Religion classes in school - Megathread

rowdypanther12 said:I’d love to see them offer an extra foreign language during religious studies 😁 or maybe astronomy. Or even a photography workshop, or calligraphy.
Or even something like step aerobics.
Honestly, just anything at all. 😁

You're dreaming big here,🤣
you realize that would be considered discrimination against the kids in religion class? They'd feel left behind because they aren't getting that extra knowledge.😳

Recently, some parents from the school my oldest will likely attend were telling me that there's a decent number of non-religious kids there—including those who enroll and then immediately pull them out (usually once they realize they get a longer break during that period🤣).

Anyway, there was this veteran teacher who didn't want to just sit there staring at the ceiling with ten kids while the rest were in religion class, so she started working with them on math (basically extra practice on things they weren't quite grasping yet).
The kids in the religion class actually complained! They felt those kids were getting special treatment and that the teacher was giving them too much extra instruction, while they had to pay for private tutors or study extra on their own just to keep up with basic math.
Then, the teacher tried doing these logic puzzles and brain teasers, and once again, the other group complained—but strangely, they never asked for their own kids to get those lessons too (though it never occurred to them to just unenroll them from religion class first).
Of course, the teacher wasn't teaching anything outside her scheduled hours or beyond what she was being paid for, so the religious students went to their class and the others just collectively stared at the ceiling.

Apparently, there was even an attempt to organize a paid foreign language program during the religion block. I personally would have been more than happy to pay for it—it would solve the "empty hour" problem for me without me having to drive them anywhere else. But the Department of Education won't allow it; they say language schools can't run courses during regular school hours because it would discriminate against the other students (though religion class probably doesn't count as discrimination in their eyes😬).

Man, that's intense.

I'd honestly rather not even think about it.😂

It seems like so many parents pull their kids out of school by second or third grade once they realize they’re expected to bring them to church on Sundays or deal with things like First Communion...
The non-religious parents who originally enrolled their kids just so they wouldn't feel left out eventually get fed up and withdraw them entirely.

rowdypanther12 said:It wasn't meant as a joke; it was just written with a bit of humor.
it seems pretty strange to me when the same person says two completely different things

I am honestly still a bit bewildered as to which vastly different topics we are even discussing here in practice? It seems to me more a matter of perspective—what one chooses to emphasize—rather than an attempt to be contrarian. Faith and science aren't inherently at odds with one another. Rather, faith simply steps in where science reaches its limits. For instance, we know the universe began with the Big Bang, but why did that happen? Who or what "triggered" the expansion? Science doesn't provide an answer there, yet faith does...
As for Catholic schools, they are undoubtedly the future. Here in the States, the situation is already such that children are being placed on waiting lists years before they even reach kindergarten, simply because the demand far outweighs the available spots. Yet, these Catholic schools follow the exact same state curriculum as any other public institution. There are no fundamental differences in the education provided, and certainly no issues to be found...

Well, look, it’s pretty straightforward—religious teachings have a very clear stance on contraception, just like they do on masturbation and other topics.
But then you have health class, where the curriculum is going to be something completely different.
So, what happens? Is the same teacher going to tell you in one period that masturbation is wrong because it's "degrading," only to turn around in the next hour and say it's perfectly natural and normal?

Nancy Kelly31 said:I get the impression you're just trolling here. I honestly can't decide whether it's worth responding to this or not. 🤔
If this is just another attempt to mock believers and the Church, then thank you very much, but I have no desire to participate in this anymore.
And if we are looking for a practical way to handle children who aren't enrolled in religious studies, that is a reality we face. This isn't the way to go about it.
It seems to me that children who aren't enrolled should be grouped together in the same classes rather than being scattered everywhere. That way, everything could be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school day, and everyone would be satisfied. Principals generally manage this new situation quite well now that these individual non-enrolled students are popping up, but it isn't easy. A principal is managing a massive system, and individuals often get lost within it...

rowdypanther12 said:It wasn't meant as a joke; it was just written with a bit of humor.
it seems pretty strange to me when the same person says two completely different things

Look, I’m seriously not trying to make fun of anyone here, and I definitely don't mean to come off as some kind of comedian—though, okay, maybe just a tiny bit, if I'm being totally honest with myself. 😁 ).

Look, I’m just gonna be blunt. Is that really such a big deal? Honestly, I don't have the energy to sugarcoat everything or dress up my sentences just to make them taste better for a bunch of puritans. We're talking about basic physiological needs here, plain and simple.

So, we’re looking at this intense situation where a sixteen-year-old kid gets hit with a massive erection right in the middle of class just because there's a girl sitting directly in front of him—I mean, honestly, can any of the guys out there chime in and tell me if that was a regular occurrence for them back in the day? 😳He’s basically sitting there being lectured that he isn't allowed to touch himself or even go on a date until he finally ties the knot.

It’s like he’s standing at a massive crossroads right now; he can either actually pay attention to what his teacher is laying down and potentially turn into some kind of visionary leader, or he could just lose his mind and start looking for someone to pick a fight with.
I’d honestly love to hear from some guys out there who could just step up and be real about this—like, tell me that you didn't touch yourself or hook up with anyone at all until you actually got married, and that everything felt totally normal and okay with that.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to how they actually control things—basically, the moment girls hit puberty in those traditional societies you see all over the world.

