Religion classes in school - Megathread

Susan James said:It's regarding a national holiday and things that affect everyone, so nobody is being discriminated against. I'm not quite sure what you were getting at there 😕

Well, there's the loss to the federal budget, since we have to pay those instructors (and we certainly don't have extra funds for teaching assistants), plus the cost of hiring an additional teacher to supervise the non-religious students during those hours (if we can even manage to organize it).
Then there's the loss of time; if it isn't scheduled as the first period, kids end up with a gap in their schedule and have to stay at the facility longer than necessary.
Plus, you mentioned yourself that believers wouldn't lose anything by moving religious studies to the church, so I'm not entirely sure where the issue lies for them.😕

Given that we are talking about the Christmas holiday, it stands to reason that public schools would celebrate with an assembly. Furthermore, it’s perfectly logical that such an occasion would include a blessing for both students and teachers. After all, as we all know, the essence of Christmas isn't Coca-Cola or Santa Claus, but rather the birth of Jesus. Naturally, all students, teachers, and parents should be invited and feel welcome to attend such an event. It goes without saying, however, that attending the ceremony cannot be mandatory or coerced. These points are so self-evident that I honestly find myself wondering why I am even bothering to write them down...

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.

Even in Germany, the Nazis never actually won a majority of the votes. Since we're talking about intelligence and scientific facts...
They were just a minority that seized control through manipulation.

Susan James said:😕 😕 😕

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.

Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.


“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

rustydrifter10 said:But there's no such thing as "atheistic religious studies" because atheism isn't a faith.

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.

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?

Another inaccurate post.
For the Church, being homosexual isn't a sin; the sin lies in acting on those impulses. Furthermore, one can sin through thought, speech, action, or omission... Therefore, someone who is homosexual but does not act on those urges is not a sinner. The Church supports the birth of all conceived children without exception.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Republic of America regarding cooperation in education and culture (1996/97) states: "The Republic of America commits to guaranteeing the teaching of Catholic religious education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as an elective subject for those who choose it, under the same conditions as other mandatory subjects, within the framework of the school curriculum and in accordance with the will of parents or guardians" (Art. 1).
The text of the Concordat clearly specifies that religious education is an elective subject, but that choice belongs to the parents and students, not the school itself. A school cannot refuse to offer religious education as an option. Likewise, religious instruction must be conducted under the exact same conditions as any other mandatory subject. Consequently, those who "treat" religious education as if it were somehow less important than core subjects have no right to complain.

The Concordat is publicly available; it would be wise to read it before jumping into the comments.

Susan James said:😕 😕 😕

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.

Of course you don't get it, just like a few others here, because you're all looking at everything through a lens of prejudice and seeing only what you want to see, rather than actually reading what's on the page...

And you know, it’s actually pretty tragic that none of you attacking them noticed the distinction. You missed the whole point: it was just about the selflessness of the kid in the second letter, where instead of asking for anything for himself from Nicholas, he’s already asking for a job for his parents and health for his aunt... 😢
And that specific kind of selflessness is exactly what gets rewarded in religious studies, not in American history or any other subject taught in school...

And don't worry, we all set aside money for the church, but we also know that money isn't some "gift" we're tossing to the clergy; it’s more like a debt we're repaying for using all that property that the former government forcibly seized from the church and used for its own ends... if the church had acted the way most people here would act toward the church if it were owed money, the US would have gone bankrupt ages ago... so please, just stop writing about things you don't actually understand just because you read it in a newspaper once.☕

Besides, even if you don't have the cash for a priest at a funeral, that priest is still going to show up without a dime, just like he'll bless your house, baptize your baby, or marry you.....
And really, what kind of car fleet do priests have compared to what politicians are driving?
You know, back in the day, like 200 years ago in America, if a family wanted to support the church to ensure a priest, they’d give the best and most fertile pieces of land as "food"... people left whatever they had to the church after they passed... if you don't believe me, go read that book by Father Slavko Kovacic about the American priests from the rural South.

Isn't it a little cheap to just throw around all these heart-wrenching emotional triggers, when it’s actually way cheaper to just spit on something we don't even understand—something that doesn't have anything to do with the facts and everything to do with our own shady little insinuations?

