Religion classes in school - Megathread

Kate Cox2 said:Oh, of course I am aware of that... precisely because I am a believer myself. I am a regular attendee at my local parish and I am intimately familiar with how the sacramental preparation classes are conducted there. To put it briefly: they take place on Sundays after Mass, and I find that perfectly acceptable since she receives all the other instruction during her school hours. Since we are already at Mass together every single Sunday, she understands the significance of it, and it won't come as a shock to her. I often hear children of my friends saying things like, "In third grade, we'll HAVE to go to Mass." Given that I am a person of faith and we attend Mass every Sunday without fail, such a statement speaks volumes to me about their upbringing. My child has been raised within the faith since birth; to her, this is entirely natural and normal. If it so happens that our pastor changes right when she is due for her sacraments, or if we do happen to be assigned some grumpy old man, I will simply find a more suitable arrangement for myself and my daughter.
In any event, it is a great relief to me that we have religious education offered in our schools, and frankly, it suits ME just fine. And that is coming from me, someone who pays taxes just like those who find it so objectionable.
Since religious studies is an elective rather than a mandatory requirement, I cannot see a better or more reasonable solution than this. Everyone wins. Those who want it can participate, and those who don't have no obligation. It is as simple as that.

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

Great. That’s how every parish in the country should be doing it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Cox2 said:I simply cannot get involved in those kinds of high-level policy decisions... that is something that needs to be settled with the school board and the Department of Education... I honestly don't know how those bureaucratic processes even work. I can certainly empathize with the frustration some colleagues feel if they see others in a more advantageous position; I truly understand that.
But that is hardly a justification for everyone to go out with pitchforks and torches against religious education, trying to burn it at the stake and fire every single instructor in the field.
We need to solve the actual problems, I agree. However, this isn't the first, last, or even most significant instance of inequality among faculty members in schools—regardless of which subject they teach. Even if we were to fix the elective scheduling issue, someone else would inevitably end up under the microscope. While we shouldn't sweep issues under the rug, it’s unreasonable to suggest that the entire subject should just be removed from the curriculum because of it.
Speaking as a parent, I find it perfectly appropriate that such a subject remains available in our schools, and I am quite pleased that it does...
Therefore, if the discussion regarding religious education in schools is focused on how to resolve scheduling gaps for students or addressing why certain teachers lack the same working conditions as their peers in religious studies—then by all means, let's discuss that.

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

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

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

Kate Cox2 said:I simply cannot get involved in those kinds of high-level policy decisions... that is something that needs to be settled with the school board and the Department of Education... I honestly don't know how those bureaucratic processes even work. I can certainly empathize with the frustration some colleagues feel if they see others in a more advantageous position; I truly understand that.
But that is hardly a justification for everyone to go out with pitchforks and torches against religious education, trying to burn it at the stake and fire every single instructor in the field.
We need to solve the actual problems, I agree. However, this isn't the first, last, or even most significant instance of inequality among faculty members in schools—regardless of which subject they teach. Even if we were to fix the elective scheduling issue, someone else would inevitably end up under the microscope. While we shouldn't sweep issues under the rug, it’s unreasonable to suggest that the entire subject should just be removed from the curriculum because of it.
Speaking as a parent, I find it perfectly appropriate that such a subject remains available in our schools, and I am quite pleased that it does...
Therefore, if the discussion regarding religious education in schools is focused on how to resolve scheduling gaps for students or addressing why certain teachers lack the same working conditions as their peers in religious studies—then by all means, let's discuss that.

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

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

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

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

Kate Cox2 said:Well, just because you don't view them as facts doesn't change anything; that is merely your personal perspective. To believers, those truths are absolute. In the US, for instance, if you look at certain private institutions, they teach Evangelical Lutheranism specifically.
In other places, you might see Orthodox teachings offered as an elective... and so on.

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

Those aren't scientific facts. They're beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Cox2 said:For instance, computer science—which is an elective—is scheduled right before Italian, which is also an elective. However, because the computer science course only runs for one period, whereas the Italian program doesn't follow that same structure, the kids who are only signed up for Italian end up stuck with a two-hour gap in their schedule. It’s quite inefficient, really.

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

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

What kind of questions are these?😕

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

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

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

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

It should also be noted that a course covering the five major world religions isn't quite the same thing as the religious education classes we have in our own schools.

It would be a refreshing change of pace if religious educators actually started introducing faith to children through a lens of genuine love—rather than relying on rigid moralizing and the soul-crushing pursuit of perfect grades.
Instead, we’re just instilling resentment and deep-seated hostility toward spirituality because these classes fail to connect anything meaningful, peaceful, or beautiful to the experience.
We ought to be teaching kids to value and respect faith—if not through their own personal conviction or spiritual hunger, then at the very least by respecting it as part of our shared American heritage, our roots, and the customs that define us. It is something deeply embedded in our history; it’s what guided us through centuries and provided the strength to endure impossible hardships over generations. Beyond that, it should be about showing respect for those who *do* feel a profound need for spiritual connection—regardless of which specific faith they follow.
It truly saddens me that, at times, these lessons are delivered by individuals who lack even the slightest talent for conveying the warmth, importance, or vastness of faith. I often walk away with the impression that certain instructors are nothing more than narrow-minded, deeply insecure people whose sole objective is to exert dominance over children—essentially using them as punching bags to vent their own personal frustrations.

I honestly don’t get these parents who keep harping on about how religion classes are elective—as if that's the issue—or why having them in school bothers anyone, since nobody is actually forced to attend.
The real grievance isn't that the subject exists at all; it's those unfortunate Concordats that prevent it from being scheduled as a preliminary period, a seventh period, or even during an afternoon session.
Would I care if any other elective were offered? If someone wants to learn crochet or how to play the ukulele, let them play. I highly doubt anyone would start a massive debate or open a thread titled "Ukuleles in Schools: The Mega-Thread."
But if that niche subject suddenly appeared during second or third period twice a week, people would certainly view it differently.
So, after reading through this whole discussion, I still don't understand how some people miss the point. For most of us, the issue isn't the existence of religious education; it's the way it's shoved right into the middle of the school day, accompanied by that classic shrug of the shoulders: "Well, it's elective, so if you don't want to, you don't have to..."

Sent from my VTR-L09 using Reddit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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