Religion classes in school - Megathread

Patrick Harris5 said:So, check out this song from a second-grade music textbook here:

[B]A CHILD WAS BORN FOR US[/B]

American Church Hymnal

A child was born for us
Into the manger he was laid
Isus Milena, my God
I give you my heart, for I am yours.

Son of God the Father, and God himself
From heaven down to earth he came to us
Isus Milena, my God
I give you my heart, for I am yours.

A pure Virgin gave him birth,
And nursed him with her milk
Isus Milena, my God
I give you my heart, for I am yours.

The Father named him Jesus,
Sent him to redeem us all
Isus Milena, my God
I give you my heart, for I am yours

Appropriate enough??

We didn't ever teach stuff like that back home. 🤷

Honestly? No, it's not appropriate. And you know what else isn't okay? When those religious education textbooks claim atheists are just crazy or something like that. And the Department of Education actually approved all of it. Then you have these kids sitting in the same classrooms for everything else. You end up with some kid who doesn't follow the religion getting bullied. It sucks.

There’s this one line in an American sociology textbook—one of those sections on family structures—that basically says, "My father, who is also my mother's husband." Honestly? Total nonsense. It completely ignores reality; at least 30% of families out there don't function that way at all, dammit.

Tyler Ruiz502 said:There’s this one line in an American sociology textbook—one of those sections on family structures—that basically says, "My father, who is also my mother's husband." Honestly? Total nonsense. It completely ignores reality; at least 30% of families out there don't function that way at all, dammit.

Man, Tyler Ruiz502, look... institutional Catholic religion basically doesn't recognize divorce except in really extreme circumstances. And those aren't just simple irreconcilable differences.

Anyone enrolling their kid should probably be aware of that.

Why people cling to dogmas that life constantly contradicts left and right? That’s the question. It leads to some pretty heavy realizations about the human conscience.

I was just going to say that you can't really expect religious education classes to include all different kinds of family structures 🤷

Honestly, when I was sitting through religion classes back in elementary school, things felt... different. It wasn't some intense academic grind—we mostly just colored, drew pictures, and shared stories or thoughts. There was even this weird little system where you got extra credit points based on church attendance; if you went to confession that Saturday, boom, you got a plus.
They call it "living your faith."

What we have now feels more like a dry lecture. A textbook approach. A workbook. Just a bunch of people masquerading as "presenting facts."

Look, I wasn't exactly an overachiever in those classes, nor could I recite scripture word-for-word if my life depended on it. But the whole point of learning this "doctrine"... well, it’s because so many people believe in all sorts of nonsense that isn't even true, yet they can't be bothered to actually think about it or double-check anything. So, I suppose I'll just have to rely on my own sense of reason regarding that part...

rowdypanther12 said:I was just going to say that you can't really expect religious education classes to include all different kinds of family structures 🤷

Well, you can, just not within those rigid religious frameworks. The Pope has already made some strides toward tolerance by allowing divorced people the possibility of receiving Communion, though as far as I know, that hasn't fully materialized in practice yet. He’s also spoken about homosexuality, and it feels like he might offer a more conciliatory tone regarding adoption within LGBTQ families.

Of course, some people will hear that and think I'm just talking nonsense because they feel like if he allows anything at all, he's failing. But that's just how institutional religion works—everyone needs to realize that change is slow, difficult, and faces massive resistance, even if it does happen eventually.

Will that mountain of senseless dogmas and outdated stances ever be revised? I don't believe I'll see it happen in my lifetime, but I can choose to opt out of practicing faith that way, and that's exactly what I've done.

In my opinion, anyone with a lick of common sense should do the same if there are ways of practicing faith that feel completely foreign or inappropriate to them—things they just can't reconcile with their own conscience.

The reality is that many believers are calling for change, and more and more people are looking toward liberation theology as a potential path forward.