Nancy Kelly31 said:I get the impression you're just trolling here. I honestly can't decide whether it's worth responding to this or not. 🤔
If this is just another attempt to mock believers and the Church, then thank you very much, but I have no desire to participate in this anymore.
And if we are looking for a practical way to handle children who aren't enrolled in religious studies, that is a reality we face. This isn't the way to go about it.
It seems to me that children who aren't enrolled should be grouped together in the same classes rather than being scattered everywhere. That way, everything could be scheduled at the beginning or end of the school day, and everyone would be satisfied. Principals generally manage this new situation quite well now that these individual non-enrolled students are popping up, but it isn't easy. A principal is managing a massive system, and individuals often get lost within it...

When it comes to the younger grades, they really shouldn't be making such a big deal out of everything, especially at the end of the day. I mean, if I have to drop my first grader off at school right at 7:30 AM because I need to get to work on time, suddenly it’s treated like some huge crisis. It feels just as ridiculous when religion class is scheduled as the very first period of the morning; it's like they're trying to make life difficult for parents who are actually just trying to balance a career and a family.

Quincey:

When you're running a massive corporate machine like a Fortune 500 company, it’s easy to see how people can start feeling like just another cog in the gears. Directors are tasked with steering these giant, complex systems, but once that scale hits a certain level, the individuals working within them often end up feeling pretty lost in the shuffle.

haha 😁

It feels like most people have totally lost the plot lately, honestly. You see so many parents signing their kids up for religious education classes when they aren't even believers themselves—it’s purely a formality at this point. It’s like they’re just checking a box because they’re terrified that if they don't, the neighbors will look at them sideways or judge them for not being "true Americans." Or, you know, that classic excuse where they say, "Why make things complicated for the kid? Everyone else is doing it anyway." It’s just this massive wave of conformity where nobody wants to stand out, even if it means teaching something they don't actually believe in.

It’s honestly just like how things used to be with political parties; there isn't really any meaningful difference here.

silentraven6 said:In my opinion, the only fair way to handle this is to move religious education entirely outside of the standard school day. Treat it like an after-school program—just like judo, or language classes, or any other elective that happens outside of regular instruction.

I’d also love to see the Church start opening its own private schools. That way, families who live by their faith and want their kids to stay connected to it can send them there without disrupting the secular framework of the society we all live in.

Bog knows the Church has the money, the staff, and the resources to do it, right?

Exactly.
Churches are everywhere, and they're constantly being built.
Wouldn't it be much nicer for believers to gather there instead?
Why don't religious parents just send their kids to the facilities being built for the glory of Bog?
Is it really that much of a struggle for religious children to make the trip to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are we talking about if they actually need state-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

I’d also love to see the Church start opening its own schools. That way, people who live out their faith and want their kids to have that same foundation at school could just send them there without disrupting the secular framework of the society we all share.

I mean, Bog knows the Church has the money, the staff, and the resources to make it happen, right?

http://www.newsweek.com/US-education-updates

You know, something I find really fascinating lately: there’s this huge wave of parents who are more than ready to revolt against teachers and professors. They constantly complain about how educators have lost their way when it comes to teaching kids right from wrong, arguing that schools have completely abandoned their role in shaping character.
Yet, these exact same parents—when it comes to religious education, which I personally view as a deeply intimate and vital matter—will just hand that responsibility over to the school system.
I honestly don't get it, and I’m dying to understand the mindset. Why are parents okay with their kids taking religion classes at school? Because, let's be real, if you're a practicing believer, you should be able to share those values with your child at home. If you can't find even thirty minutes a day to do that, then frankly, you probably shouldn't be worrying about either the kid or the faith.

@majamama, I suspect you're actually in the vast majority here—that as a person of faith, you'd prefer not to have religious instruction happening in the classroom.

Karen Richardson3 said:Look, I’m seriously not trying to make fun of anyone here, and I definitely don't mean to come off as some kind of comedian—though, okay, maybe just a tiny bit, if I'm being totally honest with myself. 😁 ).

Look, I’m just gonna be blunt. Is that really such a big deal? Honestly, I don't have the energy to sugarcoat everything or dress up my sentences just to make them taste better for a bunch of puritans. We're talking about basic physiological needs here, plain and simple.

So, we’re looking at this intense situation where a sixteen-year-old kid gets hit with a massive erection right in the middle of class just because there's a girl sitting directly in front of him—I mean, honestly, can any of the guys out there chime in and tell me if that was a regular occurrence for them back in the day? 😳He’s basically sitting there being lectured that he isn't allowed to touch himself or even go on a date until he finally ties the knot.

It’s like he’s standing at a massive crossroads right now; he can either actually pay attention to what his teacher is laying down and potentially turn into some kind of visionary leader, or he could just lose his mind and start looking for someone to pick a fight with.
I’d honestly love to hear from some guys out there who could just step up and be real about this—like, tell me that you didn't touch yourself or hook up with anyone at all until you actually got married, and that everything felt totally normal and okay with that.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to how they actually control things—basically, the moment girls hit puberty in those traditional societies you see all over the world.

