day, there’s nobody left to watch the second child. They’d basically be left to fend for themselves. Is it really alright to let one kid wander through hallways or hang out in the courtyard in whatever weather happens to be hitting us, just so someone else can take an elective that could easily be scheduled at a different time or place? In my eyes, absolutely not. Both children are equally important, and you shouldn't provide space and supervision for one while essentially abandoning the other. Adding more kids to the equation doesn't change the fundamental issue; whether it's one extra student or twenty-five, we still have that one child being left behind. So, I have to ask: what is your magic number where it becomes acceptable for a minority to be discriminated against and denied proper care just to serve the majority? Because if you ask me, there isn't one. That number is zero.

Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Man, religious education is an expensive undertaking.
It's not just about paying the instructors; you also have to pay other teachers to supervise, entertain, or instruct the kids while the religion classes are happening.
Beyond that, shouldn't spreading faith be the job of priests and nuns, done freely and wholeheartedly out of pure altruism and a desire to pass on their beliefs?
Ever since the number of these instructors started growing (from what I can see, it's mostly a younger crowd, I doubt anyone is over 40🥳)?

If the Church is footing the bill for the instructors, then the school could hire as many people as needed to ensure the classes always fall during the first, "zero," or last period.
In my opinion, none of this should be on the shoulders of the Department of Education, which is already struggling with tight budgets.
I keep reading stories about how schools don't have enough money for basic supplies like toilet paper or printer paper for tests, yet somehow there's money available to promote religion.
We live in a pretty interesting country.🤔

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here... or if there was supposed to be more to this thought... Alexander Ortiz3 says:
Man, religious education classes are just way too expensive...
It isn't just about covering the costs for the religious education instructors; you also have to factor in the extra staff needed to supervise, entertain, or tutor the kids while they're busy with their lessons...
Wouldn't it make more sense if priests and nuns handled the spreading of the faith entirely for free? You know, out of pure altruism and a genuine desire to pass on their beliefs... just acting from the heart to share the word...
Ever since when did the number of those believers start growing like this? From what I can tell, it’s mostly just a bunch of young people... I don't think anyone is even over forty... 🥳)?

If the Roman Catholic Church is footing the bill for religious instructors, then public schools should be allowed to hire as many of them as they need to ensure there’s always someone available to lead a session during the first, last, or even a mid-day period...
In my opinion, there shouldn't be a single soul on the payroll at that underfunded Department of Education...
I see people jumping on all sorts of threads lately, complaining about how schools are supposedly broke when it comes to basic necessities—stuff like toilet paper or even the paper needed for exams and handouts—yet somehow they always manage to find the budget to promote religious teachings...
It really is a fascinating country we live in... 🤔