The socialist-based theological dimension of Christ views Him as the liberator of the oppressed, which aligns perfectly with Francis's legacy in Latin America. He doesn't shy away from speaking publicly on political currents either; he doesn't pretend to be above it all, but rather sees the Church's political engagement as necessary to serve the needs of the little guy. He doesn't focus on morality in the abstract, but rather on workers' rights and protesting the hoarding of wealth by a handful of exploiters and the accumulation of capital by those with blood on their hands. Even the name Francis was chosen intentionally, given that he is a saint tasked with the renewal of the Church. He is an advocate for poverty among the clergy and the idea of holy poverty, which is one of the core pillars of liberation theology. The Pope is a Franciscan, a member of the Order of Friars Minor, a group known for living modestly (and enjoying a good glass of wine 😁).

If he manages to stay around for a few more years, he might make a massive breakthrough. But until then, everyone has to ask themselves where and to whom they are sending their children—what kind of views do these institutions hold regarding family, kids, and life, and is that really what you want for your child?

silentraven6 said:I think Summer hit on something important here. We really need to be careful about how we word things. It’s more about saying "we celebrate" rather than just "we celebrate," or better yet, specifying that "Catholics celebrate." Precision matters.

I’d also suggest adding some other major holidays to the list. We have such large Jewish and Muslim communities right here in our state, after all.

But you can't escape it. Seriously, you just can't. You’ll never be able to sidestep religious themes—not when you're diving into literature, and certainly not when looking at social studies or how we interact as a people. It’s baked into the very fabric of our society. We’re talking about the fundamental cultural and civilizational framework that defines us. It's part of our history, our literary heritage, and everything else. It's just... it's built into who we are.

It’s like you just can't escape that whole sacred architectural style. It’s baked in.

It’s pretty obvious that if our clergy actually bothered to get a real education, we wouldn't be dealing with such a massive wave of illiteracy around here. It’s like they just opted out of learning anything useful, and now we’re all paying the price for it.

Just by recognizing that fact, maybe—just maybe—it might actually be worth considering a little more tolerance.

On another note, all these shows featuring blessings and this obsession with displaying all sorts of bodies across the globe—not just here in the States, but everywhere—it honestly feels like it goes against everything Christianity stands for.

Frank, I’m just not on board with that approach. Honestly, I think we need to show them the door and force them out of the classroom entirely. The fewer of us involved in this nonsense, the faster it’ll die out. Let this one go through if they want, but I’m going to be teaching him at home to stand against it. It just doesn't sit right with me, and frankly, it creates this totally distorted image of how many people actually participate—it’s nowhere near reflective of what real-world spirituality looks like. And don't forget, they use those inflated numbers as leverage. That's their whole argument.

If by "clergy" you mean the Communists after 1945, then sure... Otherwise, the Church and literacy? Please. As if...

It’s the same deal with women's rights. Before the mid-40s, women basically only had the right to pump out kids endlessly, slave away in kitchens and fields, and get beaten once in a while.

I mean, yeah, parents really ought to take a hard look at what kind of legacy they’re actually passing down to their kids.

Take my experience, for instance. I grew up in an environment where practicing your faith was basically a dangerous game. Looking back, I have this huge, messy tangle of memories from that time—stuff like sneaking off to church in secret, people mocking us, all that hushed whispering in the hallways, open confrontations, and some pretty heavy-duty struggles my parents dealt with because of their beliefs.

But honestly, if there's one thing that sticks out from that whole whirlwind of emotions and memories today, it's just the fact that they lived true to what they believed in, even when it made things incredibly difficult for them.

I definitely don't want my children to grow up to be people who say one thing but think something completely different, just because it’s easier or avoids making waves. It matters to me that they see how we, as parents, actually walk the walk; I guess you could say our approach to religious studies is just one small part of a much larger process of being authentic.

loneridge94 said:I mean, yeah, parents really ought to take a hard look at what kind of legacy they’re actually passing down to their kids.

Take my experience, for instance. I grew up in an environment where practicing your faith was basically a dangerous game. Looking back, I have this huge, messy tangle of memories from that time—stuff like sneaking off to church in secret, people mocking us, all that hushed whispering in the hallways, open confrontations, and some pretty heavy-duty struggles my parents dealt with because of their beliefs.