When it comes to the younger grades, they really shouldn't be making such a big deal out of everything, especially at the end of the day. I mean, if I have to drop my first grader off at school right at 7:30 AM because I need to get to work on time, suddenly it’s treated like some huge crisis. It feels just as ridiculous when religion class is scheduled as the very first period of the morning; it's like they're trying to make life difficult for parents who are actually just trying to balance a career and a family.

Quincey:

When you're running a massive corporate machine like a Fortune 500 company, it’s easy to see how people can start feeling like just another cog in the gears. Directors are tasked with steering these giant, complex systems, but once that scale hits a certain level, the individuals working within them often end up feeling pretty lost in the shuffle.

haha 😁

It feels like most people have totally lost the plot lately, honestly. You see so many parents signing their kids up for religious education classes when they aren't even believers themselves—it’s purely a formality at this point. It’s like they’re just checking a box because they’re terrified that if they don't, the neighbors will look at them sideways or judge them for not being "true Americans." Or, you know, that classic excuse where they say, "Why make things complicated for the kid? Everyone else is doing it anyway." It’s just this massive wave of conformity where nobody wants to stand out, even if it means teaching something they don't actually believe in.

It’s honestly just like how things used to be with political parties; there isn't really any meaningful difference here.

Exactly.
Churches are everywhere, and they're constantly being built.
Wouldn't it be much nicer for believers to gather there instead?
Why don't religious parents just send their kids to the facilities being built for the glory of Bog?
Is it really that much of a struggle for religious children to make the trip to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are we talking about if they actually need state-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

I’d also love to see the Church start opening its own schools. That way, people who live out their faith and want their kids to have that same foundation at school could just send them there without disrupting the secular framework of the society we all share.

I mean, Bog knows the Church has the money, the staff, and the resources to make it happen, right?

http://www.newsweek.com/US-education-updates

What about the kids who stay in after-school programs?
(Personally, I don't mind if they're outside for a bit while they wait; honestly, it beats sitting through a lesson during third period.)

If you meant having it at the end of the after-school program, maybe around 5:30 PM, then I am totally on board with that idea!🙂
That’s actually what I’m going to suggest.☕

My first goal is to try reaching out to the Department of Education to see if we can get paid second language instruction approved as part of the regular curriculum.
I’m ready to take the lead on this, and frankly, I’d be willing to pay for it myself. It just seems logical—if there's funding available for religious studies, there should definitely be funding for academic knowledge too.😬

Susan James said:You're dreaming big here,🤣
you realize that would be considered discrimination against the kids in religion class? They'd feel left behind because they aren't getting that extra knowledge.😳

Recently, some parents from the school my oldest will likely attend were telling me that there's a decent number of non-religious kids there—including those who enroll and then immediately pull them out (usually once they realize they get a longer break during that period🤣).

Anyway, there was this veteran teacher who didn't want to just sit there staring at the ceiling with ten kids while the rest were in religion class, so she started working with them on math (basically extra practice on things they weren't quite grasping yet).
The kids in the religion class actually complained! They felt those kids were getting special treatment and that the teacher was giving them too much extra instruction, while they had to pay for private tutors or study extra on their own just to keep up with basic math.
Then, the teacher tried doing these logic puzzles and brain teasers, and once again, the other group complained—but strangely, they never asked for their own kids to get those lessons too (though it never occurred to them to just unenroll them from religion class first).
Of course, the teacher wasn't teaching anything outside her scheduled hours or beyond what she was being paid for, so the religious students went to their class and the others just collectively stared at the ceiling.

Apparently, there was even an attempt to organize a paid foreign language program during the religion block. I personally would have been more than happy to pay for it—it would solve the "empty hour" problem for me without me having to drive them anywhere else. But the Department of Education won't allow it; they say language schools can't run courses during regular school hours because it would discriminate against the other students (though religion class probably doesn't count as discrimination in their eyes😬).

That's exactly what's coming my way soon. I already had one mom acting totally bewildered, like she'd seen a ghost, because her kid is getting logic puzzles and extra math work during religious education hour.

Nancy Kelly31 said:I am honestly still a bit bewildered as to which vastly different topics we are even discussing here in practice? It seems to me more a matter of perspective—what one chooses to emphasize—rather than an attempt to be contrarian. Faith and science aren't inherently at odds with one another. Rather, faith simply steps in where science reaches its limits. For instance, we know the universe began with the Big Bang, but why did that happen? Who or what "triggered" the expansion? Science doesn't provide an answer there, yet faith does...
As for Catholic schools, they are undoubtedly the future. Here in the States, the situation is already such that children are being placed on waiting lists years before they even reach kindergarten, simply because the demand far outweighs the available spots. Yet, these Catholic schools follow the exact same state curriculum as any other public institution. There are no fundamental differences in the education provided, and certainly no issues to be found...

