Religion classes in school - Megathread

Kenneth Brown5 said:Kids are just sitting out in the hallways, sometimes even hanging out in the library instead of being in class.
I just wanted to say that seeing this is honestly pretty degrading.
It really speaks volumes about the people calling the shots—from the local school board and the state department down to the teachers who just walk right past those kids sitting on the floor without saying a word.
I seriously don't get how anyone can look at this and not feel a little bit ashamed.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy A50 using Reddit

👍

Well, it certainly says a lot about them, doesn't it? It actually reminds me of a certain historical mindset where people would basically argue, "Hey, they have a choice—if they don't want to sit in the hallway, they can just take religious studies instead."

My mom’s schedule is a total mess because religious studies was scheduled for the first two hours in the morning and then again during the afternoon block. In the mornings, she can’t even show up until the third period, and in the afternoons, she isn't allowed to leave campus, yet they provide absolutely zero designated space for her to sit down, relax, or actually get her homework done.

I didn't hold back at the very first PTA meeting; I marched right up and demanded they address this nonsense, pointing out how ridiculous it is that students don't have a place to work for a full hour and a half, and reminding them that it's not just three of us, but eight students who aren't attending those classes. While the teachers didn't make any grand promises to fix the systemic issues, they did listen—because within just two days, we were handed a brand new schedule.
Now, religious studies is set for the last two periods in the morning or the first two in the afternoon. It looks like they simply reshuffled the blocks to be more logical.

It works perfectly for us, though I sincerely hope no one else was left hanging, since this kind of disorganized scheduling is unfortunately all too common.

Jacob Lopez2 said:My mom’s schedule is a total mess because religious studies was scheduled for the first two hours in the morning and then again during the afternoon block. In the mornings, she can’t even show up until the third period, and in the afternoons, she isn't allowed to leave campus, yet they provide absolutely zero designated space for her to sit down, relax, or actually get her homework done.

I didn't hold back at the very first PTA meeting; I marched right up and demanded they address this nonsense, pointing out how ridiculous it is that students don't have a place to work for a full hour and a half, and reminding them that it's not just three of us, but eight students who aren't attending those classes. While the teachers didn't make any grand promises to fix the systemic issues, they did listen—because within just two days, we were handed a brand new schedule.
Now, religious studies is set for the last two periods in the morning or the first two in the afternoon. It looks like they simply reshuffled the blocks to be more logical.

It works perfectly for us, though I sincerely hope no one else was left hanging, since this kind of disorganized scheduling is unfortunately all too common.

So, I remember signing off on that permission slip for my older kid back in the day, you know, giving them the green light to head out of the school perimeter while those religious studies classes were going on. Why wouldn't I? It just seemed like one of those things you do to get them some breathing room, though looking back, I wonder if I should have been more careful about where they actually ended up wandering off to.
I mean, we’re talking about the older kids here, right? High schoolers and stuff. Honestly, it’s not even a big deal if they've got that setup, because if they live close enough to the neighborhood, they can just head back home whenever they need to. It works fine for them, doesn't it?
Look, there just wasn't any other way to play this, was there? I mean, honestly, trying to get everyone on the exact same page with their schedules is a complete nightmare, so what choice did they really have? It’s basically impossible to sync up every single person's availability without things falling apart, right?
I gotta admit, things are actually starting to look up on that front, if you ask me. It’s about time, right?
It’s kind of wild seeing how much things have changed, isn't it? Now, even the little elementary schoolers have their own dedicated space to hang out in, which feels like such a massive shift from when my oldest was still in those early grades. Back then, if you weren't sitting through some religious studies class, your only real option was just hovering around the hallway like a lost soul. Where did that all go? Everything just seems so much more organized now, but man, I remember those days being way more chaotic.
Honestly, it feels like there’s a massive wave of kids skipping out on religious ed classes these days, doesn't it? It's becoming such a huge trend, and I can't help but wonder where we actually went wrong or if this is just how things are headed now. Is it even surprising anymore? Everyone seems to be drifting away from those traditional Sunday school vibes, and honestly, seeing more and more kids just opting out makes you realize how much the whole landscape has shifted under our feet. It's wild how fast it's happening.
Finally, we’re actually seeing some movement in a positive direction, aren't we? It feels like things have been stuck in neutral for forever, just spinning our wheels while everyone argues about nothing, but at least this isn't total stagnation anymore. Is it enough to turn the whole thing around? Who knows. But hey, I'll take any sign of progress when it comes, even if it's just a tiny bit of momentum after all that waiting around. 🙂

Betty Wood54 said:And honestly, having even a single secular school run by a priest as principal feels like quite a bit. He can hold whatever "progressive" views he wants, I suppose, but at the end of the day, his primary accountability is to the Diocese. His fundamental job is to raise kids within the framework of the faith, which, in my view, just isn't compatible with a secular mission.