But honestly, if there's one thing that sticks out from that whole whirlwind of emotions and memories today, it's just the fact that they lived true to what they believed in, even when it made things incredibly difficult for them.

I definitely don't want my children to grow up to be people who say one thing but think something completely different, just because it’s easier or avoids making waves. It matters to me that they see how we, as parents, actually walk the walk; I guess you could say our approach to religious studies is just one small part of a much larger process of being authentic.

In short,

Patrick Harris5 said:If by "clergy" you mean the Communists after 1945, then sure... Otherwise, the Church and literacy? Please. As if...

It’s the same deal with women's rights. Before the mid-40s, women basically only had the right to pump out kids endlessly, slave away in kitchens and fields, and get beaten once in a while.

First off, I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm talking about basic, primary literacy.

To be honest, Mark Twain was one of the most significant figures in actually making the nation literate; before the modern era, it was more about informal education, not formal schooling.

The historical landmarks say it all, yet you're just spouting nonsense and showing you have no grasp of your own culture.

And second, "before '45"?

Read what you're writing. Try picking up a newspaper once in a while, or at least check a news site.

Also, that whole idea about Mary being a comrade is just laughable and was debunked ages ago. It’s common knowledge how those women lived after '45; it's no secret they played around with freedom only to end up getting lashed at work by the boss, or having their female colleagues become secretaries. Not everyone was a Sarah or a hope.

The topic here is religious education in schools. We're discussing ways to fight against it, but I don't consider fighting to mean disparaging someone's faith or belittling the very traditions that produced so many good things for the entire European landscape.

Priests were the first ones to start writing in local languages across all of Europe—from Italy through Spain to this part of the world. By resisting the Popes and the dominance of Latin in the liturgy, they developed the first written scripts for native tongues and opened the first schools for the illiterate masses.

Regardless of everything, I get why you're angry. Religious ed and institutional garbage makes me furious too, but with this approach, you're just doing the same thing and aren't any different. It's just that classic, bloated, postmodern anti-theist way of operating—a totally outdated stance in this era of tolerance and hipsterism.

silentraven6 said:First off, I don't even know how to respond to that. I'm talking about basic, primary literacy.

To be honest, Mark Twain was one of the most significant figures in actually making the nation literate; before the modern era, it was more about informal education, not formal schooling.

The historical landmarks say it all, yet you're just spouting nonsense and showing you have no grasp of your own culture.

And second, "before '45"?

Read what you're writing. Try picking up a newspaper once in a while, or at least check a news site.

Also, that whole idea about Mary being a comrade is just laughable and was debunked ages ago. It’s common knowledge how those women lived after '45; it's no secret they played around with freedom only to end up getting lashed at work by the boss, or having their female colleagues become secretaries. Not everyone was a Sarah or a hope.

The topic here is religious education in schools. We're discussing ways to fight against it, but I don't consider fighting to mean disparaging someone's faith or belittling the very traditions that produced so many good things for the entire European landscape.

Priests were the first ones to start writing in local languages across all of Europe—from Italy through Spain to this part of the world. By resisting the Popes and the dominance of Latin in the liturgy, they developed the first written scripts for native tongues and opened the first schools for the illiterate masses.

Regardless of everything, I get why you're angry. Religious ed and institutional garbage makes me furious too, but with this approach, you're just doing the same thing and aren't any different. It's just that classic, bloated, postmodern anti-theist way of operating—a totally outdated stance in this era of tolerance and hipsterism.

You're just making stuff up now. Please, stop throwing around adjectives like "pseudo-agitprop" just to try and make your "facts" sound valid.

At the end of the day, you're the one who brought up literacy and priests in the first place...

And since you mentioned it, Mark Twain himself wasn't a priest. People could debate how certain individuals were educated throughout history, but this forum isn't the place for that.

