Religion classes in school - Megathread

silentraven6 said:Just a Classic Catholic mindset of following the pack... being sheep in the truest sense of the word.

Who’s really to blame if you can't think for yourself?

Just because I’m a moderator doesn't mean I don't have a brain. It’s just that some topics require less mental heavy lifting, making them easier to moderate. Then there are those topics where you actually have to use your head because they matter to you—where you’re trying to change the world through a single post. You have to love Christ, man... love Him deeply, painfully, and steadily for 31 years of life, 13 of which are spent right here posting.

When I was a little girl, and then as I grew up, I never dreamed of becoming a teacher. I dreamed of being a nun.

But Nasrec played a wild card on me, and life turned me into a parent instead.

I truly mean this... it's hard to be this honest without coming across as pathetic or even psychotic, but is there really anything rational about faith?

You really shouldn't even be posting your personal deep thoughts like this. I'm calling you out because you let people get abusive, and all these tangents about brains and sheep and "enlighteners" are just distractions from the actual topic.
You're letting the vibe here turn toxic, allowing the worst kind of insults and turning everything into a personal attack.
It proves that American grammar standards are basically non-existent in colleges nowadays—because all I read in response is that I'm arrogant, that everyone can see my issues, that I'm a fake Christian mentor, a sheep...
You preach a lot, but as a moderator, you're pretty unfair. It reminds me of those shady priests. Now I'm reading gems from people who are clearly in your inner circle, saying they feel "sick" after reading a Naphthalene normal post. Sick? No arguments provided? There wasn't a single thing "sickening" about the post; she just gave her opinion, and your moderation was totally biased...

Jacob Lewis5, Maja isn't the only moderator on this board. The rest of us are watching the thread too. If you spot anything that violates the rules, just hit the icon on the left to report it.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:Jacob Lewis5, Maja isn't the only moderator on this board. The rest of us are watching the thread too. If you spot anything that violates the rules, just hit the icon on the left to report it.

(I don't know if I want to, feels a bit too much like being a narc...)
It seems like everyone's got a bone to pick—somebody's feeling insulted, somebody else thinks the mods are slacking, and now everyone is jumping on each other in these threads. We really need to chill with the public call-outs. If something's actually bothering you on a personal level, just use the report button instead of making a scene.

brisknomad13 said:School religion classes and parish catechesis have always been two totally different things.
Parish catechesis is all about that deep, spiritual connection—it’s where you actually live out the sacraments and grapple with faith on a real level. School religion classes are different; they're more about the long game, teaching the fundamentals through a mix of head knowledge, heart, and actual action.

Since Christianity is so baked into our history and what makes us who we are, I think people were right to back the politicians back in the nineties who wanted to bring religious studies back into the schools.

If a school decides to sandwich religion class right in the middle of the day, we need to do whatever it takes to stop that from happening.
If a kid isn't doing Sunday school, they shouldn't just sit around waiting. I'm with you on that.

I couldn't disagree with your post more—honestly.

Look, I am Catholic, and I attended religious classes at my local parish during the America era, which was actually a very lovely experience. I won't bore you with talk about OUR history (though I would personally consider faith a part of our tradition), let alone national identity🤣 (forget all that identity business); but those whom you support, because they fought to return religion to the schools, have led this country to a point where I, like so many others in '96, had to leave the US because there simply wasn't any future for me here. Eventually, after fifteen years, I returned to our Beautifully Adorned land and brought my two sons with me. I put them in a Catholic preschool—one was even a pre-K program where the nuns were absolutely wonderful, as were the other teachers. Then we moved on to first grade, where they had religious studies at school. Fine. But one hour of art and one hour of music?? What? And nobody seems to complain.
Now we are in third grade, and while he loves his parish classes, his school religious studies class is a disaster. The teacher is uninspired, the kids can't stand her, and they are begging me to withdraw him; they want to start fresh next year. (I’d do it immediately, but apparently, that isn't allowed until the end of the school year.)
We attend Mass on Sundays, but since I separated my faith from the Church as an institution a long time ago, I often just leave him there. It's almost a relief to be proven right, seeing how the front pews are still filled with people who, by their own actions, surely don't belong.