It isn’t even about whether there's enough money to cover the basics—I'm not talking about being unable to afford toilet paper or everyday essentials. The real issue lies in how that money is actually being spent. But honestly, that's a whole different conversation...
Personally, I am always in favor of holding a referendum on just about any issue—even something like religious education in schools. I believe we should let the people decide what they want through a majority vote (though, if I recall correctly, certain international treaties might make that tricky to pull off legally, but we can get into those technicalities later)...
We’re currently seeing a situation where the vast majority of parents are opting for religious education for their children—we're talking 90% or even higher in many cases. This trend isn't just limited to elementary schools; it's happening in high schools too, even when they offer ethics classes as an alternative...
That’s the essence of democracy, plain and simple—the majority calls the shots. However, that doesn't mean we can just steamroll the minority or strip them of their fundamental rights...
What really needs to happen is a complete overhaul of how we handle ethics and religious studies in our schools. We ought to be organizing a curriculum that provides a comprehensive overview for any student who isn't enrolled in formal religious education. It should offer a broad, well-rounded understanding of various faith-based organizations, while also giving equal weight to perspectives like atheism and agnosticism...
The idea that schools should just "step aside" regarding any given subject and leave education entirely up to the home is, frankly, quite misguided when you consider the fundamental role schools play in our society. Sure, there are certainly private language institutes out there that offer a more polished experience than what you might find in a standard public school district, but that isn't a reason to scrap foreign language programs altogether—just like we wouldn't cut math or science from the curriculum for the same reason.
Relationships with religious organizations are governed by various specific legal agreements. For instance, our relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is dictated by an intergovernmental treaty established between the United States and Vatican City back in the 1990s. Under the framework of the Vienna Conventions—to which the U.S. is a signatory—these types of international treaties aren't something one side can just unilaterally scrap or alter on a whim. They require mutual consent from both parties to change. Theoretically, a treaty could be terminated if one side commits a severe breach of its terms, much like how we saw the complications surrounding the maritime boundary arbitration agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Even when there are accusations of serious violations, the other party often refuses to recognize the withdrawal just to avoid further legal entanglement, but I won't get too deep into that particular rabbit hole...
Back in 2000, when the opposition and the Democratic Party finally seized power, they hit a major roadblock with the existing treaty involving Vatican City. Since there was absolutely no realistic way to tear that agreement up, they decided to pivot and try a different tactic entirely. They started offering every single religious organization in the country a contract modeled exactly after the one already in place with the Vatican. It was a clever bit of maneuvering: by giving everyone the same deal, they effectively stripped the Roman Catholic Church of its "special" status, since suddenly every faith group was just as "privileged" as the next under these identical agreements.
Today, the Islamic Community is practically patting itself on the back, claiming they’ve managed to secure a unique relationship with the U.S. government that sets a precedent for all of Europe. They’re even trying to hold America up as the gold standard for other Western nations that have much larger Muslim populations...
The bottom line is that here in the States, all religious organizations were granted similar rights under the same basic framework. Any one of those agreements—whether it involves Protestant denominations, the Islamic community, or Jewish groups—can be terminated without any legal headache because none of them are based on international treaties. You can walk away from those arrangements whenever you choose. The only exception to this rule is the status of the Roman Catholic Church, simply because their standing is specifically governed by an international treaty with Vatican City.
When it comes to religious education, there are two main ways people look at this.
The first approach is to insist on the rights of every minority—not just religious ones, but non-religious atheistic minorities too—arguing that an ethics course must be organized alongside religious studies at any cost. They claim no one should face discrimination due to a lack of funding, and that the government must meet these demands. After all, if there’s enough money for the government to buy a brand-new fleet of vehicles for various departments, agencies, and fancy new smartphones...
The second approach is simply to grumble against religious education, condemning the majority who choose to attend by choice, and demanding that the majority adapt to the minority. In the process, individual children will still end up wandering the hallways, but who really cares about those kids when there's a chance to throw shade at believers and the Church?
Terminating an intergovernmental agreement without the consent of both parties isn't an option, even if the majority were in favor of it. Historically, leaders have found a solution by granting equal agreements (and thus equal rights) to all religious communities. In our system, every religious group has the right to organize religious education in schools under the exact same conditions, provided they have students of that faith. All that's left is for the atheists to have their own parallel curriculum organized alongside religious studies, and the state shouldn't make any more excuses regarding that.

To briefly touch upon the actual content of religious instruction: the Constitution guarantees the freedom and protection of public religious practice for all religious communities under Article 30 (it is explicitly stated in that article so that no one mistakenly thinks faith is strictly a private matter). As long as the content of that instruction does not directly violate any other laws, the state cannot interfere with the curriculum of religious education. Essentially, America is a secular country, which means the separation of church and state, but anyone is free to publicly manifest their faith, and the state protects that right. Religious education in schools is regulated by intergovernmental and other treaties; without such treaties, religious education wouldn't even be possible in a public school. However, a religious community remains autonomous in its teaching, and according to the principle of secularism, the state does not meddle in that teaching unless it violates the law. The treaty provides for religious education in schools, but it does not grant the state the power to regulate the specific content, provided it stays within legal bounds.
For children who do not attend religious education, there are two options: either a parallel ethics course or a free period.

Wanted to reply sooner, but couldn't find twenty minutes to sit down at my laptop and type this out.
But I gotta address one thing—the biggest flaw in your argument regarding religion classes in schools.

Most parents sign their kids up for religious ed JUST because the class is already on the schedule, and they don't want the neighbors judging them if they skip.

I’m saying this as someone who shows up to an extra Mass every single Sunday just so, within our community, kids can actually receive Communion alongside their teachers.

At the first Mass every year with the new First Communicants, you can tell almost immediately who has actually stepped foot in a church more than five times since their baptism.