And historical heritage? Well, the Miami arena is historical heritage too, but it wasn't built to host concerts and summer movies to spread love and tolerance—it was quite the opposite.

So, if you happen to get your "knowledge" and information from trashy tabloids or low-rent news sites, well, I don't read that garbage.

Tolerance is one thing, but forced religiosity where there's no real choice is something else entirely.

Your kid doesn't go to religion class, but then they go to music class and learn a song about letting Jesus into their heart?!

Tolerance?

The real question is: how do we actually fight this and try to change it? If anyone has a constructive suggestion—other than moving to Sweden or something—I'm all ears.

Patrick Harris5 said:You're just making stuff up now. Please, stop throwing around adjectives like "pseudo-agitprop" just to try and make your "facts" sound valid.

At the end of the day, you're the one who brought up literacy and priests in the first place...

And since you mentioned it, Mark Twain himself wasn't a priest. People could debate how certain individuals were educated throughout history, but this forum isn't the place for that.

And historical heritage? Well, the Miami arena is historical heritage too, but it wasn't built to host concerts and summer movies to spread love and tolerance—it was quite the opposite.

So, if you happen to get your "knowledge" and information from trashy tabloids or low-rent news sites, well, I don't read that garbage.

Tolerance is one thing, but forced religiosity where there's no real choice is something else entirely.

Your kid doesn't go to religion class, but then they go to music class and learn a song about letting Jesus into their heart?!

Tolerance?

The real question is: how do we actually fight this and try to change it? If anyone has a constructive suggestion—other than moving to Sweden or something—I'm all ears.

You totally misread my political leanings, but honestly, that says more about you and your need to lash out like that. You're just sitting at the opposite pole of this whole farce playing out in the political sphere. For what it's worth, my views lean toward Marxism. And yeah, I believe in God, whether you want to believe it or not.

Regarding the song... reach out to the Department of Education, the publishers, the textbook authors. Write letters, organize forums, take it to the media.

On a forum like this, we just vent.

A few of us here were more than happy to write to publishers back when they released those demonic little dictionaries that weren't properly vetted. Why wouldn't you write to them then over the content?

silentraven6 said:You totally misread my political leanings, but honestly, that says more about you and your need to lash out like that. You're just sitting at the opposite pole of this whole farce playing out in the political sphere. For what it's worth, my views lean toward Marxism. And yeah, I believe in God, whether you want to believe it or not.

Regarding the song... reach out to the Department of Education, the publishers, the textbook authors. Write letters, organize forums, take it to the media.

On a forum like this, we just vent.

A few of us here were more than happy to write to publishers back when they released those demonic little dictionaries that weren't properly vetted. Why wouldn't you write to them then over the content?

Anyway, whatever makes you happy. As far as I'm concerned, keep doing your thing—life'll probably go faster and better for you that way..

For instance, I found myself genuinely irritated by how Sunday was defined in a second-grade textbook:

Sunday—the day of Jesus’s resurrection. On this particular day, Christians don't bother with their usual grind; instead, they gather within their local churches to devote themselves to Mass and prayer.

So, let me get this straight—everyone who works on Sunday just to earn a paycheck and put food on the table for their family, simply because they work for an employer who treats Sunday like any other workday, isn't considered Christian?!🙂

Sam Kim12 said:For instance, I found myself genuinely irritated by how Sunday was defined in a second-grade textbook:

Sunday—the day of Jesus’s resurrection. On this particular day, Christians don't bother with their usual grind; instead, they gather within their local churches to devote themselves to Mass and prayer.

So, let me get this straight—everyone who works on Sunday just to earn a paycheck and put food on the table for their family, simply because they work for an employer who treats Sunday like any other workday, isn't considered Christian?!🙂

That’s not what it means.

In its most basic sense, it means you aren't out digging holes in the yard, doing a massive deep clean, running three loads of laundry, drilling through walls, managing contractors, fixing things around the house... instead, you go to Mass and dedicate time to your family.

The Church has always been against working on Sunday.