That bolded part is honestly hilarious to me. It's unbelievable that anyone is still making that argument in the 21st century.

Faith doesn't provide answers like that. I don't know who taught you that, but back when I was in school in the early 90s, they taught us that faith means being in a constant search for answers, not that God triggered the Big Bang.

I am not entirely certain if I am expressing myself clearly enough, but I truly believe that faith and science can exist in perfect harmony. There are certain questions where science provides the answers, while others are best addressed through faith. Because of this balance, both can be taught within our school systems without any inherent conflict... It honestly breaks my heart to read posts from certain mothers here who seem so consumed by hatred and intolerance... I fear that if we continue down this path, we will never find a common language. Religious education belongs in the classroom, and it should stay there. All this speculative "what if" arguing is quite pointless, really. It would be far more productive if we all directed our collective energy toward ensuring that no child is ever forced upon a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled, nor left to fend for themselves in the hallways if they have no need for it...

Karen Richardson3 said:Look, I’m seriously not trying to make fun of anyone here, and I definitely don't mean to come off as some kind of comedian—though, okay, maybe just a tiny bit, if I'm being totally honest with myself. 😁 ).

Look, I’m just gonna be blunt. Is that really such a big deal? Honestly, I don't have the energy to sugarcoat everything or dress up my sentences just to make them taste better for a bunch of puritans. We're talking about basic physiological needs here, plain and simple.

So, we’re looking at this intense situation where a sixteen-year-old kid gets hit with a massive erection right in the middle of class just because there's a girl sitting directly in front of him—I mean, honestly, can any of the guys out there chime in and tell me if that was a regular occurrence for them back in the day? 😳He’s basically sitting there being lectured that he isn't allowed to touch himself or even go on a date until he finally ties the knot.

It’s like he’s standing at a massive crossroads right now; he can either actually pay attention to what his teacher is laying down and potentially turn into some kind of visionary leader, or he could just lose his mind and start looking for someone to pick a fight with.
I’d honestly love to hear from some guys out there who could just step up and be real about this—like, tell me that you didn't touch yourself or hook up with anyone at all until you actually got married, and that everything felt totally normal and okay with that.
At the end of the day, it all comes down to how they actually control things—basically, the moment girls hit puberty in those traditional societies you see all over the world.

When it comes to the younger grades, they really shouldn't be making such a big deal out of everything, especially at the end of the day. I mean, if I have to drop my first grader off at school right at 7:30 AM because I need to get to work on time, suddenly it’s treated like some huge crisis. It feels just as ridiculous when religion class is scheduled as the very first period of the morning; it's like they're trying to make life difficult for parents who are actually just trying to balance a career and a family.

Quincey:

When you're running a massive corporate machine like a Fortune 500 company, it’s easy to see how people can start feeling like just another cog in the gears. Directors are tasked with steering these giant, complex systems, but once that scale hits a certain level, the individuals working within them often end up feeling pretty lost in the shuffle.

haha 😁

It feels like most people have totally lost the plot lately, honestly. You see so many parents signing their kids up for religious education classes when they aren't even believers themselves—it’s purely a formality at this point. It’s like they’re just checking a box because they’re terrified that if they don't, the neighbors will look at them sideways or judge them for not being "true Americans." Or, you know, that classic excuse where they say, "Why make things complicated for the kid? Everyone else is doing it anyway." It’s just this massive wave of conformity where nobody wants to stand out, even if it means teaching something they don't actually believe in.

It’s honestly just like how things used to be with political parties; there isn't really any meaningful difference here.

Exactly.
Churches are everywhere, and they're constantly being built.
Wouldn't it be much nicer for believers to gather there instead?
Why don't religious parents just send their kids to the facilities being built for the glory of Bog?
Is it really that much of a struggle for religious children to make the trip to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are we talking about if they actually need state-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

I’d also love to see the Church start opening its own schools. That way, people who live out their faith and want their kids to have that same foundation at school could just send them there without disrupting the secular framework of the society we all share.

I mean, Bog knows the Church has the money, the staff, and the resources to make it happen, right?

http://www.newsweek.com/US-education-updates

This reminds me of when a friend of mine, a coach, was venting about an eighth grader who basically wanted to get married just so he could have sex. The kid comes from a super traditional Catholic family—religious daycare, Friday Mass, holy days, Sunday school... I'm not sure how it all turned out.

Nancy Kelly31 said:I am not entirely certain if I am expressing myself clearly enough, but I truly believe that faith and science can exist in perfect harmony. There are certain questions where science provides the answers, while others are best addressed through faith. Because of this balance, both can be taught within our school systems without any inherent conflict... It honestly breaks my heart to read posts from certain mothers here who seem so consumed by hatred and intolerance... I fear that if we continue down this path, we will never find a common language. Religious education belongs in the classroom, and it should stay there. All this speculative "what if" arguing is quite pointless, really. It would be far more productive if we all directed our collective energy toward ensuring that no child is ever forced upon a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled, nor left to fend for themselves in the hallways if they have no need for it...

The hypocrisy is staggering! Talk about playing the part of a good Catholic.

