Religion classes in school - Megathread

Susan James said: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.🥳

Not me, it was you. You honestly think I’d write something like that while being fully conscious and serious?

Susan James said: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.🥳

The Church didn't keep people illiterate; if anything, they did the opposite. Sure, the Church founded the first universities, but let’s be clear: that wasn't about spreading literacy or educating the masses. It was a calculated move to monopolize knowledge. Real public education only arrived when enlightened absolutists stepped in to establish the first public school systems—and even then, it took centuries and only happened once the Church's grip on society finally started to loosen.

Susan James said: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.🥳

Today, Catholicism and religious education in schools have essentially become the new version of joining the Boy Scouts or the old political youth leagues.

Susan James said: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.🥳

Things are moving in the right direction. Slowly, sure, but steadily. Unfortunately, it’s just not happening fast enough.

Back when I was in elementary school, religious education wasn't just some elective class you took at school. It was also part of our church curriculum. We had mandatory Sunday Mass at 8:00 AM—the "student service"—and the only thing that was technically optional, though highly encouraged, was choir practice on Saturdays. This whole setup applied if you actually wanted to receive the sacraments, and it lasted for all eight years.
The Church will likely fight tooth and nail against any attempt at abolition. It’s not just about tradition; it's about protecting their entire cultural foothold. Not to mention, it calls into question the whole system of paying religious instructors through taxpayer money—people who were educated at state-funded universities and are now being paid out of the federal budget to push their own agenda.

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.
😬

'96.

Andrew Doyle said:'96.

Middle school and elementary back in '91—I know because my brother was halfway through first grade and had straight A's, except for a B in religion class.🤣

I was a high school senior in '98 and everyone was taking religion. Me and some other kid were actually hanging out at a Starbucks during that time.

Ethics wasn't even a thing at my school...

98. I just started high school and had to pick between religion class or ethics—honestly, nobody was even offering them properly.

Andrew Doyle said:'96.

I started high school back in '93, and when I was in 7th grade, we actually had religious studies classes at school.
It was taught by our local priest, who was actually really wonderful—we knew him well from attending church services.
To be honest, I have some really lovely memories of my religious education growing up, especially through the church community. There were social gatherings, field trips, and since there were so few of us (just a small group 😬), they were incredibly accommodating. They’d always excuse any absences if I had ballet lessons or other afternoon classes, like technical drawing or German.

So, it honestly gets a bit frustrating seeing how everyone is flocking to it now, when it just doesn't feel the same way it used to.😂

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.

ROFL, me calling someone else foolish? Let's back up here. A principal heading up a secular school is obligated to educate children according to the tenets of a specific religion, which is why they answer to the leaders of that faith.

Secularism isn't a "good" or "bad" thing; it’s a concept with its own specific definition, and what was described above is a pretty glaring example of how that principle gets violated.

Betty Wood54 said:ROFL, me calling someone else foolish? Let's back up here. A principal heading up a secular school is obligated to educate children according to the tenets of a specific religion, which is why they answer to the leaders of that faith.

Secularism isn't a "good" or "bad" thing; it’s a concept with its own specific definition, and what was described above is a pretty glaring example of how that principle gets violated.

So, secularism isn't actually under threat because:

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't say a school employee can be barred from applying for a principal position based on their faith.

A principal is a secular official. Even if they happen to teach religion, their job description doesn't involve answering to a Diocese—they answer to the US Federal Government and the founder.

Furthermore, a religious school principal answers to the US Constitution.

How do you propose we ban someone from doing something that the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees to everyone, provided they have the right qualifications?

Let me repeat: anyone with the necessary credentials can run.

Excluding someone based on their religion is just as absurd as excluding them based on gender or race.

Secularity isn't about excluding people; it's about separating institutions and their decisions. It’s the separation of Church and State.

If you try to drag in other examples of violations, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

For me, the much bigger issue is realizing the Diocese meddles in the Health Insurance curriculum—not as a reviewer of religious content, but to sneak in extra religious agendas. Personally, I stopped marking anything years ago; I just leave it to the Religion teacher and basically copy my colleague's literature syllabus.🤣

And of course, Jesus is still reading the newspaper, because top-tier content is top-tier content. Just like Kranjcevic's Moses.

I’ve always had this nagging issue with religion teachers—not because of what they teach, necessarily, but just because of how they end up in the classroom. They aren't even hired through the standard school district application process; instead, the Diocese just kind of assigns them where they need them.

Sarah Hall53 said:I’ve always had this nagging issue with religion teachers—not because of what they teach, necessarily, but just because of how they end up in the classroom. They aren't even hired through the standard school district application process; instead, the Diocese just kind of assigns them where they need them.

Hard truth. I'm with you on that.

Jose Wells3 said:So, secularism isn't actually under threat because:

The Fair Labor Standards Act doesn't say a school employee can be barred from applying for a principal position based on their faith.

A principal is a secular official. Even if they happen to teach religion, their job description doesn't involve answering to a Diocese—they answer to the US Federal Government and the founder.

Furthermore, a religious school principal answers to the US Constitution.

How do you propose we ban someone from doing something that the Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees to everyone, provided they have the right qualifications?

Let me repeat: anyone with the necessary credentials can run.

Excluding someone based on their religion is just as absurd as excluding them based on gender or race.

Secularity isn't about excluding people; it's about separating institutions and their decisions. It’s the separation of Church and State.

If you try to drag in other examples of violations, you're just digging yourself into a hole.

For me, the much bigger issue is realizing the Diocese meddles in the Health Insurance curriculum—not as a reviewer of religious content, but to sneak in extra religious agendas. Personally, I stopped marking anything years ago; I just leave it to the Religion teacher and basically copy my colleague's literature syllabus.🤣

And of course, Jesus is still reading the newspaper, because top-tier content is top-tier content. Just like Kranjcevic's Moses.

I think you're mixing up different categories here. I'm not sure what the Labor Law has to do with secularism. A religious studies teacher is someone who answers to the Diocese; the Bishop appoints them, the Bishop can dismiss them whenever he wants, and the Bishop has to give consent for any union activity. Even the principal can't take office without his approval.

Sure, a secular person might be employed at the school, but they have a religious boss. Regardless of the Labor Law or those other points you're citing, that boss can pull their permission to work at the school in a heartbeat.

It seems strange to suggest that a person chosen by the Church to raise children in the faith—someone who answers to the Church for that very purpose and leads an educational institution specifically because they were sent there on Church orders—is somehow perfectly aligned with secularism.