And look, if you're trying to go around encouraging kids to be selfless, shouldn't you actually be a selfless person yourself? Obviously, faith doesn't really change that reality... it just makes me wonder, after reading all this, how many of these people are actually genuine altruists versus just putting on a massive show for the cameras?
Because honestly, taking one single letter where you can clearly see a difference in values among our kids from an airplane window and turning it into this massive drama? Writing this kind of nonsense? It’s just... sorry, it’s sad, and if you ask me, it’s pretty pathetic...

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.

Don't underestimate how stubborn people can be. We used to have computer lab, but then they introduced choir. People were actually pulling kids out of tech classes just so they could join the choir. That tells you everything you need to know about how much people here actually value practical knowledge.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Of course you don't get it, just like a few others here, because you're all looking at everything through a lens of prejudice and seeing only what you want to see, rather than actually reading what's on the page...

And you know, it’s actually pretty tragic that none of you attacking them noticed the distinction. You missed the whole point: it was just about the selflessness of the kid in the second letter, where instead of asking for anything for himself from Nicholas, he’s already asking for a job for his parents and health for his aunt... 😢
And that specific kind of selflessness is exactly what gets rewarded in religious studies, not in American history or any other subject taught in school...

And don't worry, we all set aside money for the church, but we also know that money isn't some "gift" we're tossing to the clergy; it’s more like a debt we're repaying for using all that property that the former government forcibly seized from the church and used for its own ends... if the church had acted the way most people here would act toward the church if it were owed money, the US would have gone bankrupt ages ago... so please, just stop writing about things you don't actually understand just because you read it in a newspaper once.☕

Besides, even if you don't have the cash for a priest at a funeral, that priest is still going to show up without a dime, just like he'll bless your house, baptize your baby, or marry you.....
And really, what kind of car fleet do priests have compared to what politicians are driving?
You know, back in the day, like 200 years ago in America, if a family wanted to support the church to ensure a priest, they’d give the best and most fertile pieces of land as "food"... people left whatever they had to the church after they passed... if you don't believe me, go read that book by Father Slavko Kovacic about the American priests from the rural South.

Isn't it a little cheap to just throw around all these heart-wrenching emotional triggers, when it’s actually way cheaper to just spit on something we don't even understand—something that doesn't have anything to do with the facts and everything to do with our own shady little insinuations?

And look, if you're trying to go around encouraging kids to be selfless, shouldn't you actually be a selfless person yourself? Obviously, faith doesn't really change that reality... it just makes me wonder, after reading all this, how many of these people are actually genuine altruists versus just putting on a massive show for the cameras?
Because honestly, taking one single letter where you can clearly see a difference in values among our kids from an airplane window and turning it into this massive drama? Writing this kind of nonsense? It’s just... sorry, it’s sad, and if you ask me, it’s pretty pathetic...

1. The church got most of its property through legalized looting and heavy taxation.
2. When my grandma passed away—she was a poor soul from rural Midwest—they actually had to threaten the priest. They told him they'd tell everyone he drove his mistress to an abortion because he wouldn't bury her. It wasn't because the funeral wouldn't be paid for, but because one of her children had joined the old Communist party.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

But there is still a massive difference. The US guarantees that Catholic religious education will be offered in all public elementary and high schools, as well as preschools, as a mandatory subject for anyone who chooses it, under the exact same conditions as any other required course. They simply don't do that for any other religion or any other elective.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

That's just not accurate. Based on the four Vatican agreements, the expenditures from the US are:
* Based on the obligation to provide two gross salaries per parish—around $81666667
* Salaries for religious education teachers in elementary and high schools—around $66666667
* Spending on textbooks—around $7666667 (and keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay for these; the government does, which means all taxpayers do)
* Salaries and textbooks for the seminary in Washington, D.C., and affiliated theologians—around $6133333 (again, these aren't funded by the Church, but by the state)
* Seven institutes operating out of the Washington, D.C. seminary: catechetical, church music, lay theological culture, church history, Mariology, Biblical studies, and ecumenical theology and dialogue—there’s no official data on this, but we can certainly assume it’s a significant sum.
* Military chaplaincy salaries—around $2200000