Don't you feel even a flicker of shame knowing that while you're being paid for your time, someone else has to step up to watch over a student who isn't in your class—essentially doing the childcare work for a period you're being compensated for?

Why insist on occupying a slot in the master schedule? You claim to be an elective, yet thanks to those special agreements with the Vatican, you’ve essentially carved out a guaranteed spot within the standard school day.

It's absolutely shameless.

And she doesn't even blink at suggesting that someone else should cover the hours for which she is receiving a paycheck, even though that other person isn't getting paid for it.

Don't bother arguing, because I already know the script: "They should just take religion class." That's the whole point of the subject, really—it’s baked into the regular schedule under the guise of being an elective. It’s a binary choice, buddy: either you sign up for the religious course, or you spend your time wandering through hallways and libraries under the watchful eye of some random teacher or librarian. Take your pick.

I’m speaking as a user here, but please, try to view this as a bit of unofficial moderation too.

Look, this topic is sensitive. It’s a minefield, and I think we all realize that. If people keep coming at this with aggressive ideological attacks—doesn't matter which side of the aisle they're on—this thread is going to get locked just like before. There is absolutely no point in having a discussion if it just turns into a playground for low blows and heated outbursts.

Honestly, I feel like this kind of communication is exactly why it's so hard to reach any actual solutions. And let's set aside the clergy and the institutions for a second—though, frankly, we probably should be leaving those issues to the government officials we actually elected (and since we voted for Democrats, well, you know how that goes)—but here, we're just regular people. So, let's just try to talk calmly and back things up with logic.

You can say anything as long as you aren't being rude. Every point made about Church contracts or how the "flock" behaves stands on its own, provided we leave out the personal insults. One reason why removing religious education from schools is such an uphill battle is the pushback from groups like "Non-Believers Inc." and similar organizations. When you look closely, their approach is essentially the same as religious fundamentalists: they're just attacking a worldview they don't share.

So, Nancy Kelly31, my faith and yours is a personal choice. It's an intimate thing practiced within specific institutions meant for that purpose, or, like me, in the privacy of our own homes. Your understanding of the world shouldn't limit someone else's freedom, and that’s exactly what incorporating religion into public schools does—it always has.

And honestly, all those arguments about "faith and science complementing each other" just don't hold water. A secular society relies on a unified scientific understanding and a scientific method that doesn't incorporate faith. You can't have a teacher tell kids asking about the Big Bang that God was responsible for it. The only answer is that scientists are working to uncover the details and are getting closer every day (like that famous "God particle"—which, let's be honest, was probably named ironically).

Similarly, when dealing with religious literature, it should be treated as historical context or pure folklore—explaining how belief shaped literature, art, and culture. Without injecting ideological baggage into textbooks, Jesus and God would simply be figures or characters within the framework of our artistic heritage.

I mean, anyone who has read Aquinas, Spinoza, or even Hegel knows that Western thought and philosophy are deeply rooted in religion and its presence. But if those purely humanistic disciplines managed to develop a scientifically grounded way to handle these topics, imagine where we’d be if our school system were trying to "complete" science with religious teachings.

Good grief, I talk to my child about faith as a possibility, without forcing it on him, because his father is an agnostic. I talk to him about tradition, about his grandmothers and the wider family, and about my own perception of God. But I never fail to make sure he knows that his belief is his own private business and that nobody is going to force him to believe just because of tradition. He'll find his own path. I gave him the sacrament of baptism myself because that's something a parent provides for a child. I even chose an agnostic godfather who has received the sacraments, specifically so my son could learn the most important part of our faith: questioning. It's about constant reflection paired with a scientifically grounded understanding of the world.

We can also look at it this way: religious education has no place in schools because it's so incredibly easy to politicize and exploit for the gain of various political factions. As believers, is that really what we want?

If schools start teaching kids that faith and science are actually on the same team instead of fighting each other, I honestly think it might be time to look into homeschooling. ☕
It’s not that I’m close-minded or anything. I just have zero patience for blatant nonsense.

Nancy Kelly31 said:I am not entirely certain if I am expressing myself clearly enough, but I truly believe that faith and science can exist in perfect harmony. There are certain questions where science provides the answers, while others are best addressed through faith. Because of this balance, both can be taught within our school systems without any inherent conflict... It honestly breaks my heart to read posts from certain mothers here who seem so consumed by hatred and intolerance... I fear that if we continue down this path, we will never find a common language. Religious education belongs in the classroom, and it should stay there. All this speculative "what if" arguing is quite pointless, really. It would be far more productive if we all directed our collective energy toward ensuring that no child is ever forced upon a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled, nor left to fend for themselves in the hallways if they have no need for it...

But which faith specifically?

Are we talking about science and Catholicism? Science and Islam? Science and Buddhism? Science and Hinduism? Science and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Or maybe science and Mormonism?

Since every single one of those religions offers completely different answers to the exact same questions, I think it would be helpful if you could elaborate on how they "complement" each other when one group believes humans just die and become meat and bone, another believes in judgment day and an eternal soul, another thinks you’ll be reincarnated as a horse or a letter, and yet another insists the world is ending soon and God will snatch up his chosen Jehovah's Witnesses while everyone else just ceases to exist?