Religious studies should be removed from the schools and returned to the churches. Personally, I feel it kills everything beautiful about our traditions and beliefs; it's being forced upon us as a subject (an elective for the soul, if you will), much like Marxism used to be.

I am withdrawing him, and I've already written a letter to the Archbishop expressing my deep disappointment.

Tomorrow there is a school performance at the nursery, and I can certainly understand why parents whose children don't attend religious classes are feeling resentful.

brisknomad13 said:I've said it all, but apparently, people just skip over the answers.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act says in Article 4:
Article 4.
(1) The goals of education in school institutions are:
1. to ensure a systematic way of teaching students, encouraging and improving their intellectual, physical, aesthetic, social, moral, and spiritual development in accordance with their abilities and inclinations,
2. to develop students' awareness of national belonging, preserving historical-cultural heritage, and national identity....(cut)

Like you can see, educational goals are broad, but the part that actually matters here is the bolded bit.
That’s where the Catholic Church stepped in, offering the kind of upbringing they promote (universal and faith-based values) and letting kids get an education "in accordance with their abilities and inclinations"—for the parents who actually want that. By the way, over 80% of people in the last census identified as Catholic, and since schools aren't neutral bystanders but actual formative institutions, having Catholic instruction has legal, universal, and moral ground to exist as a subject.

Bringing religion back into schools wasn't some dictatorship move; it happened because the political party that won the American elections put it there. That option was chosen by the citizens of the US. Then came the Vatican Treaty, and the Constitution has a clause protecting freedom of religion.

It was a historic chance for the people to decide the quality of education for their own kids.
I mean, who else gets to decide how kids are raised if not the people—the majority?
I don't have anything against Protagoras or brisknomad13 making up their own curriculum, or some feminist group doing the same. If they meet the criteria for an elective, sure, let the kids whose parents want it take the class.

So, religion returned to the classroom after decades, allowing for that "moral and spiritual development based on inclinations and abilities," plus education on national identity (though that happens in other classes too). It all lines up with the Law, the Constitution, and the Vatican Treaty.

If a minority finds that annoying, there's not much they can do right now.
If the majority is unhappy, they can go through the proper channels to change the legal framework.

As for funding or how many hours are assigned to it, if this model isn't cutting it, then that's something that needs to be worked on.

I just finished reading your post, and I have to be honest—at first glance, I was like, "Okay, yeah, there’s some actual logic here." In certain spots, though, it gets a little spooky, but I guess since I'm an atheist, I'm looking at all religions through a totally subjective lens. Personally, I don't think any religion belongs in the classroom; honestly, it baffles me that they even still are, though I suppose a believer probably feels that same sense of bewilderment when they can't wrap their heads around why someone wouldn't believe 😁.

But then it hit me: the Education Act wasn't penned by some enlightened super-being acting solely for the greater good. It was drafted by politicians, just like every other piece of legislation.
And let's be real, those people know exactly what every single word in a law implies, and they definitely know exactly when to be vague, when to be ambiguous, and when to leave things open to interpretation just to suit their needs.

So now, it doesn't seem like a coincidence at all that this provision about "spiritual development" ended up in the education code. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that clause was slipped in specifically because of the Catholic Church, which then uses that exact wording to justify pushing religious education back into our schools.

I’m not even going to touch the rest of it—the whole majority versus minority debate, or the American Catholic crowd—because there’s already been so much written about that we’re basically just running in circles at this point.

Speaking of finding a model that actually works, how do you account for the fact that the democratically elected government in '91 basically just ghosted those kids who don't attend Catholic religion classes? They didn't bother to design any kind of alternative for them during those hours.
It feels like you religious folks completely forgot about them too, and it seems like none of you, in all your spiritual and moral growth, ever thought to advocate for them (especially since you make up the majority, hold the social influence, and—let's be blunt—are collecting their parents' tax dollars, all perfectly legal, of course).

As for me, I don't feel like my kid needs to sit there learning about other religions while everyone else is in religion class. At the same time, I’m certainly not going to hand my child over to those anti-church activist groups either; I don't trust anyone who’s just out there tapping into public funds.