That’s just not true. Honestly, you’re missing the point entirely here. Why don't you try defining "secular" for yourself? Secularism isn't about denying religion; it's about separation and acknowledging its existence. There are plenty of secular people within religious communities—among parents, even among the clergy. Raising children in a faith-based environment doesn't inherently clash with a secular society. And please, let's not start bringing up radicalism as an argument. Secularism isn't some antagonistic force against religion, nor is religion against it. It's meant to be neutral. The laws built on secular principles should reflect that exact neutrality.

School administrators answer to their founders and are obligated to follow their specific guidelines. For those whose founder happens to be a Bishop, they still have to follow the laws of the USA, but a huge part of their accountability lies with their founder.

In many parts of the world, religious schools are actually recognized as premier educational institutions.

Jose Wells3 said:That’s just not true. Honestly, you’re missing the point entirely here. Why don't you try defining "secular" for yourself? Secularism isn't about denying religion; it's about separation and acknowledging its existence. There are plenty of secular people within religious communities—among parents, even among the clergy. Raising children in a faith-based environment doesn't inherently clash with a secular society. And please, let's not start bringing up radicalism as an argument. Secularism isn't some antagonistic force against religion, nor is religion against it. It's meant to be neutral. The laws built on secular principles should reflect that exact neutrality.

School administrators answer to their founders and are obligated to follow their specific guidelines. For those whose founder happens to be a Bishop, they still have to follow the laws of the USA, but a huge part of their accountability lies with their founder.

In many parts of the world, religious schools are actually recognized as premier educational institutions.

If the church and state are truly secular, yet we have religious education in schools, does that mean churches should host lectures on civics? Should teachers walk into churches to give presentations hand-picked by the government, with the church footing the bill?

While secularism might be a neutral term for the state, for the Catholic Church, it acts as a red flag—something deeply negative.

nimblelynx7 said:If the church and state are truly secular, yet we have religious education in schools, does that mean churches should host lectures on civics? Should teachers walk into churches to give presentations hand-picked by the government, with the church footing the bill?

While secularism might be a neutral term for the state, for the Catholic Church, it acts as a red flag—something deeply negative.

Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

Oh, really? 🥳

Did it ever occur to you that it's just plain wrong to separate kids in a public school based on their religion? And to top it off, we're basically paying taxes to fund the discrimination against our own children?

Yeah, we must be some real bunch of anti-theists, huh? How terrible of us!

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, really? 🥳

Did it ever occur to you that it's just plain wrong to separate kids in a public school based on their religion? And to top it off, we're basically paying taxes to fund the discrimination against our own children?

Yeah, we must be some real bunch of anti-theists, huh? How terrible of us!

I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. They separate kids by physical ability in PE class, too. But apparently, that isn't considered a valid argument.

Look, my kids are right here in the hallway. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of discrimination.

I don't have an issue with the financial side of things either, though I could give you a very vivid demonstration of how much those religious instructor salaries, the hiring processes, and their standing within the school system actually irritate me.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Jacob Lopez2 said:My mom’s schedule is a total mess because religious studies was scheduled for the first two hours in the morning and then again during the afternoon block. In the mornings, she can’t even show up until the third period, and in the afternoons, she isn't allowed to leave campus, yet they provide absolutely zero designated space for her to sit down, relax, or actually get her homework done.

I didn't hold back at the very first PTA meeting; I marched right up and demanded they address this nonsense, pointing out how ridiculous it is that students don't have a place to work for a full hour and a half, and reminding them that it's not just three of us, but eight students who aren't attending those classes. While the teachers didn't make any grand promises to fix the systemic issues, they did listen—because within just two days, we were handed a brand new schedule.
Now, religious studies is set for the last two periods in the morning or the first two in the afternoon. It looks like they simply reshuffled the blocks to be more logical.