Kids start handling smartphones by age one or two, then tablets and laptops shortly after. They run into all kinds of internet content and tech-driven challenges way too fast... and we don't even have mandatory computer science in our schools. (And yeah, parents should be the first line of defense against that stuff, but let's be real, most parents aren't doing that.)

On the flip side, this way of doing things drags in kids who don't even know how to make the Sign of the Cross or say a prayer until they're ten, and only when it becomes a requirement for a grade before Communion. They aren't taught that prayer is more than just reciting lines from a book; they aren't taught how to be present at Mass, during Holy Week, or during the special holidays our church celebrates. And here's the kicker for me: they're being taught that religious education is something you handle alone. Mom and Dad might drag them to Mass once, then in May, Mom throws a huge party at home, the kid gets a new iPhone or PlayStation, and that's it. We're done.
What happened to the sacrament they supposedly spent years preparing for? Where's the sense of community that's supposed to be at the heart of it? Where are the parents who actually cared enough to send their kid to religious ed on day one?

So I don't get it: Parents aren't teaching them to pray or go to Mass at home, so they just enroll them in school religious ed so they "know something," figuring it doesn't matter since everyone else is doing it. So why? What's the point?
Where does that figure of 90%+ of kids staying in religious ed after middle school come from?
I get that not everyone stays, but realistically, only a tiny fraction actually continues afterward.

If you actually wanted to see how many parents truly want religious ed for their kids, they should move the classes to a different time slot.
The parent who actually wants it for their child will make it happen. The ones who don't care won't.
I can't give you exact numbers, but I'm certain they would be way, way lower than this 90% people keep bringing up.

When I say 90%, I’m talking about the rough percentage of school-aged kids enrolled in religious education classes. It tends to be slightly higher during elementary school and dips a bit during high school, but there isn't really any massive deviation from that figure.
Now, how many of those students and their families actually practice their faith on a daily basis is an entirely different conversation. You see all sorts of examples—kids from non-religious households finding their way toward faith, and others moving in the opposite direction.
Personally, I am strongly against forcing anyone to attend religious classes; that would be terrible. At the same time, I don't believe anyone should be discouraged or blocked from attending if they want to.
Choosing to opt out of religious studies just to follow a fad is honestly ridiculous. I don't even know what to say about parents who just chase after fleeting trends... though I doubt there are many like that. Who would actually send their child to listen to something they consider "bad" just because it's trendy?
The only downside I see here is that the government hasn't organized ethics classes in elementary schools the way they have in high schools, which leads to these issues with unsupervised free periods.
Furthermore, I’ve never heard the vast majority of people who choose religious education calling for it to be made mandatory for everyone. On the flip side, you constantly hear complaints from the minority who don't want it, often leading to calls to ban religious education for everyone, including those who actually want it. As for those parents who care more about neighborhood gossip than their own child's well-being, it's probably best not to even engage with them.
Looking at parental guidance, many parents don't bother teaching their children how to read or do basic math, yet they still send them to school to learn those things.
The bottom line is this: religious education is strictly voluntary. There are no negative consequences for those who choose not to participate. Trying to get into the specific reasons why someone chooses one faith over another—or none at all—is a complicated rabbit hole.
The only real issue is the gap in the schedule during those free periods, and the responsibility lies solely with the state to organize something for them. No one else can step in to handle that, and it's certainly not up to the Church to manage public school schedules.

P.S. According to official data from the 2011 Census, over 90% of Americans identify with various religious denominations, while atheists and agnostics make up less than 10%. Various religious organizations can organize these classes in accordance with parental interests.