And none of these figures include:
* Amounts the US and local municipalities provide for building or repairing sacred sites (excluding historical landmarks or military/police pilgrimages...)
* Revenue from over 2,000 legal entities owned by or under the control of the Church
* Income from local government budgets

So, try doing the math again to see how much money the Church actually receives from the government every year, and then compare that total to every other non-profit organization combined.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Malice, or just ignorance regarding what is being written? I personally believe it is the latter. 🙂
http://www.newsoutlet.com/us/article-about-school-stuff
I have already stated that in the 1990s, an interstate agreement was signed between the US and Vatican City which regulated the rights of the Roman Catholic Church in America. When (m)Racan came to power in 2000, he couldn't do anything about that specific interstate agreement, so he used the same model to strike agreements with all recognized religious communities in the US.
So, all religious groups have similar rights; don't go thinking it's just the Roman Catholic Church. Although all those agreements, except for the first one, are easily revocable by the government since none of them are international treaties. Just to note, the practice of signing agreements with all religious groups using the same model isn't even close to being common practice among European Union members. Most majority Catholic or Protestant communities have that status, others do not. But let me not veer too far off-topic.
The Catholic Church is the only one among all religious communities that gave up budget funds out of solidarity during the crisis. They gave up about 20-25%.

The Roman Catholic Church receives roughly 250 million dollars from the budget annually, or $0.25 billion.
Various different non-profits operating here receive 1.5 billion dollars annually. I won't go off-topic regarding non-profits since that isn't the subject here, but I will offer a great point of reflection for anyone worried about the budget regarding NGOs, and I'd be happy to continue this discussion on a more appropriate thread.

“We certainly need civil society, but the real question is what kind of civil society we actually want and what exactly should be taxpayer-funded. I’m all for civil society, but I am absolutely against this phenomenon known as the NGO mafia—groups of people who have made a career out of being professional activists, fighting for everyone else's causes just so they can profit heavily from the federal budget. According to reports tracking public funding for civil society projects and programs dating back to 2014, approximately $100 million has been distributed. That is nearly $15 million more than in previous years. When you factor in the funds provided by local municipalities and county governments, we are looking at a staggering $1.8 billion being funneled toward these various associations,” Raspudić noted.

The Church still comes out on top.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Another inaccurate post.
For the Church, being homosexual isn't a sin; the sin lies in acting on those impulses. Furthermore, one can sin through thought, speech, action, or omission... Therefore, someone who is homosexual but does not act on those urges is not a sinner. The Church supports the birth of all conceived children without exception.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Republic of America regarding cooperation in education and culture (1996/97) states: "The Republic of America commits to guaranteeing the teaching of Catholic religious education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as an elective subject for those who choose it, under the same conditions as other mandatory subjects, within the framework of the school curriculum and in accordance with the will of parents or guardians" (Art. 1).
The text of the Concordat clearly specifies that religious education is an elective subject, but that choice belongs to the parents and students, not the school itself. A school cannot refuse to offer religious education as an option. Likewise, religious instruction must be conducted under the exact same conditions as any other mandatory subject. Consequently, those who "treat" religious education as if it were somehow less important than core subjects have no right to complain.

The Concordat is publicly available; it would be wise to read it before jumping into the comments.

Oh, come on! Are we seriously suggesting that gay people don't experience those thoughts and just somehow keep them perfectly under wraps? It’s all well and good for heterosexual people to live out their natural inclinations, but apparently, that rule doesn't apply to everyone else. The Church refuses to grant them the same basic rights, and they actually go as far as promoting this bias during religious education classes—basically "teaching" children (if you want to call it that, though it feels more like brainwashing)

Alexander Ortiz3 said:Another inaccurate post.
For the Church, being homosexual isn't a sin; the sin lies in acting on those impulses. Furthermore, one can sin through thought, speech, action, or omission... Therefore, someone who is homosexual but does not act on those urges is not a sinner. The Church supports the birth of all conceived children without exception.
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Republic of America regarding cooperation in education and culture (1996/97) states: "The Republic of America commits to guaranteeing the teaching of Catholic religious education in all public elementary and secondary schools, as an elective subject for those who choose it, under the same conditions as other mandatory subjects, within the framework of the school curriculum and in accordance with the will of parents or guardians" (Art. 1).
The text of the Concordat clearly specifies that religious education is an elective subject, but that choice belongs to the parents and students, not the school itself. A school cannot refuse to offer religious education as an option. Likewise, religious instruction must be conducted under the exact same conditions as any other mandatory subject. Consequently, those who "treat" religious education as if it were somehow less important than core subjects have no right to complain.

