Religion classes in school - Megathread

The only way you could even compare job competition here is if someone was actually getting passed over because of their religious beliefs. And that just isn't happening. Everything else is just cheap political theater.

So, let me get this straight... now teaching religion in schools is being framed as a public safety issue for kids on the road? :hvatasezaglavu: Good grief, what more are we supposed to sit back and ignore? (Honestly, this whole list of "reasons" is such a joke, it’s almost not even worth a response...)

Jerry Anderson87 said:http://www.foxnews.com/us-news/religious-education-debate
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/religion-in-schools
http://www.wsj.com/articles/faith-based-learning-impact

Are we actually seeing any real impact from religious education in schools?...

Look, you're basically just reposting one single news story from three different outlets. The people behind this study are actually from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I mean, a crew whose whole mission is pushing atheism is obviously going to get these kinds of results when they go poking around conservative communities. It was all debunked a few days later anyway. Misrepresentation, hiding the full truth, cherry-picking data... honestly, where did these researchers—and the media outlets that blindly swallowed the story—even learn those dirty tricks?

Jason Ortiz5 said:The only way you could even compare job competition here is if someone was actually getting passed over because of their religious beliefs. And that just isn't happening. Everything else is just cheap political theater.

So, let me get this straight... now teaching religion in schools is being framed as a public safety issue for kids on the road? :hvatasezaglavu: Good grief, what more are we supposed to sit back and ignore? (Honestly, this whole list of "reasons" is such a joke, it’s almost not even worth a response...)

Please quote the specific part you’re responding to—don't go twisting my words into something they aren't. I honestly can't tell what you're even talking about.

Look, when you're applying for a job, you have to meet certain qualifications. If you want to teach religion in public schools, you need to meet specific requirements. My point is that meeting those standards and rules is the connection I'm making. Everyone who meets the exact same criteria should be treated equally. That's what equality means. It doesn't mean handing everything out to everyone regardless of merit. We clearly aren't on the same page; you're nitpicking things I didn't even say.

I don't know about you guys, but I am absolutely losing my mind over this whole situation. Is anyone else actually seeing what’s happening right now, or am I just hallucinating? It feels like every time we turn around, there's some new, ridiculous development that makes you want to just stare at a wall for three hours straight. Seriously, how does this even happen? You’d think after everything we’ve been through, we’d have learned a thing or two by now, but apparently not. It's just one thing after another, isn't it? It honestly feels like we're living in some kind of twisted social experiment where the goal is just to see how much nonsense we can handle before we all collectively snap. Does anyone else feel that creeping sense of "here we go again," or is it just me? Because I'm sitting here wondering if there's any point in even trying to make sense of it all when the logic seems to vanish the moment you try to grasp it. It's exhausting, truly. Just... exhausting. kaže:
...

Wait, did you just go ahead and shove your own take right into my text?😁 I mean, honestly, how are you even supposed to wrap your head around the whole thing? You just can't grab the full picture all at once, can you?😁So, you’ve got that little icon up there—you know, the one that looks like a quote mark? It's sitting right there on the second line, about fifteen lines down from the top. BSo, if you want to make things easier on yourself, just highlight the specific part of the message you’re talking about and hit that button to separate it from the rest—that way, everyone actually knows exactly which point you're hitting, right?

So, get this—apparently, if you want to go through with your sacraments, you can't just take religious studies at the church like you'd want to. According to how some of these local priests interpret things, you’re forced to pass that school-based version first, as if the two are somehow tethered together. It's like they're making them inseparable, right? Now, if you look at what the Vatican actually says, there isn't even a rule like that, but I guess it's just easier for our local "holy men" to play it that way and make life more complicated than it needs to be.

I mean, look, if you’re actually bothering to sit through religion classes just to check the boxes for First Communion or Confirmation, then isn't it kind of a logical leap to expect to know more than the kid who’s stuck grinding through eight or ten years of it in public school? I mean, how can you claim to be an expert when you only put in the work during those two brief stints in third and eighth grade, while they're getting hit with the full curriculum? Besides, nobody is actually forcing your hand to take religious ed in the school system, right? You could easily just head down to the local parish for all eight years if that was your thing. In some parishes around here, that’s pretty much the requirement anyway—to them, whatever happens in the school classroom is basically just white noise.