It works perfectly for us, though I sincerely hope no one else was left hanging, since this kind of disorganized scheduling is unfortunately all too common.

I honestly think they gave it a shot—they were probably just waiting to see if everyone would stay quiet and let it slide.
It’s honestly so great to see that people are finally listening to you guys.
It honestly would have been even better if you hadn't even had to ask, but at the end of the day, the most important thing is that things worked out well for the kids.
That’s exactly why things are shifting—because parents just aren't stepping up like they used to.

I don't think anyone was actually left out here, since there are at least two people who believe the same thing. If you look at the math, it’s actually pretty easy to structure things so that the first and last periods fall during those specific school shifts.
Working the morning shifts can be a little more of a struggle sometimes, but honestly, it's nothing I can't handle.

Jose Wells3 said:I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. They separate kids by physical ability in PE class, too. But apparently, that isn't considered a valid argument.

Look, my kids are right here in the hallway. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of discrimination.

I don't have an issue with the financial side of things either, though I could give you a very vivid demonstration of how much those religious instructor salaries, the hiring processes, and their standing within the school system actually irritate me.

That's not what I'm talking about.

In PE, you don't tell kids they're fat. You don't bar them from entry because they wear glasses. You don't shove them into special rooms for being "fat and blind" where they're told they're headed straight to hell just for existing.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

What else is there to say? It implies institutional separation, yet that separation doesn't exist—it's being breached. That's like saying, "I ran a red light, but I didn't commit a violation." Makes zero sense.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

The term "client" implies consent. There is no consent here. This is forced imposition, just like this entire thread.

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

From where? Is anti-theism supposed to be a dirty word? Is it in the same league as "fascist," "criminal," or "abuser"?
As an anti-theist, I believe no religion belongs in public schools, let alone the government paying for religious "tutoring" for specific faiths.

What if they added Islamic studies to the standard schedule, and anyone wanting Catholic classes had to attend an after-school shift? Or what if they integrated the Quran into the American English curriculum?

It wasn't forced in; it’s there quite legally through international treaties.

You clearly don't grasp the concept of anti-theism. Terminology matters—it's a vital branch of any science.

The Bible has been part of my education for ages, just like any other religious text. Didn't they teach you about their historical significance and value? Or does anti-theism—if that's truly what you claim to be—forbid teaching anything about a faith that is, let me remind you, a constitutionally protected right for every citizen in America?

As an aspiring atheist who decided, along with my family, to finally check that box on the census—taking an active stance on a matter that irritates me—I don't see any issue with studying books that many people on this planet hold sacred, nor with respecting someone else's beliefs.

Even Nietzsche wasn't fully an anti-theist, yet anyone calling themselves that today should at least master the basic definition. It implies an active opposition to dogma, religious content, and faith itself.

We actually agree on almost everything; I just don't think your approach is correct or productive.

Religious studies weren't forced into the curriculum.
I don't think it was forced at all, let alone shoved back in there.

Religion classes were actually removed from schools back in the mid-40s, and they weren't really brought back until '91.
😬

Exactly. And religious studies was the very first subject mentioned in the testimony.
The Department of Education used to be called the Department of Commerce and Instruction—honestly, we should bring that back if we want any real results.

Sent from my SM-G991B via Reddit

Non-violent and strictly by the contract that nobody even knew existed until it was already signed 😂
I’d actually suggest they go ahead and peacefully sign an agreement to implement canon law instead of this nonsense secular system. They could just abolish divorce entirely if you were married in a church. Honestly, we've been harassed for decades by their version of "medical ethics"—all that talk about "life from conception" or those ridiculous stories about "babies in refrigerators" and similar nonsense that we simply don't care about.

And honestly, every time they push one of these absurdities, I find myself becoming an even more staunch anti-theist. It's just basic physics at this point—Newton's Third Law in action, nothing more...

nimblelynx7 said:Exactly. And religious studies was the very first subject mentioned in the testimony.
The Department of Education used to be called the Department of Commerce and Instruction—honestly, we should bring that back if we want any real results.

Sent from my SM-G991B via Reddit

I think you missed the sarcasm there.

The world is changing. There was a time when churches were the primary drivers of literacy and education, but that’s just not how things work anymore—and it shouldn't be. It's actually pretty sad that people were pushing to bring those old ways back into the classroom as if it were something to be proud of. To me, that feels like taking forty-five steps backward.