Honestly, it would be enough if the state just provided the funding to ensure the school library stayed open, so kids could just go in, grab a book, and read or review for their next period.

Karen Richardson3 said:I just finished reading your post, and I have to be honest—at first glance, I was like, "Okay, yeah, there’s some actual logic here." In certain spots, though, it gets a little spooky, but I guess since I'm an atheist, I'm looking at all religions through a totally subjective lens. Personally, I don't think any religion belongs in the classroom; honestly, it baffles me that they even still are, though I suppose a believer probably feels that same sense of bewilderment when they can't wrap their heads around why someone wouldn't believe 😁.

But then it hit me: the Education Act wasn't penned by some enlightened super-being acting solely for the greater good. It was drafted by politicians, just like every other piece of legislation.
And let's be real, those people know exactly what every single word in a law implies, and they definitely know exactly when to be vague, when to be ambiguous, and when to leave things open to interpretation just to suit their needs.

So now, it doesn't seem like a coincidence at all that this provision about "spiritual development" ended up in the education code. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say that clause was slipped in specifically because of the Catholic Church, which then uses that exact wording to justify pushing religious education back into our schools.

I’m not even going to touch the rest of it—the whole majority versus minority debate, or the American Catholic crowd—because there’s already been so much written about that we’re basically just running in circles at this point.

Speaking of finding a model that actually works, how do you account for the fact that the democratically elected government in '91 basically just ghosted those kids who don't attend Catholic religion classes? They didn't bother to design any kind of alternative for them during those hours.
It feels like you religious folks completely forgot about them too, and it seems like none of you, in all your spiritual and moral growth, ever thought to advocate for them (especially since you make up the majority, hold the social influence, and—let's be blunt—are collecting their parents' tax dollars, all perfectly legal, of course).

As for me, I don't feel like my kid needs to sit there learning about other religions while everyone else is in religion class. At the same time, I’m certainly not going to hand my child over to those anti-church activist groups either; I don't trust anyone who’s just out there tapping into public funds.

Honestly, it would be enough if the state just provided the funding to ensure the school library stayed open, so kids could just go in, grab a book, and read or review for their next period.

Some people find these posts terrifying or nauseating, but nobody is actually using them as a solid foundation for a real counter-argument. Throwing insults isn't going to get you anywhere.

The democratically elected government that came to power in the early 90s was operating under very specific, intense circumstances. They didn't have weapons, a standing army, or diplomatic leverage... they were dealing with internal uprisings and their own military turning against them. We had to lean hard into American identity and Catholicism because that was literally all we had left. Sorry, but back then, the government wasn't worrying about today's "New Age" parents complaining about an hour or two of lost time in their kid's schedule.🙄

Religious ed isn't being forced on anyone. There aren't really "religious" or "non-religious" kids—if there were, it would actually be a great chance for kids to learn how to live alongside people who are different. You're using such heavy language to describe religious ed and the relationship between the Church and the State, but there's nothing dramatic happening here. In religious ed, kids just draw pictures of Moses and Jesus and then talk about spiritual values.

Come on, you can do better than that
No worries
- so what's the actual issue with the curriculum then?

haha... taking Religion class basically means playing nice for once...
If you can survive a Religion course, places like this are nothing.

At the school near my place, Religion happens during the last periods, breaks, or right at the start of the day. Kids just hang out waiting for their other electives—Spanish, computer science, whatever—and since there are so many after-school clubs, there’s always someone waiting around somewhere.

The church is packed with kids on Sunday mornings; you can tell how many there are just by looking at the piles of backpacks left in the vestibule.
Now all 70 teachers are heading over to the priest's place for a Christmas lunch, all happening in a city that's a total stronghold for the Democratic Party.

Real classy.....☕

They have Islamic studies classes at the school too, and honestly, the Catholic theologians work together perfectly with them.
No drama, no scandals. Sure, the kids have to light bonfires and celebrate Halloween, and some elementary teachers are totally against it... but whatever. We know what actually matters.

brisknomad13 said:haha... taking Religion class basically means playing nice for once...
If you can survive a Religion course, places like this are nothing.