It's also something well-known to practical believers. People like that don't make a huge deal out of it, and honestly, during sermons, priests often mention that it isn't a sin to miss Mass if you have to work to survive; rather, you should find a moment of silence to pray when you can. There are decent priests out there, believe it or not.

If someone thinks that doesn't sit right with them, then they don't need to be a practical believer. For those who *are* practical believers, if an opportunity arises where they end up violating the Lord's Day, they confess it and seek absolution.

That is the dogma. I don't get why people act like it's some huge, shocking revelation.

silentraven6 said:That’s not what it means.

In its most basic sense, it means you aren't out digging holes in the yard, doing a massive deep clean, running three loads of laundry, drilling through walls, managing contractors, fixing things around the house... instead, you go to Mass and dedicate time to your family.

The Church has always been against working on Sunday.

It's also something well-known to practical believers. People like that don't make a huge deal out of it, and honestly, during sermons, priests often mention that it isn't a sin to miss Mass if you have to work to survive; rather, you should find a moment of silence to pray when you can. There are decent priests out there, believe it or not.

If someone thinks that doesn't sit right with them, then they don't need to be a practical believer. For those who *are* practical believers, if an opportunity arises where they end up violating the Lord's Day, they confess it and seek absolution.

That is the dogma. I don't get why people act like it's some huge, shocking revelation.

Fine, then what’s the distinction between not going to work and just starting the washing machine? — the machine washes while you earn your bread.☕

As for there being normal priests—yes, they exist, but unfortunately, they are becoming increasingly rare.

BTW: all you really need to do is read the Bible, because most sermons from the vast majority of priests barely even touch upon the Bible.

I just love it when my priest stands there at the altar lecturing me about how materialistic everything is, how a true believer shouldn't care about worldly possessions, all while he's sipping from a gold chalice encrusted with rubies.🐔

Sam Kim12 said:Fine, then what’s the distinction between not going to work and just starting the washing machine? — the machine washes while you earn your bread.☕

As for there being normal priests—yes, they exist, but unfortunately, they are becoming increasingly rare.

BTW: all you really need to do is read the Bible, because most sermons from the vast majority of priests barely even touch upon the Bible.

I just love it when my priest stands there at the altar lecturing me about how materialistic everything is, how a true believer shouldn't care about worldly possessions, all while he's sipping from a gold chalice encrusted with rubies.🐔

If you can't see the distinction, I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

The point isn't whether someone else is doing a task for you or not; it's about not planning that specific day around chores. You should set that day aside for God's word, your family, and your spirituality.

The world is set up in a way where people have to work on Sunday just to survive—that's just how things are organized—and believers are constantly being reminded that working then doesn't make them sinners.

I am completely with you regarding the sermons. That's exactly why I don't go to church anymore and why I don't identify as Catholic. I nurture my faith in a way that feels right to me, and I have no desire to belong to a community that views attending service as a chore, a mere custom, or just some mindless tradition.

On the other hand, if you aren't going to support the principles of that community, why do you still claim to be part of it? And why do those principles bother you so much?

I just don't get it.

Why enroll your kids in religious education if you aren't doing anything to stop such nonsense? Why call yourselves Catholics if the commandment about not working on Sunday bothers you so much? For heaven's sake, why practice anything just because of pure cultural habit?

Yes, a believer needs to know how to read the Bible. My semi-literate grandfather knew it inside and out; back in the sixties, he actually walked out of a church after calling out a priest for his sermon, both critically and practically.
And now, I have people telling me that in a world where almost everyone is literate and can access information in seconds, I just have to go along with certain cultural traditions and circuses.

That has nothing to do with faith or spirituality. Religious education is a whole different story. But interestingly enough, the most complaints I hear come from the parents whose kids are actually enrolled.

Are you guys out of your minds?

silentraven6 said:If you can't see the distinction, I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

The point isn't whether someone else is doing a task for you or not; it's about not planning that specific day around chores. You should set that day aside for God's word, your family, and your spirituality.