The Concordat is publicly available; it would be wise to read it before jumping into the comments.

Look, I have read it, but it's pretty clear you haven't actually understood what it says.

Alexander Ortiz3 said:I honestly don't understand who has such a hard time respecting others and their faith. Why would anyone feel excluded by someone else's religious traditions if they are actually being welcomed? If the entire assembly is centered around a religious holiday, why is having a blessing during the event even an issue? That's literally the whole point of a holiday. It would be terrible and totally unacceptable to bar anyone from attending the ceremony. But if certain narrow-minded people can't accept those who are believers, why force them to participate in something they find objectionable?
Or should the majority just abandon their own convictions just because someone might feel discriminated against? On the flip side, believers aren't bothered by atheists or people of other faiths; nothing is being forced on anyone, and everyone is welcome if they want to join. Likewise, if they don't want to come, they are perfectly free not to show up. Should we really be forcing people to do things against their will?

The assembly is meant for all children, and it isn't strictly a religious event since it’s held in observance of a national holiday. Now, if it were organized exclusively by religion teachers for students enrolled in religious studies classes, then you could argue it was a religious service.

As for this idea of being "welcome"—firstly, they aren't actually participating in the rite because at the start of every such ceremony, the priest clearly begins with phrases like, "We have gathered here, those of us who believe in Christ/the Resurrection/life after death..." In other words, he is always addressing his specific congregation, not everyone else. Therefore, everyone else is just an incidental bystander subject to an unwanted religious rite.
Secondly—given that the blessing is "packaged" inside a school assembly, it’s obviously a case of "take it or leave it." It’s a transparently cheap and low-level form of coercion. Those who want to attend the regular part of the show are basically blackmailed into accepting something they don't want, or they miss out entirely. At that point, what the principal wants becomes irrelevant (and honestly, I couldn't care less about his preferences or opinions).

So, to sum it up: manipulation, misery, and pathetic behavior. I don't know what other words to use to describe the practice of blessing children against their will by leveraging the performance as bait... it's just wretched, truly wretched.

And please, just understand once and for all—it's not that we think there is anything supernatural happening with the blessing, the sign of the cross, the spoken words, or the sprinkling of water—to me, that's on the same level as, say, chicken worship in a Santeria ritual. What truly revolts me is the coercion applied to our children and the blackmailing tactics used to pull it off.

Michelle Nelson4 said:The assembly is meant for all children, and it isn't strictly a religious event since it’s held in observance of a national holiday. Now, if it were organized exclusively by religion teachers for students enrolled in religious studies classes, then you could argue it was a religious service.

As for this idea of being "welcome"—firstly, they aren't actually participating in the rite because at the start of every such ceremony, the priest clearly begins with phrases like, "We have gathered here, those of us who believe in Christ/the Resurrection/life after death..." In other words, he is always addressing his specific congregation, not everyone else. Therefore, everyone else is just an incidental bystander subject to an unwanted religious rite.
Secondly—given that the blessing is "packaged" inside a school assembly, it’s obviously a case of "take it or leave it." It’s a transparently cheap and low-level form of coercion. Those who want to attend the regular part of the show are basically blackmailed into accepting something they don't want, or they miss out entirely. At that point, what the principal wants becomes irrelevant (and honestly, I couldn't care less about his preferences or opinions).

So, to sum it up: manipulation, misery, and pathetic behavior. I don't know what other words to use to describe the practice of blessing children against their will by leveraging the performance as bait... it's just wretched, truly wretched.

And please, just understand once and for all—it's not that we think there is anything supernatural happening with the blessing, the sign of the cross, the spoken words, or the sprinkling of water—to me, that's on the same level as, say, chicken worship in a Santeria ritual. What truly revolts me is the coercion applied to our children and the blackmailing tactics used to pull it off.