I have to admit, I didn't quite follow your point about the "excessive Mass." I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The truth is, nobody can force you to send your child to any religious service. If you do choose to send them, then you have to accept the rules of the religious community you selected for your child. Otherwise, find another one. We live in a free country.
If a parent views a religious rite as senseless or unnecessary, I truly wonder why they would expose their own children to something they hold such a negative opinion about.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:When I say 90%, I’m talking about the rough percentage of school-aged kids enrolled in religious education classes. It tends to be slightly higher during elementary school and dips a bit during high school, but there isn't really any massive deviation from that figure.
Now, how many of those students and their families actually practice their faith on a daily basis is an entirely different conversation. You see all sorts of examples—kids from non-religious households finding their way toward faith, and others moving in the opposite direction.
Personally, I am strongly against forcing anyone to attend religious classes; that would be terrible. At the same time, I don't believe anyone should be discouraged or blocked from attending if they want to.
Choosing to opt out of religious studies just to follow a fad is honestly ridiculous. I don't even know what to say about parents who just chase after fleeting trends... though I doubt there are many like that. Who would actually send their child to listen to something they consider "bad" just because it's trendy?
The only downside I see here is that the government hasn't organized ethics classes in elementary schools the way they have in high schools, which leads to these issues with unsupervised free periods.
Furthermore, I’ve never heard the vast majority of people who choose religious education calling for it to be made mandatory for everyone. On the flip side, you constantly hear complaints from the minority who don't want it, often leading to calls to ban religious education for everyone, including those who actually want it. As for those parents who care more about neighborhood gossip than their own child's well-being, it's probably best not to even engage with them.
Looking at parental guidance, many parents don't bother teaching their children how to read or do basic math, yet they still send them to school to learn those things.
The bottom line is this: religious education is strictly voluntary. There are no negative consequences for those who choose not to participate. Trying to get into the specific reasons why someone chooses one faith over another—or none at all—is a complicated rabbit hole.
The only real issue is the gap in the schedule during those free periods, and the responsibility lies solely with the state to organize something for them. No one else can step in to handle that, and it's certainly not up to the Church to manage public school schedules.

P.S. According to official data from the 2011 Census, over 90% of Americans identify with various religious denominations, while atheists and agnostics make up less than 10%. Various religious organizations can organize these classes in accordance with parental interests.

I have to admit, I didn't quite follow your point about the "excessive Mass." I assume you're referring to the Roman Catholic Church. The truth is, nobody can force you to send your child to any religious service. If you do choose to send them, then you have to accept the rules of the religious community you selected for your child. Otherwise, find another one. We live in a free country.
If a parent views a religious rite as senseless or unnecessary, I truly wonder why they would expose their own children to something they hold such a negative opinion about.

Playing dumb is a great tactic.
It isn't about following trends; it’s about the desire for their kids not to stand out from the crowd. We’ve already seen plenty of "broad-minded Christian tolerance" toward people with different views on this thread alone.

nimblelynx7 said:Playing dumb is a great tactic.
It isn't about following trends; it’s about the desire for their kids not to stand out from the crowd. We’ve already seen plenty of "broad-minded Christian tolerance" toward people with different views on this thread alone.

I heard someone claim here that tons of parents would actually prefer not to send their kids to religious education classes, but they feel forced to because they want them to fit in. If that's the case, why don't all those "many" parents just band together and opt out? Then the ones actually attending would be the ones standing out. Or is the real issue that most parents actually *do* want their children to attend?

Another thing—why shouldn't kids be allowed to be different? Who decided everyone has to be exactly the same? By that logic, an African American parent wouldn't even be able to send their child to school because they'd stand out from the crowd. That reasoning is a total disaster, but it's what follows directly from your post. In some of our American schools, you have both Catholic and Protestant religious studies, and in others, like in a town like Springfield, for example, you might see Catholic and Islamic classes held. Nobody has an issue with that.

I'm not sure what kind of intolerance you're talking about, or if you were aiming that at me?
When you crunch the numbers at the end of the day, there are really only two options: either the state provides ethics classes during the religious education period, or it's just a free period.
This whole idea about parents being "forced" to enroll their kids in religious studies doesn't hold water. I mean, weren't they "forced" to check the box identifying as religious on the census? And what would have happened to them if they hadn't?

It’s actually quite straightforward when you break it down. There is the core curriculum that everyone is required to take, and then there is the elective portion—the stuff parents choose to enroll their kids in. Generally, these electives happen during the second shift or after regular hours to ensure students don't have awkward gaps in their schedules and to make sure teachers aren't wasting time teaching just one or two kids from a class. Since our schools haven't really set up any meaningful alternative programming for kids who aren't part of these electives, it only makes sense that all elective classes follow the same format. This is especially true in an era where kids should have actual options, like staying in an after-school program or just heading home.
And honestly, that is the heart of the issue and where the solution lies.
You seem to be ignoring my point entirely, instead focusing on religious studies from other denominations—which, by the way, also take place outside of regular school hours—or talking about introducing yet another subject. Personally, I don't see the need for more subjects; our kids are already completely overwhelmed by their current academic workload.