I mean, look, if you’re actually living out your faith, shouldn't hitting up Mass with your kid be the absolute highlight of your weekend? It really should be, right? But instead, people just go out of their way to cook up a hundred different excuses to dodge it. I even saw a story in the news about some church over here where a parent skipped out on Mass, and because they didn't show up, their kid ended up being denied a sacrament. It’s wild when you think about it.

I mean, I don't know about you guys, but for me, being a real believer isn't about how much you kiss the altar every single Sunday, right? It’s not about that performative stuff. A true person of faith is someone who actually lives by the commandments in their everyday life—not someone who puts on a big show inside the church doors only to turn around and stab people in the back the second they step out onto the sidewalk.🤷

*If we just cut those two hours of religious studies from the schedule, wouldn't Tuesday and Friday classes—say, for example—only run for five hours instead of six? I mean, think about it, wouldn't that stop kids from just sitting around in the hallway for an hour doing absolutely nothing? They’d actually get home an hour earlier, giving them plenty of time to knock out their homework, play some games, catch up on some reading... you know, actual life stuff. Isn't that a much better way to handle things?

If you take out two hours of religion class and swap them for three hours of computer science, you’d think you were doing these kids a favor, right? But honestly, if they end up spending four days with five classes and one day with six, have they actually been relieved of any pressure? Not even close. You aren't lightening their load; you're just cramming more onto an already overflowing plate.
Look, if we're talking about making religious studies or any kind of mandatory elective part of the school day—whether that’s the first period or the very last—I honestly don't have a single bone to pick with it. In fact, I’m all for it. Why should kids be forced to miss out on stuff just because some politicians are being hypocritical or trying to stick their noses into places they clearly don't belong? It’s pretty simple, really.😉I mean, if these geniuses who spend every single day cooking up some brand-new set of reforms are actually smart enough to push their agendas through without anyone stopping them, then don't they also have a moral obligation—and honestly, just plain old common sense—to be smart enough to make sure all that stuff actually works for everyone? Like, if you've got that much power to shake things up, shouldn't you have the wits to balance it all out so people actually end up better off and satisfied instead of just frustrated?😉....
look, let's just cut the crap and skip all those nasty political games—I'm definitely not interested in any of that ad hominem nonsense either 😁

Jerry Anderson87 said:http://www.foxnews.com/us-news/religious-education-debate
http://www.nytimes.com/topic/religion-in-schools
http://www.wsj.com/articles/faith-based-learning-impact

Are we actually seeing any real impact from religious education in schools?...

Do you honestly buy this stuff, or are you just falling for yet another dirty little game designed to stir up hate and get people on both sides totally worked up?😲

I mean, do you seriously think an article like this could be written by anyone who actually gives a damn about tolerance or possesses even a shred of altruism?

And really, do you truly believe that someone—who’s been told since they were knee-high to a grasshopper that being selfish is wrong, that being unkind to others is a sin, and that they should bow down to a deity who apparently only listens to one specific group—is going to turn out any different?😉

I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

It’s honestly out of line for atheists or folks from other denominations to be nitpicking the way we handle spiritual education within Catholic religious studies.

Religion and ethics—they’re basically just the foundation for ensuring equality for all children. But if you don't approach it through the lens of proper catechesis, rather than just some surface-level theology classes, most people would end up with nothing to show for it.

It’s pretty shameful to see this kind of demagoguery being used against a single lesson in the 21st century... though, I suppose it's even more embarrassing because it was my own lesson.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

I mean, is that even a real argument? Is it?
Think about it—if you write the exact same essay during an English period and then again during a religion class, you aren't gaining the same kind of knowledge, nor are you being graded on the same criteria... if you're writing a > during English class, the teacher is looking at your grammar and spelling... but in religion class, they're mostly just checking to see how much of a good person you are, right?

http://example-us-school-district.edu/student-work?news_id=419

http://www.us-news-outlet.com/2013/12/letter-to-santa-claus-makes-you-want-to-cry/

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly out of line for atheists or folks from other denominations to be nitpicking the way we handle spiritual education within Catholic religious studies.