In America, we had 14 national holidays and 8 of them were Catholic holidays, so more than half😁...Three Kings, Easter, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, Christmas, and St. Stephen's... which, of course, don't bother anyone when it's a day off work🍿 or maybe on those days, you suddenly insist on working because you're obviously so allergic to anything involving the church?

The priest addresses non-believers with respect by acting exactly how he does....which means, he isn't addressing you and isn't imposing anything on you....he's addressing the people he specifically mentioned....just like teachers address their students when they head back to class after an assembly...when they say "Class 2A, let's go," only 2A follows, not 2B.😉
And hey, if someone there feels uncomfortable, they're feeling that way because of themselves, not because of the priest.😉

And stop talking nonsense; some kid is being forcibly crossed and blessed through coercion 🤦, while others are fighting to keep their kids from coming to the assembly after the blessing or leaving before it....😲....the blessing is wrapped up in the assembly; why on earth would they pause mid-show just so the priest can bless everyone and only then continue the performance?🤦

And who even are you guys?😕

Seriously though: What’s the actual payoff if we finally pull religious studies out of the public schools? everyone wins, right? ...yeah, that's a pretty lazy answer.

Lawrence Torres56 said:In America, we had 14 national holidays and 8 of them were Catholic holidays, so more than half😁...Three Kings, Easter, Easter Monday, Corpus Christi, Assumption, All Saints, Christmas, and St. Stephen's... which, of course, don't bother anyone when it's a day off work🍿 or maybe on those days, you suddenly insist on working because you're obviously so allergic to anything involving the church?

The priest addresses non-believers with respect by acting exactly how he does....which means, he isn't addressing you and isn't imposing anything on you....he's addressing the people he specifically mentioned....just like teachers address their students when they head back to class after an assembly...when they say "Class 2A, let's go," only 2A follows, not 2B.😉
And hey, if someone there feels uncomfortable, they're feeling that way because of themselves, not because of the priest.😉

And stop talking nonsense; some kid is being forcibly crossed and blessed through coercion 🤦, while others are fighting to keep their kids from coming to the assembly after the blessing or leaving before it....😲....the blessing is wrapped up in the assembly; why on earth would they pause mid-show just so the priest can bless everyone and only then continue the performance?🤦

And who even are you guys?😕

Look, if someone decides without asking to take my child for a blessing—which people have already tried to do—then I have every right to view that as a violation of our religious freedom, specifically the freedom *from* religion that we practice. As for the rest of your post regarding my emotions, that’s pure fiction. It's never "uncomfortable" for me to be caught in the middle of religious rites if I happen to be there, I just find them incredibly boring (and sometimes it's hard to keep a straight face listening to some of those little stories).

Regarding holidays and days off—if someone started an initiative where instead of these government-mandated dates, everyone got 14 floating holidays to use whenever they wanted, I’d be the first to sign up. And I certainly wouldn't use five of them in the dead of winter; I'd extend my summer vacation by at least another week. And honestly, I couldn't care less that we supposedly "celebrate" these on religious dates; just don't marry me off with endless reruns. These winter ones are all pretty much pointless to me—it's cold, foggy, and the days are short; it's just a dull period where we "celebrate" that the days aren't getting shorter anymore. I don't need religion for that; a bit of astronomy is enough to know the Earth has passed that point in its orbit around the sun and continues to circle thanks to good old gravity... which is more or less the whole point of Christmas...

Jacob Lewis5 said:Seriously though: What’s the actual payoff if we finally pull religious studies out of the public schools? everyone wins, right? ...yeah, that's a pretty lazy answer.

Is there even an answer that would actually satisfy religious folks? It feels like you guys just see things through your own lens—putting yourselves first, acting like you're the only ones with a say, or that you're always right... it just keeps going like that.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Seriously though: What’s the actual payoff if we finally pull religious studies out of the public schools? everyone wins, right? ...yeah, that's a pretty lazy answer.