It honestly breaks my heart to read some of the mothers in here who seem so full of nothing but hate and intolerance... I really feel like that's why we can never find any common ground.

Look, you religious folks—who claim to be so devoted to God and love—haven't been able to find common ground with other believers since religion was even a thing.
You basically just generate division, diversity, and intolerance all over the globe.

And then you have the nerve to call us—people who truly don't care whether someone is Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon—as "intolerant," simply because we're fed up with the lying, hypocrisy, and deception used to infiltrate government buildings, where you get to hang your religious symbols while our kids are left hanging out in the hallways? 🙏

Religious education belongs in schools and stays in schools. All this "what if" speculation is totally pointless. It would be much better if we all channeled our energy into making sure no child ever has to worry about a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled in class, or being left to fend for themselves somewhere in the building if they don't need it...

Well, it stays in school until there isn't a school anymore. That's just the way things change; contracts are meant to be updated.
We truly have every right to put our energy into ensuring public schools focus on academic subjects, while faith is taught in buildings specifically designed for that purpose—which, by the way, are usually much nicer looking.

And since you didn't actually answer me, I'll just quote myself:

Churches exist, and people keep building new ones.
Wouldn't it be nicer for believers to be there?
Why don't believers send their children to the buildings built to glorify God?
Why is it such a struggle for religious kids to make it to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are they if they actually require taxpayer-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

Karen Richardson3 said:But which faith specifically?

Are we talking about science and Catholicism? Science and Islam? Science and Buddhism? Science and Hinduism? Science and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Or maybe science and Mormonism?

Since every single one of those religions offers completely different answers to the exact same questions, I think it would be helpful if you could elaborate on how they "complement" each other when one group believes humans just die and become meat and bone, another believes in judgment day and an eternal soul, another thinks you’ll be reincarnated as a horse or a letter, and yet another insists the world is ending soon and God will snatch up his chosen Jehovah's Witnesses while everyone else just ceases to exist?

It honestly breaks my heart to read some of the mothers in here who seem so full of nothing but hate and intolerance... I really feel like that's why we can never find any common ground.

Look, you religious folks—who claim to be so devoted to God and love—haven't been able to find common ground with other believers since religion was even a thing.
You basically just generate division, diversity, and intolerance all over the globe.

And then you have the nerve to call us—people who truly don't care whether someone is Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon—as "intolerant," simply because we're fed up with the lying, hypocrisy, and deception used to infiltrate government buildings, where you get to hang your religious symbols while our kids are left hanging out in the hallways? 🙏

Religious education belongs in schools and stays in schools. All this "what if" speculation is totally pointless. It would be much better if we all channeled our energy into making sure no child ever has to worry about a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled in class, or being left to fend for themselves somewhere in the building if they don't need it...

Well, it stays in school until there isn't a school anymore. That's just the way things change; contracts are meant to be updated.
We truly have every right to put our energy into ensuring public schools focus on academic subjects, while faith is taught in buildings specifically designed for that purpose—which, by the way, are usually much nicer looking.

And since you didn't actually answer me, I'll just quote myself:

Churches exist, and people keep building new ones.
Wouldn't it be nicer for believers to be there?
Why don't believers send their children to the buildings built to glorify God?
Why is it such a struggle for religious kids to make it to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are they if they actually require taxpayer-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

Which faith? Every faith... Each one belongs to the cultural circle in which a person was born, as that is naturally the most logical and acceptable path for them.

The difficulty with this topic is that the opposing viewpoints are both entirely logical. Finding any sort of consensus becomes quite difficult under those circumstances. ☕

Take this situation with the churches, for example. What kind of lesson would we actually be providing to small children in these massive buildings designed to hold hundreds of people, when twenty of them might get swallowed up by those enormous pews, feeling completely lost in the sheer scale of it all? Without whiteboards or chalk, without televisions or videos, without projectors or laptops, and without even the simple opportunity to cut, color, glue, or sit on the floor... Churches aren't designed as classrooms; they are places for prayer, meant for large congregations gathered at once. You can barely count the number of churches that possess adequate halls for religious education, and even then, they are mostly found in major cities. But life happens everywhere else too.

However, you all know this already. You are merely pretending that you don't. And that isn't the point. Personally, I would find it much more interesting to discuss how we might solve the issue of children not being enrolled in religious studies. But I see there is little appetite for that here. It is a shame... because many minds working together are inevitably wiser. Provided, of course, that those minds are willing to cooperate. As it stands... 🤷

It’s not really about kids skipping religion class; the real issue is how disorganized the schools are. Let’s call it what it is.

If there was actually something else available for those students during that period, I think everyone could live with it.
Like maybe a drama club or something.

Karen Richardson3 said:But which faith specifically?

Are we talking about science and Catholicism? Science and Islam? Science and Buddhism? Science and Hinduism? Science and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses? Or maybe science and Mormonism?