Religion and ethics—they’re basically just the foundation for ensuring equality for all children. But if you don't approach it through the lens of proper catechesis, rather than just some surface-level theology classes, most people would end up with nothing to show for it.

It’s pretty shameful to see this kind of demagoguery being used against a single lesson in the 21st century... though, I suppose it's even more embarrassing because it was my own lesson.

Why though?
We aren't telling them they have to adopt our value system; we're just asking them to respect someone else's differences.

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly out of line for atheists or folks from other denominations to be nitpicking the way we handle spiritual education within Catholic religious studies.

Religion and ethics—they’re basically just the foundation for ensuring equality for all children. But if you don't approach it through the lens of proper catechesis, rather than just some surface-level theology classes, most people would end up with nothing to show for it.

It’s pretty shameful to see this kind of demagoguery being used against a single lesson in the 21st century... though, I suppose it's even more embarrassing because it was my own lesson.

What part is demagoguery? What's the "shameful" bit exactly?

I didn't quite catch what you mean—but when you bring up demagoguery, I think there's nothing more manipulative than all this hysterics about privilege, or claims that one group is trampling over another. All this playing the victim and demonizing religious education... meanwhile, the curriculum itself focuses on Moses, Jesus, and Mary... and then moves into love and friendship in later grades. Honestly, I think there's plenty of demagoguery in those "equal" testimonies too—everyone seems to know some cousin or neighbor whose kid goes to that specific school where they scheduled religion right in the middle of the day. Nobody actually names the school or the schedule—because if they did, maybe something could actually be fixed. Instead, everyone just relies on hearsay.

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, is that even a real argument? Is it?
Think about it—if you write the exact same essay during an English period and then again during a religion class, you aren't gaining the same kind of knowledge, nor are you being graded on the same criteria... if you're writing a > during English class, the teacher is looking at your grammar and spelling... but in religion class, they're mostly just checking to see how much of a good person you are, right?

http://example-us-school-district.edu/student-work?news_id=419

http://www.us-news-outlet.com/2013/12/letter-to-santa-claus-makes-you-want-to-cry/

The reality is, in American schools, you're mostly graded on how much you've memorized, how well you respect authority, and how ready you are to regurgitate what was taught earlier... there's almost no grading based on "humanity." You don't necessarily have to learn spiritual values through religious ed, but it's certainly not a problem if the class does it that way.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Why though?
We aren't telling them they have to adopt our value system; we're just asking them to respect someone else's differences.

What part is demagoguery? What's the "shameful" bit exactly?

I didn't quite catch what you mean—but when you bring up demagoguery, I think there's nothing more manipulative than all this hysterics about privilege, or claims that one group is trampling over another. All this playing the victim and demonizing religious education... meanwhile, the curriculum itself focuses on Moses, Jesus, and Mary... and then moves into love and friendship in later grades. Honestly, I think there's plenty of demagoguery in those "equal" testimonies too—everyone seems to know some cousin or neighbor whose kid goes to that specific school where they scheduled religion right in the middle of the day. Nobody actually names the school or the schedule—because if they did, maybe something could actually be fixed. Instead, everyone just relies on hearsay.

The reality is, in American schools, you're mostly graded on how much you've memorized, how well you respect authority, and how ready you are to regurgitate what was taught earlier... there's almost no grading based on "humanity." You don't necessarily have to learn spiritual values through religious ed, but it's certainly not a problem if the class does it that way.