Are you looking for an answer based on objective truth, public finance, morality, or perhaps how it affects specific social groups? 😁

Michelle Nelson4 said:Look, if someone decides without asking to take my child for a blessing—which people have already tried to do—then I have every right to view that as a violation of our religious freedom, specifically the freedom *from* religion that we practice. As for the rest of your post regarding my emotions, that’s pure fiction. It's never "uncomfortable" for me to be caught in the middle of religious rites if I happen to be there, I just find them incredibly boring (and sometimes it's hard to keep a straight face listening to some of those little stories).

Regarding holidays and days off—if someone started an initiative where instead of these government-mandated dates, everyone got 14 floating holidays to use whenever they wanted, I’d be the first to sign up. And I certainly wouldn't use five of them in the dead of winter; I'd extend my summer vacation by at least another week. And honestly, I couldn't care less that we supposedly "celebrate" these on religious dates; just don't marry me off with endless reruns. These winter ones are all pretty much pointless to me—it's cold, foggy, and the days are short; it's just a dull period where we "celebrate" that the days aren't getting shorter anymore. I don't need religion for that; a bit of astronomy is enough to know the Earth has passed that point in its orbit around the sun and continues to circle thanks to good old gravity... which is more or less the whole point of Christmas...

If you don't want your kid participating in a blessing, just tell the teacher and they won't go... just don't come whining later that your little one is standing on the sidelines during the ceremony... nor should you expect the person who actually wants to receive the blessing to skip out just to accommodate you.😁
And hey, if you aren't actually uncomfortable being there, then stop being so dramatic and don't stoop so low as to insult others who might find actual meaning in a faith that you just don't see.😉 Sorry, but when someone writes something like ".....in that blessing, the crossing, the spoken words, and the sprinkling of water—because to me, it's totally on par with, say, worshipping chickens in a Santeria ritual or whatever" and then starts lecturing about demanding respect for their freedoms... it just comes off as totally unserious... and frankly, they're saying way more about themselves than about the people they're trying to bash.😉

Quincy:

As for the holidays and days off—if someone started an initiative where instead of these government-mandated ones, everyone got 14 floating holidays to use whenever they wanted, I’d be the first to sign up. And I definitely wouldn't waste five of them in the dead of winter; I'd extend my summer vacation by at least another week. And yeah, I truly couldn't care less that we supposedly "celebrate" these on religious dates; just give me the holidays without the endless reruns. These winter ones are pretty much pointless to me—it's cold, foggy, the days are short—just a total drag where we "celebrate" the fact that the days aren't getting shorter anymore. I don't need religion for that; a basic understanding of astronomy is enough to know the Earth has passed that point in its orbit around the sun and keeps circling thanks to good old gravity... which is basically the whole point of Christmas...

That's not happening, honey. Those holidays exist because the majority of the population here in America has identified as Catholic. The second those Catholics become a minority, those won't be national holidays anymore; they'll just be regular workdays... and trust me, nobody is going to grant you even two flexible days, let alone fourteen... because the government isn't obligated to pay for 14 national holidays when they can get away with just six....😉...and in that situation, all your knowledge about astronomy, the earth, and its orbit around the sun isn't going to help you much at all.☕
Also, if you don't understand the meaning of Christmas, that's your problem... and because of that, you have no right to spit on those who do... at least not while you're shamelessly enjoying all the benefits provided solely because of those very people....

neontinker5 said:Are you looking for an answer based on objective truth, public finance, morality, or perhaps how it affects specific social groups? 😁

All of the above!

Jason Ortiz5 said:Is there even an answer that would actually satisfy religious folks? It feels like you guys just see things through your own lens—putting yourselves first, acting like you're the only ones with a say, or that you're always right... it just keeps going like that.

I heard some people say religious folks sneak around in the dark to eat toddlers, too. (Seriously though, if you wrote that many negative stereotypes about any other group besides Christians, you’d be getting flagged for hate speech immediately.)
I gotta ask a personal question: You say religious people at work drive you crazy, yet you claim you get along fine when you're alone with them. Then you mention your daughter getting picked on by the "good kids" at school, and you're constantly posting about them... honestly, where do you live? Some tiny town in Boise? Or maybe Spokane? Something clearly triggered some deep-seated resentment in you. If even 10% of what you're saying is true, then please, accept my apologies on behalf of all believers.

silentraven6 said:The author herself just proved me right; I definitely read between the lines correctly.