Since every single one of those religions offers completely different answers to the exact same questions, I think it would be helpful if you could elaborate on how they "complement" each other when one group believes humans just die and become meat and bone, another believes in judgment day and an eternal soul, another thinks you’ll be reincarnated as a horse or a letter, and yet another insists the world is ending soon and God will snatch up his chosen Jehovah's Witnesses while everyone else just ceases to exist?

It honestly breaks my heart to read some of the mothers in here who seem so full of nothing but hate and intolerance... I really feel like that's why we can never find any common ground.

Look, you religious folks—who claim to be so devoted to God and love—haven't been able to find common ground with other believers since religion was even a thing.
You basically just generate division, diversity, and intolerance all over the globe.

And then you have the nerve to call us—people who truly don't care whether someone is Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon—as "intolerant," simply because we're fed up with the lying, hypocrisy, and deception used to infiltrate government buildings, where you get to hang your religious symbols while our kids are left hanging out in the hallways? 🙏

Religious education belongs in schools and stays in schools. All this "what if" speculation is totally pointless. It would be much better if we all channeled our energy into making sure no child ever has to worry about a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled in class, or being left to fend for themselves somewhere in the building if they don't need it...

Well, it stays in school until there isn't a school anymore. That's just the way things change; contracts are meant to be updated.
We truly have every right to put our energy into ensuring public schools focus on academic subjects, while faith is taught in buildings specifically designed for that purpose—which, by the way, are usually much nicer looking.

And since you didn't actually answer me, I'll just quote myself:

Churches exist, and people keep building new ones.
Wouldn't it be nicer for believers to be there?
Why don't believers send their children to the buildings built to glorify God?
Why is it such a struggle for religious kids to make it to church twice a week?
What kind of believers are they if they actually require taxpayer-funded infrastructure just to learn about their own faith?

Well, she isn't going to give you an answer. She might even be "honest" enough to tell you it's because the Church craves power, possesses it, and loves to flex it—using that influence to sideline anyone who isn't a believer.

Her actual concern is what she wrote earlier: how can we ensure that a child who doesn't sign up for religious instruction isn't some teacher's headache? How can we all step up so that a teacher getting paid for a Tuesday third period can fulfill their duty without making Anne Anic—who happens to be in that same class—their problem, all while drawing a salary funded by taxpayers like Anne Anic's parents. Let me bold that part:

Nancy Kelly31 said:I am not entirely certain if I am expressing myself clearly enough, but I truly believe that faith and science can exist in perfect harmony. There are certain questions where science provides the answers, while others are best addressed through faith. Because of this balance, both can be taught within our school systems without any inherent conflict... It honestly breaks my heart to read posts from certain mothers here who seem so consumed by hatred and intolerance... I fear that if we continue down this path, we will never find a common language. Religious education belongs in the classroom, and it should stay there. All this speculative "what if" arguing is quite pointless, really. It would be far more productive if we all directed our collective energy toward ensuring that no child is ever forced upon a religious instructor if they aren't enrolled, nor left to fend for themselves in the hallways if they have no need for it...

She isn't worried about the spiritual well-being of those kids. Not at all. No, her focus is on how we should all collectively chip in so that her specific worry and the job she's being paid for by the public can be handled by someone else, leaving someone else responsible. It’s pure Vatican-style perfidy.

When I point that out, I get a strike. Something I'll deal with later.

P.S. I see Nancy Kelly31 added that religious classes can't be held in churches because they lack chalkboards and chalk. Awww... 😍 As if we're all blind and don't notice the massive parish halls and community centers popping up next to churches—facilities that get rented out for profit and somehow dodge the taxman. ☕

rowdypanther12 said:It’s not really about kids skipping religion class; the real issue is how disorganized the schools are. Let’s call it what it is.

If there was actually something else available for those students during that period, I think everyone could live with it.
Like maybe a drama club or something.

But then you have to ask: who actually runs that drama program, and where does the funding come from? We're talking about hours that are already fully funded for the religious education instructors. Who is going to foot the bill to pay for these sessions twice over?

Are we honestly expecting every other teacher in the building to volunteer their time while the religious instructors are being paid for those exact same hours?

I think we need to be realistic here.
The agreements with the Vatican are already in place; a single school can't just unilaterally cancel them. I won't get into the politics of that, but I hope it's clear to everyone here that I don't support religious education in public schools, nor do I think it belongs in a secular nation.
But
it is what it is, and we should find a practical solution.
Religious ed teachers are paid for those hours, so they’re going to teach the kids who show up, just like an elective German class or an IT instructor would teach the students enrolled in those electives.

The real issue we need to tackle is making sure these electives actually feel optional—meaning there should be other real choices available during that time slot. In the lower grades, having it scheduled during after-school care isn't a fix, whether it's the first or last period.
Every school should offer a genuine alternative so that kids who don't want religious studies have somewhere else to go, rather than just sitting around.
For the older students, it really needs to be scheduled as the first or last period, or perhaps during a different shift entirely.

Nancy Kelly31 said:Which faith? Every faith... Each one belongs to the cultural circle in which a person was born, as that is naturally the most logical and acceptable path for them.

