Religion classes in school - Megathread

Robert Rodriguez9 said:I’m not sure on this one, but if they had a choice, they might pick computer science or maybe a language that aligns better with religious studies. Then again, religious education holds a different status than your typical elective since it isn't slotted into the standard schedule alongside the core subjects (thanks to that specific federal agreement).

I wonder which one that would be.

Perhaps Python or Prolog?

Jacob Lopez2 said:That’s true, but if students have the option to simply opt out, then those attending religious classes aren't being disadvantaged—especially since they can attend services at any local church for free. That’s my point.

The issue is that even though religion is an elective, they managed to wedge it right into the regular school schedule. Other electives don't get that luxury; they usually happen after hours. Because of that specific agreement with the Vatican, it's been given this special status among electives, and the people running the program are doing their best to squeeze it into the standard school day.🤮
The part about attending church is spot on, too. But the clergy isn't interested in that because they wouldn't see the same turnout. It’s better for them to keep things exactly as they are, maintaining the illusion that "no child is being excluded," as long as the system works.

We live in a pretty small town, and honestly, I was low-key freaking out when my first grader started school, thinking she’d be totally isolated since she'd be the only one opting out of religious ed...
It turns out there are actually eight kids who don't sign up for the religion classes. It's a real mix, too—some parents are even teachers within a smaller Christian denomination, some families are Muslim, and others, just like us, are simply non-religious.
Even with that many kids, the school doesn't bother organizing any actual activities for them. So, they just kind of shuffle them around wherever it's convenient for the administration.
Up until third grade, I was basically making a scene every chance I got, demanding they fix the schedule to accommodate the kids who aren't doing religious studies.
Eventually, I realized the older kids were big enough to actually enjoy having that free period, so I stepped back from the scheduling wars and let the younger grades deal with it.
Then my daughter hit that stage where she's a bit more sensitive, and I worried she'd just want to follow the crowd of her old preschool friends who all go to those classes together. That would have put me in a nightmare position, right? Like, do I stick to our family values, or do I teach her to make her own choices and live with the consequences?
Thankfully, she totally surprised me by sticking to what we believe at home.
And get this—an even bigger shocker: there are actually twelve kids total who skip the religious classes now! 😳
I guess we'll see what happens with the youngest one in a year or so, but based on this little sample size, it looks like the students themselves (and their parents) are secularizing on their own, without the government even needing to step in and force it.

With such a huge chunk of kids opting out, you'd think the school might consider splitting the classes into "religious" and "non-religious" tracks, but then again, I'm terrified that would just lead to creating Catholic vs. non-Catholic classrooms, and I really don't want to see religious schools sprouting up inside our public school system.

So, they went ahead and split the two first-grade classes in a really specific way—like, intentionally skewed. In Class A, almost everyone is signed up for religious studies, maybe five kids aren't. Then you look at Class B, and it’s basically the exact opposite—nearly everyone skips it, with maybe five kids actually attending.
Some people are whispering that this is just a move to protect certain teaching positions, while others claim they’re just trying to avoid a messy split in the curriculum...
Honestly, who knows what the real motivation is behind this? It could be something else entirely, some third factor we haven't even considered.

In my experience, if there are about 20 kids in a grade who aren't attending school, there’s no way they’re going to group them together and create one massive, unmanageable classroom.
It seems like they’re actually trying to consolidate more students into single classrooms, at least at our local school district.
It just makes things easier for everyone involved.

rowdypanther12 said:In my experience, if there are about 20 kids in a grade who aren't attending school, there’s no way they’re going to group them together and create one massive, unmanageable classroom.
It seems like they’re actually trying to consolidate more students into single classrooms, at least at our local school district.
It just makes things easier for everyone involved.

Honestly, dealing with just one kid is much simpler for the administration.
Trying to manage groups of 3, 4, or 5 gets complicated for the school because if they're scattered across different classrooms, you can't exactly squeeze another 10 students into an Art class that already has 28 kids in it.
And generally speaking, you need to have at least 10 of them together unless it's the very first or last period of the day—and since they can't be left unsupervised, that's a tough sell.

If Class A and Class B both only have 15 students attending religion class, while the others don't, they could easily just merge Classes A and B together. Meanwhile, the rest of the kids could be elsewhere. It would actually solve the scheduling headache where religious education can't always be the first or last period for everyone. Since those two classes would be changing rooms together, the school could definitely prioritize giving them that first or last slot.
But that’ll probably never happen because then some religion teacher would lose teaching hours...
It's a bit funny compared to the German teachers, who get stuck with Classes A, B, and C all at once. I used to worry about the quality of language instruction at the school, and honestly, it doesn't seem fair that they're allowed to combine language classes but not religion. If anything, smaller language groups are better so every student gets more practice speaking. With religion, they're mostly listening to stories anyway, so smaller groups aren't even necessary—in fact, maybe keeping them quiet is better so they don't start sharing too many "opinions!"