I didn't quite catch what you meant in that follow-up post.

rustydrifter10 said:But there's no such thing as "atheistic religious studies" because atheism isn't a faith.

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.

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?

Look, atheism really is a form of belief. There’s no organized atheist religion—it hasn't been institutionalized like that—but at its core, it's still a belief system. To actually "know" things, we need proof regarding the (non)existence of God, how the universe started, life itself, consciousness... it's all huge question marks. For believers and atheists alike, there's a massive pile of unknowns. Worst of all, just because there's no evidence for something doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. We have to accept that where knowledge ends, faith begins.
I think you know perfectly well that they don't teach that gay people are worth less. The Church isn't even that preoccupied with them. There are maybe a few lines in a catechism that align with scientific findings on the subject, but there's no hatred. Minorities and outliers have always been targets throughout history, and they are today too—we can't blame the Church for violent behavior that has happened everywhere throughout human history. You mentioned earlier that religious studies is mandatory, but you should probably note that it's also an elective. Other denominations offer classes if enough students show interest, so how can we claim Catholicism has a monopoly on privilege?

rustydrifter10 said:But there is still a massive difference. The US guarantees that Catholic religious education will be offered in all public elementary and high schools, as well as preschools, as a mandatory subject for anyone who chooses it, under the exact same conditions as any other required course. They simply don't do that for any other religion or any other elective.

That's just not accurate. Based on the four Vatican agreements, the expenditures from the US are:
* Based on the obligation to provide two gross salaries per parish—around $81666667
* Salaries for religious education teachers in elementary and high schools—around $66666667
* Spending on textbooks—around $7666667 (and keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay for these; the government does, which means all taxpayers do)
* Salaries and textbooks for the seminary in Washington, D.C., and affiliated theologians—around $6133333 (again, these aren't funded by the Church, but by the state)
* Seven institutes operating out of the Washington, D.C. seminary: catechetical, church music, lay theological culture, church history, Mariology, Biblical studies, and ecumenical theology and dialogue—there’s no official data on this, but we can certainly assume it’s a significant sum.
* Military chaplaincy salaries—around $2200000

And none of these figures include:
* Amounts the US and local municipalities provide for building or repairing sacred sites (excluding historical landmarks or military/police pilgrimages...)
* Revenue from over 2,000 legal entities owned by or under the control of the Church
* Income from local government budgets

So, try doing the math again to see how much money the Church actually receives from the government every year, and then compare that total to every other non-profit organization combined.

The Church still comes out on top.

It kills me to see that much cash being spent when, if we were actually cutting budget allocations, those teachers would be the first to lose their jobs—while everything else gets slashed. Christianity is supposed to be about material modesty, right? If we're cutting, we should cut NGOs and bloated bureaucracies too. We need to build an American system based on actual fairness, especially during belt-tightening. The biggest chunk listed here goes to salaries, and that's what worries me most—not because of faith, but because of consumer spending power and GDP impact, and the families relying on those checks. But hey, if everyone's getting cut, then they should be too. Do you actually have the data on what other religious groups or nonprofits are pulling?

Jacob Lewis5 said:All of the above!

I heard some people say religious folks sneak around in the dark to eat toddlers, too. (Seriously though, if you wrote that many negative stereotypes about any other group besides Christians, you’d be getting flagged for hate speech immediately.)
I gotta ask a personal question: You say religious people at work drive you crazy, yet you claim you get along fine when you're alone with them. Then you mention your daughter getting picked on by the "good kids" at school, and you're constantly posting about them... honestly, where do you live? Some tiny town in Boise? Or maybe Spokane? Something clearly triggered some deep-seated resentment in you. If even 10% of what you're saying is true, then please, accept my apologies on behalf of all believers.

That bit about eating children is just pathetic.

I live in the Midwest. It's not that religious people get on my nerves at work; I was just saying that in the most religious circles, I've seen the absolute worst behavior—bullying, theft, hypocrisy, cheating on spouses, gossip... Honestly, luckily, most of them just do that stuff to each other.