Look, obviously kids shouldn't be forced to rely solely on religious studies to learn how to be decent human beings, but when none of the other subjects actually emphasize character building, then teaching those things in religion class becomes incredibly vital—especially nowadays in this country, where kids are constantly being bombarded with hate, lies, and corruption at every single turn... it's everywhere.
And speaking as a parent, it matters way more to me that my kid hears the same values in that classroom that I'm trying to instill at home, rather than having them taught that basic human decency is some irrelevant afterthought just because nobody seems to care about it anywhere else anymore...

So, apparently there’s a scoring system now for how much of a human being you actually are?

Are you really out here grading a child on their humanity?

And what about these characters of yours and all this cheap, mindless rambling? Can I get a score for that too?

Minus ten, sister. A solid minus ten for those Catholic Jesus values of yours!

Just... ugh. Gross.

😕😕😕

Nobody else even brought that up, but honestly— you’ve got a point : how on earth did you manage to misread or twist something like that? Why are you working so hard to make people who disagree with you look way worse than they actually are?

Your whole post basically boils down to this: a totally unfair explanation that misses the entire point, some pointless venting, and just straight-up trolling.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Kudos to the atheists if they actually pull off forcing their worldview on everyone else and blocking 85% of kids from taking religion classes. Honestly, learning about Moses and having actual conversations about love and friendship is way more important in school than just mindlessly memorizing facts without understanding a thing, which is how most other subjects go anyway.

The majority included the Nazis once, too. That’s the reality of "the majority." We need less indoctrination and more computer science, hard science, civic education, and financial literacy. Those who get it, get it.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

Are you aware that students who struggle with certain subjects often attend supplemental tutoring for exactly one hour a week just to keep up? (And in most cases, that extra help works wonders for their grades). I personally dislike the very notion of taxpayer money being funneled toward religious instructors, but if we were to draft a proposal, it might look like this: parents could choose between sending their child to religion class for two hours a week or opting for one hour of English and one hour of Math. I can guarantee that the number of students enrolled in religion classes would plummet within two years, once those students begin falling behind the other group in terms of knowledge and grades. Even devout parents would eventually rationalize the choice by prioritizing their children's practical success over religious instruction.

Observing how religion classes morally elevate students compared to those who do not attend, I conclude that those students wouldn't lose much in that department. That is merely my impression.

silentraven6 said:So, apparently there’s a scoring system now for how much of a human being you actually are?

Are you really out here grading a child on their humanity?

And what about these characters of yours and all this cheap, mindless rambling? Can I get a score for that too?

Minus ten, sister. A solid minus ten for those Catholic Jesus values of yours!

Just... ugh. Gross.

Yeah, exactly... it's just totally revolting how people want to brag about and put a value on a child's selflessness...👍🤣

boldnomad45 said:The majority included the Nazis once, too. That’s the reality of "the majority." We need less indoctrination and more computer science, hard science, civic education, and financial literacy. Those who get it, get it.

Man, I was just waiting for someone to bring up Nazism. That Hitler guy had massive amounts of knowledge, and under his rule, there were huge leaps in tech, science, and the economy... which just goes to show that raw intelligence doesn't mean squat if the people using it have zero moral backbone. (Seriously, look at any major war—they're always led by the most advanced nations.)

neontinker5 said:Are you aware that students who struggle with certain subjects often attend supplemental tutoring for exactly one hour a week just to keep up? (And in most cases, that extra help works wonders for their grades). I personally dislike the very notion of taxpayer money being funneled toward religious instructors, but if we were to draft a proposal, it might look like this: parents could choose between sending their child to religion class for two hours a week or opting for one hour of English and one hour of Math. I can guarantee that the number of students enrolled in religion classes would plummet within two years, once those students begin falling behind the other group in terms of knowledge and grades. Even devout parents would eventually rationalize the choice by prioritizing their children's practical success over religious instruction.

Observing how religion classes morally elevate students compared to those who do not attend, I conclude that those students wouldn't lose much in that department. That is merely my impression.