At the same time, as people push to bring religious instruction back into schools, we're seeing an increase in violence, more parents being aggressive toward teachers (or just losing respect for them), and more discrimination against minorities... You'd think that bringing religion back into the classroom would make the world a more peaceful and tolerant place. Instead, it seems like a bunch of officials with political agendas (and their kids) finally found a way to declare themselves believers without risking their jobs, which apparently wasn't an option for them back in the day.
Nowadays, being a member of a specific church group or showing up for services can practically give you an edge in hiring and promotions, especially in smaller towns.
And let's not forget how that one grade in religion can artificially bump up a student's GPA.

But hey, somehow the number of kids taking religious studies keeps dropping. Personally, I think once they stop including those grades in the overall GPA calculation, the numbers will drop even further.
The fear of what a teacher or classmates might say about a non-religious kid has definitely faded. Now, it's just a matter of making sure those grades don't skew the averages, so the students who actually care about faith can focus on it during extra sessions or Saturday mornings instead.🥳

Jose Wells3 said:Secularism implies institutional separation—something we actually have in place. Sure, it gets violated sometimes, but claiming that religious education is inherently incompatible with secularism? That’s just a total lapse in logic. Honestly, if you're an adult, shouldn't you be able to grasp what the term "secular" actually means?

Your example is, as usual, pure nonsense. It’s on par with asking a group of kindergarteners if they know what autosuggestion is, only to have them look at you blankly and ask if you're talking about a car suggestion.
Well, let me give you my two cents on that, too.

In a secular society, when a secular scholar gives a lecture on statecraft within a religious institution, it isn’t an intrusion. It isn't one organization overstepping its bounds into another. It's simply cooperation. Or perhaps, more accurately, it all comes down to who is footing the bill.

Alright, let's not drag this out any longer.

It honestly irritates me. You all frame your arguments around anti-theism when that’s clearly not the issue. The real concern here is the state of religious education in our public schools, yet you can see the disconnect from miles away. It’s transparent.

Look, I’m gonna say it: there is absolutely no way religious studies should be allowed in any school that gets its funding from the government. It's a non-starter. Period. If my tax dollars are paying for a classroom, I don't want them being used to push some specific faith on kids. It just feels wrong. We should be focusing on actual subjects—math, science, history—not whatever doctrine a particular church wants to drill into their heads. It's about keeping things neutral. If you want to teach religion, fine, go to a private academy or a parochial school, but don't touch the public system with it. Simple as that.

Susan James said:Religious studies weren't forced into the curriculum.
I don't think it was forced at all, let alone shoved back in there.

Religion classes were actually removed from schools back in the mid-40s, and they weren't really brought back until '91.
😬

It was scrapped in 1952

Larry Walker24 said:Look, I’m gonna say it: there is absolutely no way religious studies should be allowed in any school that gets its funding from the government. It's a non-starter. Period. If my tax dollars are paying for a classroom, I don't want them being used to push some specific faith on kids. It just feels wrong. We should be focusing on actual subjects—math, science, history—not whatever doctrine a particular church wants to drill into their heads. It's about keeping things neutral. If you want to teach religion, fine, go to a private academy or a parochial school, but don't touch the public system with it. Simple as that.

So, are you suggesting all those even more advanced democracies out there are just setting a bad example?

Jose Wells3 said:So, are you suggesting all those even more advanced democracies out there are just setting a bad example?

Like France, where they don't even teach religion in schools.

Canada is the same way.

Not so sure about the USA.

Jose Wells3 said:I’m not sure what you’re looking for here. They separate kids by physical ability in PE class, too. But apparently, that isn't considered a valid argument.

Look, my kids are right here in the hallway. I have absolutely nothing against the concept of discrimination.

I don't have an issue with the financial side of things either, though I could give you a very vivid demonstration of how much those religious instructor salaries, the hiring processes, and their standing within the school system actually irritate me.

That's not what I'm talking about.

Is that how you see it too? Man, if that's your take, I think we're done here. Nothing left to say.

By the way, nobody—not us, not any of the kids in my daughter's class—has ever been sorted by physical ability in gym class. So, I have zero clue what you're talking about. It looks to me like you're just comparing apples to oranges. That pretty much says it all.