I don't even want to get into discussions about "diversity" or other empty buzzwords. My concern is much more practical: it's about the basic safety of my 6.5-year-old. During those two 45-minute blocks every week, they aren't officially under anyone's supervision, even though both my spouse and I pay the taxes that fund this entire education system. On top of that, we pay extra for after-school care just so someone can watch them while we're at work—all in a country with laws stating children shouldn't be left unsupervised until they're eight! But hey, I’d still rather deal with that than some attempt at RKT brainwashing.

Regardless of all the noise being made about this, I’m just trying to point out the core issue here: kids who don't opt into religious studies end up with a free period on their schedule.
They also have one fewer subject to worry about—and honestly, it’s a pretty easy one to manage.
The most logical fix would be to introduce an ethics course for them, similar to how it's handled in American high schools. That way, everyone's schedule stays balanced, and instead of adding more stress, you're giving them a lighter subject that actually helps boost their GPA.
If implementing an ethics class in elementary schools proves too complicated, a second alternative would be to organize supervised library time for any student with a free period. They could use that hour to read, catch up on homework, or study for their next class under the guidance of a librarian. With a little bit of cooperation, this should be easily solvable at any school... especially since the government was just bragging about how every single school in the country now has a fully equipped library and computer labs, right?

It’s perfectly understandable that parents are worried about what their children are doing during those unsupervised hours, but the fact that most kids choose religious studies voluntarily—while a small minority also chooses it voluntarily—means that specific subject isn't the cause of this logistical mess.
The Department of Education really should have resolved this free period issue by now in a way that doesn't create extra hurdles for the majority of students attending religious classes.

And there it is, the classic "majority rules" argument.
But what actually happens when more than half the kids in a class decide they aren't taking religion class?
Absolutely nothing.
You just end up with a small minority sitting there in a classroom while the rest of the class is essentially running wild in the halls.
The real issue isn't about numbers; it’s about how unnatural it feels to have this one elective squeezed right into the middle of a standard schedule of mandatory subjects. It doesn't fit the flow like everything else does.
Honestly, if I had the choice, I wouldn't even pick ethics. Who actually wants to pile extra work onto their kid? I’d much rather see a schedule without these awkward gaps where nobody is responsible for supervision. Let them pick those kinds of electives once they get to middle school or high school.

Michelle Nelson4 said:And there it is, the classic "majority rules" argument.
But what actually happens when more than half the kids in a class decide they aren't taking religion class?
Absolutely nothing.
You just end up with a small minority sitting there in a classroom while the rest of the class is essentially running wild in the halls.
The real issue isn't about numbers; it’s about how unnatural it feels to have this one elective squeezed right into the middle of a standard schedule of mandatory subjects. It doesn't fit the flow like everything else does.
Honestly, if I had the choice, I wouldn't even pick ethics. Who actually wants to pile extra work onto their kid? I’d much rather see a schedule without these awkward gaps where nobody is responsible for supervision. Let them pick those kinds of electives once they get to middle school or high school.

Of course, other parents don't want their kids stuck in different shifts or having to stay late for religion classes either.
The library should be the solution for that free period, where they can be supervised by a librarian.
I'd love to see some actual data on how many classrooms in the US have a majority of students opting out of religious studies.
P.S. What kind of argument is supposed to fix this, and how? The majority decides and the minority has rights—that’s literally how democracy works.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Often, religious education instructors teach across multiple schools to build up enough hours for a full schedule, and frequently, there is only one instructor per school. How is that single teacher supposed to teach every grade during the first or last period if there are more classes than available slots—not to mention if they're traveling between different schools? In many cases, scheduling religious studies for the first or last period is simply technically impossible.
The issue lies entirely with the Department of Education; they have essentially left students who don't participate in religious studies to fend for themselves. In high schools, this is resolved by offering Ethics and Religion as a subject.
Why this hasn't been organized similarly in elementary schools is anyone's guess. It's possible the government finds it too expensive to pay ethics teachers when dealing with very small groups of students. Regardless, those interested should put pressure on the Department of Education to ensure adequate supervision for all students not attending religious studies, no matter the cost. Why Ethics and Religion aren't offered in elementary schools remains the real question.

Give me a break. It’s a total miracle how all the other electives somehow manage to avoid being scheduled in the middle of the day.