Religion classes in school - Megathread

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

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

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

At my kid's school, over 90% of the classes take religion, but for electives like Spanish, French, or Microsoft, you don't even get half the kids showing up...

They end up grouping different grades together, which means those combined classes don't even hit a full roster.
So yeah, it’s totally expected that their scheduling looks like a mess because trying to cram a subject for multiple grade levels into a standard period... right in the middle of the regular school day... is basically impossible.

Then you've got the afternoon shift to deal with, whether it's an extra period or the very last slot of the day. Every single year, it's the same headache trying to figure out a schedule that actually works for everyone involved.

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 😁

Honestly, I don't see any reason to stress out about this at all, and if anything, it’s probably better that those kids aren't playing with yours... It’s basically like a perfect litmus test for character.

Any kid who is being filled with that kind of nonsense by their parents—you know, stuff like refusing to play with someone because of their religion, their background, or even just because they have cheaper sneakers or don't own a smartphone—that's not the kind of peer I want influencing my child's worldview.

And I don't see any issue (aside from maybe being a bit blunt?) with explaining to my kid exactly what kind of kid the other one is and how they were raised, and why it's actually a good thing that they aren't hanging out together.

I mean, why get worked up? 😂
I actually explained to my little girl that parents are usually at fault here, because they are. Of course, an 8-year-old isn't really equipped to grasp how some people can be so incredibly foolish.

rowdypanther12 said:I mean, why get worked up? 😂
I actually explained to my little girl that parents are usually at fault here, because they are. Of course, an 8-year-old isn't really equipped to grasp how some people can be so incredibly foolish.

Honestly, I’m still baffled by it myself. It doesn't click for me most days either.

Me too 😂 and I actually love that I get a little thrill every single time. It means I haven't already Googled 😁

Kate Cox2 said: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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You should probably post where exactly that is, because there are definitely people looking at land near the waterfront who want to build houses.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kate Cox2 said:I never said I didn't believe you; I am simply saying that this needs to be resolved. It can be solved if things were organized differently.
What one person finds useful, necessary, or unnecessary is entirely subjective.
For instance, I could argue that the specialized administrative services are a total waste of taxpayer money because they don't produce anything concrete—especially the psychologists. Out of all the ones I know, only one actually does what she was trained to do, and she does it with immense passion and expertise. She used to work at a major metropolitan center, and now she is at my child's school. All the other psychologists I have dealt with in schools haven't just failed to do their jobs, they were incredibly unprofessional. For example, in front of eighth graders, they would mock a teacher who had just started working, commenting on how "crazy" it was to give beginners the eighth grade, and then they would sit there with the students for an entire period, laughing along with them while the teacher tries to teach. So, I repeat: everyone draws conclusions based on their own experience. Physics is fundamentally necessary, as is math. Fine. But French, Greek, Latin, technical studies, psychologists, and pedagogues?? Well, everyone will tell you what they think based on their own subjective opinion. It is the same for religion class—those who want it and have good experiences will say it is essential, and vice versa.

I say let's just replace all of them with clergy!🤣

Kate Cox2 said: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.

Religious ed has done so much "good" for America that now less than half of all marriages happen in a church, and nobody even follows what was preached in class this past Wednesday.

but hey, clearly we all need to keep attending those religious studies classes, right? 🤦🤦🤦

get this—my high school teacher used to tell students that atheists were violent people. 🤦

some kids actually brought that up to me during my class.

CHURCH MARRIAGES COLLAPSING: After 25 years of religious education in schools, the Church admits they’ve pushed believers away.

http://www.cnn.com/news/article/example-link

Kate Cox2 said:I never said I didn't believe you; I am simply saying that this needs to be resolved. It can be solved if things were organized differently.
What one person finds useful, necessary, or unnecessary is entirely subjective.
For instance, I could argue that the specialized administrative services are a total waste of taxpayer money because they don't produce anything concrete—especially the psychologists. Out of all the ones I know, only one actually does what she was trained to do, and she does it with immense passion and expertise. She used to work at a major metropolitan center, and now she is at my child's school. All the other psychologists I have dealt with in schools haven't just failed to do their jobs, they were incredibly unprofessional. For example, in front of eighth graders, they would mock a teacher who had just started working, commenting on how "crazy" it was to give beginners the eighth grade, and then they would sit there with the students for an entire period, laughing along with them while the teacher tries to teach. So, I repeat: everyone draws conclusions based on their own experience. Physics is fundamentally necessary, as is math. Fine. But French, Greek, Latin, technical studies, psychologists, and pedagogues?? Well, everyone will tell you what they think based on their own subjective opinion. It is the same for religion class—those who want it and have good experiences will say it is essential, and vice versa.

🤣
Are you actually serious right now? 😕

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

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

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

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

Larry Walker24 said:Religious ed has done so much "good" for America that now less than half of all marriages happen in a church, and nobody even follows what was preached in class this past Wednesday.

but hey, clearly we all need to keep attending those religious studies classes, right? 🤦🤦🤦

get this—my high school teacher used to tell students that atheists were violent people. 🤦

some kids actually brought that up to me during my class.

CHURCH MARRIAGES COLLAPSING: After 25 years of religious education in schools, the Church admits they’ve pushed believers away.

http://www.cnn.com/news/article/example-link

there's really no need to go out of your way to hate us Catholics.
in my school, 100% of the kids take religion class.
and regarding that Wednesday post, it's mandatory for adults
even though I—along with most others—did fast

at the end of the day, it's not about what goes into your mouth, it's about what comes out of it

rowdymoose77 said:there's really no need to go out of your way to hate us Catholics.
in my school, 100% of the kids take religion class.
and regarding that Wednesday post, it's mandatory for adults
even though I—along with most others—did fast

at the end of the day, it's not about what goes into your mouth, it's about what comes out of it

I always find it fascinating when believers decide they get to pick and choose which sins actually count.

Matthew Young35 said:I always find it fascinating when believers decide they get to pick and choose which sins actually count.

Look, I never actually said that—but let’s be real here—if you’re treating your neighbor like garbage, acting out of pure spite, or just being completely devoid of any actual love... yeah, that's definitely a sin. It's way bigger than missing a meal during a fast, especially if we're looking at the Commandment of Love.
So, maybe take a second to think before you go accusing me of "making up" what constitutes a sin in the first place.
Have a good one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two posts from another thread:

1. "So I was scrolling through Facebook the other day in this group called 'Moving to Germany'—total newbies over there—and this guy starts venting because he got hit with a church tax bill. Turns out, when he was doing his paperwork after arriving in Germany, he checked the box saying he was Catholic. Now he’s asking how to dodge the tax and how to get some kind of official proof back home in America that he isn't Catholic anymore.
It's easy to be religious when it doesn't cost you a dime. "

2. "A few years back, I read a story in the papers about a guy who moved to Austria. He freaked out when the church tax showed up in the mail. He said everything would be fine if he could just 'unregister' from the church, but then he found out that under these new rules, the local priests there send notices over to the parishes back here in the States letting them know who officially quit.

If I remember right, his biggest fear was that the priest in his small hometown might blab it to everyone or announce it while his mom is sitting in Mass—man, the embarrassment! The guy was totally stuck. He wanted to unregister, but he wanted to do it secretly, without the whole town finding out. Because once he comes back home, he’ll probably still show up to Mass with everyone else since it's free here. It costs nothing to pretend you're a saint. "

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

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