The difficulty with this topic is that the opposing viewpoints are both entirely logical. Finding any sort of consensus becomes quite difficult under those circumstances. ☕

Take this situation with the churches, for example. What kind of lesson would we actually be providing to small children in these massive buildings designed to hold hundreds of people, when twenty of them might get swallowed up by those enormous pews, feeling completely lost in the sheer scale of it all? Without whiteboards or chalk, without televisions or videos, without projectors or laptops, and without even the simple opportunity to cut, color, glue, or sit on the floor... Churches aren't designed as classrooms; they are places for prayer, meant for large congregations gathered at once. You can barely count the number of churches that possess adequate halls for religious education, and even then, they are mostly found in major cities. But life happens everywhere else too.

However, you all know this already. You are merely pretending that you don't. And that isn't the point. Personally, I would find it much more interesting to discuss how we might solve the issue of children not being enrolled in religious studies. But I see there is little appetite for that here. It is a shame... because many minds working together are inevitably wiser. Provided, of course, that those minds are willing to cooperate. As it stands... 🤷

😁😁😁😁😁

So, I guess what we're really talking about here is that faith acts as this kind of cosmic filler, stepping in to plug those empty spaces in our lives whenever they show up, though how it actually goes down usually depends on the specific cultural bubble you were raised in.

Maybe we can finally get a believer to weigh in and break down what kind of hollow, empty nonsense we're actually dealing with here. ☕

Science is science, plain and simple, mostly because it doesn't care about what cultural bubble you happen to be living in. I get that the Catholic Church is pretty good at pivoting when they need to, and now they’re out here trying to claim they’re "in sync with scientific progress" just to keep the Gen Z crowd from walking out the door, but honestly, give me a break.

Honestly, all you guys are doing is offering a little cushion for people whose egos are too massive to face the reality that they aren't going to be around forever. That's really all there is to it.

Think about it this way—take churches, for example. What kind of lesson are we actually teaching kids living in those massive urban high-rises or sprawling suburban cathedrals? You’ve got maybe twenty kids swallowed up by these giant wooden pews, looking totally lost in that massive, echoing space. There’s no whiteboard, no chalkboard, no TV or video screens, no projectors or laptops, and definitely no chance for them to just spread out on the floor with some crayons, glue, and construction paper. At the end of the day, a church isn't designed to be a classroom; it’s built for mass prayer where hundreds of people gather all at once. If you look for churches that actually have decent, dedicated Sunday school rooms, you can count them on one hand, and even then, they're mostly tucked away in big cities. But let's face it, life happens way beyond those four walls.

We actually used a projector back at our church to display all the lyrics for the hymns, so I’m pretty sure we could easily just bring in a whiteboard or even some old-school chalkboards if we wanted to go that route.
Actually, we ended up having our religion class over at the local parish hall instead.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit that I don't really know much about how church gear actually works or all the technical stuff they use behind the scenes. It feels like there are so many moving parts that it might actually be impossible to run a proper lesson or service most of the time.
So, I’ve been thinking about this, and it really makes you wonder why there isn't any instruction scheduled during the afternoon hours. It’s like, if the athletes are heading out to the field for practice and the little science nerds are busy in the chem lab, what’s stopping the kids from going to their religious studies at that same time? It seems like a missed opportunity for everything to just fall into place.
At the end of the day, isn't that basically how every other religion outside of Catholicism operates anyway?
I mean, I know for a fact that Jehovah's Witnesses get together and spend their time studying the Bible, so if they can manage to handle all that outside of school hours, why is everyone acting like it's such a huge deal? Are you guys seriously that terrified that nobody’s going to show up at your place in the afternoon?

By the way, can you actually tell me how long religious education has even been a thing in our schools? Like, what year did they officially bring it into the curriculum?

I’ve actually been sitting here thinking about how we might tackle the whole issue of kids not signing up for religious education classes, but it feels like nobody around here really wants to dive into that kind of conversation. It’s honestly a bit of a bummer, because I truly believe that if we could just put our heads together, we'd come up with much smarter solutions than anyone could find acting alone. Of course, that only works if everyone is actually willing to pull in the same direction and cooperate, you know? But without that teamwork, we're just spinning our wheels. 🤷

So, I mean, it all really started with a simple suggestion—if we’re facing this massive logistical nightmare where it’s basically impossible to schedule religion classes during that last period for the little kids and the first period for the older ones because we just don't have enough staff, then why aren't we actually hiring more people to fill those gaps?
If the main hurdle is finding enough religious instructors—and honestly, I bet theology students would be jumping for joy if they knew there were actual jobs waiting for them!—just remember that we already have priests and nuns stepping up to teach religion in schools all the time.

Is it really impossible to bring in more staff and structure things better so that choosing an elective doesn't just result in a bunch of kids sitting around doing nothing if they didn't sign up for it?

And can we please stop trying to sanctify the bread, the chairs, and the people inside government buildings? This is a secular nation, and parents from all walks of life—whether they believe in God or not—are sending their kids to these public institutions.
It’s like you can't help but have people see you through the lens of old political oppression, even if that couldn't be further from the truth about who you are today.