The world is set up in a way where people have to work on Sunday just to survive—that's just how things are organized—and believers are constantly being reminded that working then doesn't make them sinners.

I am completely with you regarding the sermons. That's exactly why I don't go to church anymore and why I don't identify as Catholic. I nurture my faith in a way that feels right to me, and I have no desire to belong to a community that views attending service as a chore, a mere custom, or just some mindless tradition.

On the other hand, if you aren't going to support the principles of that community, why do you still claim to be part of it? And why do those principles bother you so much?

I just don't get it.

Why enroll your kids in religious education if you aren't doing anything to stop such nonsense? Why call yourselves Catholics if the commandment about not working on Sunday bothers you so much? For heaven's sake, why practice anything just because of pure cultural habit?

Yes, a believer needs to know how to read the Bible. My semi-literate grandfather knew it inside and out; back in the sixties, he actually walked out of a church after calling out a priest for his sermon, both critically and practically.
And now, I have people telling me that in a world where almost everyone is literate and can access information in seconds, I just have to go along with certain cultural traditions and circuses.

That has nothing to do with faith or spirituality. Religious education is a whole different story. But interestingly enough, the most complaints I hear come from the parents whose kids are actually enrolled.

Are you guys out of your minds?

This is exactly what I'm wondering about too 😬

The day before yesterday, we had a mass for the descent of the Holy Spirit. Kids and parents got a notification from their school religion class saying they needed to be there five minutes before the 9 AM mass.
It was pouring rain, windy, and it's 9 on a Sunday morning.
Why—and I am seriously asking—WHY would anyone drag a kid to this mass if it means nothing to them? 🤷

I volunteer with kids and teens, especially prepping them for sacraments, and I love my job—but even I had to force myself to get to that mass in that weather.

Then you've got at least ten parents standing outside the church, spending the whole mass huddled under the awning, wasting an hour bitching about how pointless the service is, how they're being forced into this nonsense, how the kids should be sleeping in on Sunday, or how they'd rather be at some Yankees game instead of being here...

I just stood to the side, listening, and honestly having a blast 🍿🍿
Parents like that should be hit with another mass a week, maybe First Friday adoration, plus the Rosary and litanies before mass starts, or the Good Friday service... something where they have to stand in church for three hours straight :clapping::clapping::clapping:

But hey, lucky little Perika (and his mom!) doesn't have to go to mass— because he doesn't take religion class 🤦

silentraven6 said:If you can't see the distinction, I honestly don't know how much clearer I can make it for you.

The point isn't whether someone else is doing a task for you or not; it's about not planning that specific day around chores. You should set that day aside for God's word, your family, and your spirituality.

The world is set up in a way where people have to work on Sunday just to survive—that's just how things are organized—and believers are constantly being reminded that working then doesn't make them sinners.

I am completely with you regarding the sermons. That's exactly why I don't go to church anymore and why I don't identify as Catholic. I nurture my faith in a way that feels right to me, and I have no desire to belong to a community that views attending service as a chore, a mere custom, or just some mindless tradition.

On the other hand, if you aren't going to support the principles of that community, why do you still claim to be part of it? And why do those principles bother you so much?

I just don't get it.

Why enroll your kids in religious education if you aren't doing anything to stop such nonsense? Why call yourselves Catholics if the commandment about not working on Sunday bothers you so much? For heaven's sake, why practice anything just because of pure cultural habit?

Yes, a believer needs to know how to read the Bible. My semi-literate grandfather knew it inside and out; back in the sixties, he actually walked out of a church after calling out a priest for his sermon, both critically and practically.
And now, I have people telling me that in a world where almost everyone is literate and can access information in seconds, I just have to go along with certain cultural traditions and circuses.

That has nothing to do with faith or spirituality. Religious education is a whole different story. But interestingly enough, the most complaints I hear come from the parents whose kids are actually enrolled.

Are you guys out of your minds?