You realize tutoring works because the groups are smaller, right? It's a personalized approach to specific problems. Religion class isn't tutoring. Just give us smaller class sizes where teachers can actually focus on individual students and their struggles—then nobody will even need tutoring. Tutoring that just gathers the whole class again for a "special" math hour is basically just regular school with a different name; it won't change anything. Kids need guidance, they need values, and they need to be taught how to actually use their brains. There are tons of reforms we need, but I don't see why cutting religion classes is the answer.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Man, I was just waiting for someone to bring up Nazism. That Hitler guy had massive amounts of knowledge, and under his rule, there were huge leaps in tech, science, and the economy... which just goes to show that raw intelligence doesn't mean squat if the people using it have zero moral backbone. (Seriously, look at any major war—they're always led by the most advanced nations.)

You realize tutoring works because the groups are smaller, right? It's a personalized approach to specific problems. Religion class isn't tutoring. Just give us smaller class sizes where teachers can actually focus on individual students and their struggles—then nobody will even need tutoring. Tutoring that just gathers the whole class again for a "special" math hour is basically just regular school with a different name; it won't change anything. Kids need guidance, they need values, and they need to be taught how to actually use their brains. There are tons of reforms we need, but I don't see why cutting religion classes is the answer.

I didn't explicitly specify what those extra weekly hours would entail, but if they were structured as supplemental tutoring, I believe more parents would choose to enroll their children in those sessions rather than religious studies. At the very least, it saves them time at home; many parents simply lack the time or the educational background to explain complex subjects to their kids. Regarding class sizes, we have to deal with the reality of the current situation, but the core issue lies in the nature of the supplemental hours themselves. These sessions provide the teacher with more time—whether for advanced material or extra practice—regardless of the total class size. Furthermore, these shouldn't just be limited to extra Hertz or Math. We could offer Logic, Philosophy, Civics, or any practical subject focused on skill-building. It would be a far more acceptable way to transition religious studies out of public schools, rather than forcing it through "coercive" means.

Jacob Lewis5 said:😕😕😕

Nobody else even brought that up, but honestly— you’ve got a point : how on earth did you manage to misread or twist something like that? Why are you working so hard to make people who disagree with you look way worse than they actually are?

Your whole post basically boils down to this: a totally unfair explanation that misses the entire point, some pointless venting, and just straight-up trolling.

The author herself just proved me right; I definitely read between the lines correctly.

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, is that even a real argument? Is it?
Think about it—if you write the exact same essay during an English period and then again during a religion class, you aren't gaining the same kind of knowledge, nor are you being graded on the same criteria... if you're writing a > during English class, the teacher is looking at your grammar and spelling... but in religion class, they're mostly just checking to see how much of a good person you are, right?

http://example-us-school-district.edu/student-work?news_id=419

http://www.us-news-outlet.com/2013/12/letter-to-santa-claus-makes-you-want-to-cry/

😕 😕 😕

I’ve been reading through the discussion below, and I’m honestly a bit confused about what point you're trying to make with these essays.

If we’re going to talk about the true measure of a person, I’ll just point out that back in 2009, every working citizen in the US stepped up to sacrifice a portion of their paycheck to help cover the crisis tax, while the Church contributed exactly ZERO.
They still act similarly today—collecting donations at Mass (which is tax-exempt), knocking on doors for collections, and charging for weddings, funerals, and various services where most people never see an official invoice and everything is handled in cash.
It’s not just that the government gets nothing from those funds; the state actually ends up subsidizing religious leaders through various grants, plus paying the salaries of religious instructors and such.
And if you want to look at the fleet of cars the clergy drives?
What kind of "measure of a person" are we actually talking about here?

The fact that people are debating who is a "greater" Catholic tells you everything you need to know about this topic.

Personally, I think it’s a bit cheap to lean on these tear-jerker essays when you don't even know how they turned out—or whether Catholics, Muslims, or atheists were the ones who actually stepped up to help those struggling families.

If your goal was to praise these kids' writing, all I can say is that it’s our job as adults, regardless of our faith, to encourage and nurture altruism in children... through our words, our actions, and by setting a good example.
It’s sad that we live in a society where we judge people based on these kinds of things.
But I suppose we're the ones creating that environment.
Sadly enough.