I’ve got this nagging fear that if we actually go through with separating religious education from the standard curriculum, we're just opening a massive can of worms, you know? Like, once those classes are isolated, won't people immediately start demanding that everything taught in religion class perfectly aligns with specific religious doctrines, and before you even know it, they'll be pushing those same agendas into science class too? It’s like a slippery slope where one little change leads to a total overhaul of how we teach reality itself.
Maybe I'm just tripping, but...

rowdypanther12 said:In my experience, if there are about 20 kids in a grade who aren't attending school, there’s no way they’re going to group them together and create one massive, unmanageable classroom.
It seems like they’re actually trying to consolidate more students into single classrooms, at least at our local school district.
It just makes things easier for everyone involved.

As if we didn't have enough to deal with—now we're looking at segregation based on religious beliefs.

Peter Rogers said:I’ve got this nagging fear that if we actually go through with separating religious education from the standard curriculum, we're just opening a massive can of worms, you know? Like, once those classes are isolated, won't people immediately start demanding that everything taught in religion class perfectly aligns with specific religious doctrines, and before you even know it, they'll be pushing those same agendas into science class too? It’s like a slippery slope where one little change leads to a total overhaul of how we teach reality itself.
Maybe I'm just tripping, but...

That’s something that has crossed my mind more than a few times too. But based on what I remember about how things are set up at your school, they could probably just have two different groups listening to the religious education lesson at once.
The others would just stay home during that period.
The religious ed teacher would end up with two fewer hours in their weekly schedule, but hey, it is what it is.

Jacob Alvarez said:Because they know if they actually offered a decent elective during that slot, nobody would bother showing up for religion class anyway.

Exactly!👍 Or at least way fewer kids would show up—it's a numbers game.😁 That’s why the Church fights so hard against any other electives in American elementary schools.👎

Susan James said:That’s something that has crossed my mind more than a few times too. But based on what I remember about how things are set up at your school, they could probably just have two different groups listening to the religious education lesson at once.
The others would just stay home during that period.
The religious ed teacher would end up with two fewer hours in their weekly schedule, but hey, it is what it is.

If the school wants to make it happen, we can organize classes without religion easily enough. For instance, at my son's high school in Washington, D.C., they have one class that's 100% ethics, one that's 100% religion, and then there are mixed groups—part ethics, part religion—all within the same grade level. So, yeah, it can be done whenever they want; it just all comes down to what the principal decides.👍

I think that kicks in during high school, when they have to choose between religion or ethics classes. It doesn't work that way in elementary school.

It doesn't work that way because the schedule is strictly maintained, but implementing it isn't impossible—not even at the foundational level.

We didn't enroll our child in religion classes for some deeply shallow reason; it’s simply because it’s one more subject on an already crowded curriculum. 😁
And honestly, there isn't much of an issue with the actual content; most kids just end up hanging out in the library anyway, so it’s essentially a study hall.
I also disagree with the idea that they should split the classes based on who attends and who doesn't—that feels like a form of segregation—but they certainly could have scheduled the lessons at the very beginning or the very end of the school day.
It really makes you wonder, though: if they did move the timing, how many students would actually show up? 😉
The truth is, from talking to a huge number of parents, they are enrolling their children for this exact reason: they are terrified their kids will be left wandering the halls aimlessly while everyone else is in class.

So, apparently, religion is supposed to be a mandatory subject, and they’re claiming it shouldn't even be grouped in the same elective category as German or Computer Science. 🙄

https://www.nytimes.com/news/us/politics/religion-education-debate/8942819/

Robert Rodriguez9 said:So, apparently, religion is supposed to be a mandatory subject, and they’re claiming it shouldn't even be grouped in the same elective category as German or Computer Science. 🙄

https://www.nytimes.com/news/us/politics/religion-education-debate/8942819/

Religious studies textbooks are official school textbooks, treated exactly the same as any other required course textbook under Section 4, Item 1.

Wow, okay! So first they won't buy art portfolios for kids—even though art is required and those folders are essential since there aren't traditional textbooks—and now they're saying they won't pay for second language materials either? But apparently, everyone gets a religious studies book provided, even for those who don't pick it, just in case they change their minds later. 🙂)

Robert Rodriguez9 said:So, apparently, religion is supposed to be a mandatory subject, and they’re claiming it shouldn't even be grouped in the same elective category as German or Computer Science. 🙄

https://www.nytimes.com/news/us/politics/religion-education-debate/8942819/

If I’m reading this right, John F. Kennedy thinks every principal who treats religion as just an elective is totally delusional. Apparently, since Vatican City and the KC signed an agreement here in America, it's officially a "mandatory elective"—whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean. So, because of that specific wording, he’s going to march straight down to the Department to demand why the government isn't footing the bill for textbooks for a subject that's technically listed as an elective? 🤔

Once you encounter "logic" like his, it’s hardly surprising that the rest of the "truth" they preach starts feeling just as questionable 😂

I suppose there might be some sane people out there somewhere, but you certainly won't hear their voices being broadcast on the major news networks ☕

People have already mentioned here that once you opt in, it basically becomes mandatory, regardless of the fine print. It’s not like you're stuck forever—you can technically opt out—but even that’s a bit of a headache. If you're persistent enough, though, you can make it happen. 😬

Look, once you commit to an elective, you're stuck with it for the entire school year—that’s just how it works. You can't just decide halfway through the semester that you're suddenly over Spanish or French and try to drop out.
Next year, though, you've got options; you can choose to skip it entirely or just take religion class instead.