We’re all on the same page here—no doubt about it.😉.
I don't exactly consider myself a Catholic—and that’s solely because, in my view, faith isn't something you can measure by how often you show up at Mass. Honestly, seeing the crowd of people who make it an obligation to sit in those pews every single Sunday just makes me feel a bit nauseated. To me, true prayer isn't a scheduled performance; I find myself praying when I actually feel the need—most often when I'm standing over my brother's grave.

I didn't sign the kids up for religious education classes—they insisted on doing it themselves, and frankly, if they had asked me, I would have been the first one to say no. But neither my husband nor I wanted to be the ones standing in the way of their own little desires. Besides, the kids don't exactly complain about going to Mass—it’s the extra classes that feel like a chore. They just end up sitting through unnecessary, tedious lessons that they'll eventually learn and forget anyway—though, I suppose there's always the occasional old man showing up with cookies to make it slightly more tolerable. 😬)
It isn’t the faith itself—nor is it the core theology that bears the blame—but rather the people tasked with presenting it. I am talking about the clergy, the religious educators, and even those responsible for drafting the textbooks. They are the ones who distort the message.

Maybe I’m misreading the room, but from where I’m sitting—and I’ve been watching this play out in my local school district for a while now—it seems like everyone is losing their minds over the scheduling of religious studies. It’s an elective, plain and simple. Yet, for some reason, it constantly gets jammed right into the middle of the school day. Meanwhile, look at how they handle a second foreign language—also an elective, mind you—which usually gets tucked away in the first period or shoved to the very end of the day, or even moved to a different shift entirely once the kids hit high school. At least in my district, there's some semblance of logic applied to the languages, but the religious education classes seem to be treated like a mandatory centerpiece of the schedule.😉

Sam Kim12 said:We’re all on the same page here—no doubt about it.😉.
I don't exactly consider myself a Catholic—and that’s solely because, in my view, faith isn't something you can measure by how often you show up at Mass. Honestly, seeing the crowd of people who make it an obligation to sit in those pews every single Sunday just makes me feel a bit nauseated. To me, true prayer isn't a scheduled performance; I find myself praying when I actually feel the need—most often when I'm standing over my brother's grave.

I didn't sign the kids up for religious education classes—they insisted on doing it themselves, and frankly, if they had asked me, I would have been the first one to say no. But neither my husband nor I wanted to be the ones standing in the way of their own little desires. Besides, the kids don't exactly complain about going to Mass—it’s the extra classes that feel like a chore. They just end up sitting through unnecessary, tedious lessons that they'll eventually learn and forget anyway—though, I suppose there's always the occasional old man showing up with cookies to make it slightly more tolerable. 😬)
It isn’t the faith itself—nor is it the core theology that bears the blame—but rather the people tasked with presenting it. I am talking about the clergy, the religious educators, and even those responsible for drafting the textbooks. They are the ones who distort the message.

Maybe I’m misreading the room, but from where I’m sitting—and I’ve been watching this play out in my local school district for a while now—it seems like everyone is losing their minds over the scheduling of religious studies. It’s an elective, plain and simple. Yet, for some reason, it constantly gets jammed right into the middle of the school day. Meanwhile, look at how they handle a second foreign language—also an elective, mind you—which usually gets tucked away in the first period or shoved to the very end of the day, or even moved to a different shift entirely once the kids hit high school. At least in my district, there's some semblance of logic applied to the languages, but the religious education classes seem to be treated like a mandatory centerpiece of the schedule.😉

Well, you might be looking at it wrong; in my district, religious studies is either the very first thing in the morning or the last thing before dismissal, and most kids just go along with it. Still, some parents find something to gripe about—whether it's the textbooks or the fact that religious studies is even offered at school. I heard one mom say she didn't want her kid singled out from the group—like, if everyone else is going, her kid should go too. Honestly, it's hard to wrap my head around the logic regarding these classes... there's always some reason why certain kids are "forced" to attend, even when parents claim they don't agree with any of it. Meanwhile, nobody bats an eye if half the kids go to soccer practice and the others sign up for different extracurriculars 🤔🤔