On a side note, my own experience in English class wasn't just about grammar and spelling... we learned so much more than that. And that goes for many other subjects too.

Jacob Lewis5 said:This is total nonsense. By that logic, every job interview, government contract, college entrance exam, or corporate hiring process is basically fascism and discrimination because we don't just hand out jobs or university spots to everybody—we pick people who actually meet the qualifications.

Equality means giving everyone the same rights and equal standing under the law. It doesn't mean handing everything to everyone right this second. If enough students sign up for an atheist philosophy elective, they'll get that option, just like any other religious group gets their choice. Religion classes teach about faith and values; they don't teach anything "wrong" or "bad."

Repeating a lie a thousand times doesn't make it true. Religious studies isn't being forced on anyone. Reasonable, tolerant, good-hearted people don't care about having it as an elective. People who actually teach their kids to embrace diversity, accept differences, and live peacefully with others won't have an issue with a religion class, whether it's for atheists or believers. It's just the people full of prejudice and zero arguments who keep trying to force their narrow views on the vast majority of Americans.

But there's no such thing as "atheistic religious studies" because atheism isn't a faith.

Jacob Lewis5 said:This is total nonsense. By that logic, every job interview, government contract, college entrance exam, or corporate hiring process is basically fascism and discrimination because we don't just hand out jobs or university spots to everybody—we pick people who actually meet the qualifications.

Equality means giving everyone the same rights and equal standing under the law. It doesn't mean handing everything to everyone right this second. If enough students sign up for an atheist philosophy elective, they'll get that option, just like any other religious group gets their choice. Religion classes teach about faith and values; they don't teach anything "wrong" or "bad."

Repeating a lie a thousand times doesn't make it true. Religious studies isn't being forced on anyone. Reasonable, tolerant, good-hearted people don't care about having it as an elective. People who actually teach their kids to embrace diversity, accept differences, and live peacefully with others won't have an issue with a religion class, whether it's for atheists or believers. It's just the people full of prejudice and zero arguments who keep trying to force their narrow views on the vast majority of Americans.

That’s just not true, especially when you consider how some religious classes teach that LGBTQ+ individuals are inherently less valuable or that they are sinners simply by virtue of being born that way.

Jacob Lewis5 said:I’ve been catching up on the replies to my question from rhino and waterboy

shtefy asked me what the actual loss would be for kids' religious education if we limited instruction strictly to churches? My take? There wouldn't be any loss. But nobody actually asked me the real question: what would the gain be for religious education if we restricted it to just churches ? If I had to answer that—well, I’d say there’s zero gain for spiritual growth if you pull religion out of schools entirely!

Someone brought up the argument that cutting religion frees up more time for other subjects:
-can anyone actually guarantee that an extra hour of math or English will lead to better grades? Honestly, spending more time just memorizing formulas or grammar isn't a winning argument. Kids don't need *more* of that, especially when it's taught the way it currently is. What they actually need is religious studies as a subject where they learn about spiritual values. You'll pick up math (and computer science too) naturally over the years, but moral guidance is being totally ignored by our school system.

-hostility toward the Church
-prejudices
-complaining about "bad schools" that schedule religion right in the middle of the day (I know there are rules against doing that, and I haven't really seen it happen lately)
-the cost of paying teachers (it's cheaper to just let them go to the unemployment office)
-those tired old stories about forcing Christianity on people, which just don't hold water

Honestly, all of that sounds pretty terrible to me. It’s a cocktail of intolerance, lies, and penny-pinching at the expense of teachers who aren't exactly living large anyway, and losing their jobs would be a nightmare (and a pricey one for the government). When I see how people fight against the Church, it makes me appreciate its strong influence on society even more. If this kind of intolerance is the alternative, I'll take the Church—flaws and all. Religious education doesn't threaten anyone, it isn't privileged, and it sure as hell isn't being forced on anyone.

Do you even have a clue what religious education actually entails or what its actual standing is within the public school system? Or do you even grasp what the word "privileged" actually means in this context?