At the school near my place, Religion happens during the last periods, breaks, or right at the start of the day. Kids just hang out waiting for their other electives—Spanish, computer science, whatever—and since there are so many after-school clubs, there’s always someone waiting around somewhere.

The church is packed with kids on Sunday mornings; you can tell how many there are just by looking at the piles of backpacks left in the vestibule.
Now all 70 teachers are heading over to the priest's place for a Christmas lunch, all happening in a city that's a total stronghold for the Democratic Party.

Real classy.....☕

They have Islamic studies classes at the school too, and honestly, the Catholic theologians work together perfectly with them.
No drama, no scandals. Sure, the kids have to light bonfires and celebrate Halloween, and some elementary teachers are totally against it... but whatever. We know what actually matters.

When the Secretary of Education mentioned that religious studies should ideally be held during the first or last period, the Archdiocese immediately jumped to their feet, citing the Education Act which explicitly forbids special treatment for religious studies regarding where they fit into the daily schedule—essentially saying we shouldn't even discuss specific cases that might serve as exceptions.

Nicole James said:When the Secretary of Education mentioned that religious studies should ideally be held during the first or last period, the Archdiocese immediately jumped to their feet, citing the Education Act which explicitly forbids special treatment for religious studies regarding where they fit into the daily schedule—essentially saying we shouldn't even discuss specific cases that might serve as exceptions.

Integrating religious education directly into the standard school day is really just the most practical way to ensure high attendance. The second factor is ensuring students receive proper grades. We all understand those basics, and what you pointed out just serves as further confirmation of that reality.

If you look at it through the lens of basic math and logic, forcing these classes into only the first or last slots would essentially require five times as many instructors, each working only a fifth of a full-time schedule. What would they even do during the hours between the first and sixth periods? It’s completely unfeasible from a logistical standpoint.

There isn't some divine reason why religious education can't be held after school hours; rather, it seems to stem from the Church's deep-seated fear that their enrollment numbers would plummet if they weren't integrated into the main day.

They seem so convinced of the necessity and desirability of having religion taught in schools that they won't even risk offering it as an extracurricular option. If I could feel any sympathy for them, I might, but there is something deeply unsettling about seeing such insecurity—this realization that their program might not be wanted—driving them to use these sneaky tactics to wedge themselves into the regular curriculum.

Nicole James said:When the Secretary of Education mentioned that religious studies should ideally be held during the first or last period, the Archdiocese immediately jumped to their feet, citing the Education Act which explicitly forbids special treatment for religious studies regarding where they fit into the daily schedule—essentially saying we shouldn't even discuss specific cases that might serve as exceptions.

Forget particular cases—in some places, every kid takes religion, so there's no need to worry about first or last periods...
But they just end up waiting around for other electives instead. A few kids go to Spanish, a few to French, then extra English, then early computer lab... honestly, who knows who's running the show with all that downtime.

Daycares have been set up by centers for ages. Every kid follows their own interests and vibes. It's that Reggio Emilia style. Those little prayer corners in preschools are actually pretty cute. I've seen Muslims and Catholics sharing the same corner.

That's what modern education looks like. Just following your own path.

It's not about cutting things out anymore; it's just adding more stuff to the pile...

brisknomad13 said:Forget particular cases—in some places, every kid takes religion, so there's no need to worry about first or last periods...
But they just end up waiting around for other electives instead. A few kids go to Spanish, a few to French, then extra English, then early computer lab... honestly, who knows who's running the show with all that downtime.

Daycares have been set up by centers for ages. Every kid follows their own interests and vibes. It's that Reggio Emilia style. Those little prayer corners in preschools are actually pretty cute. I've seen Muslims and Catholics sharing the same corner.

That's what modern education looks like. Just following your own path.

It's not about cutting things out anymore; it's just adding more stuff to the pile...

God, this reminds me of that one Saudi guy who claims they aren't violating anyone's rights because they've already hanged everyone... 😵

Nicole James said:God, this reminds me of that one Saudi guy who claims they aren't violating anyone's rights because they've already hanged everyone... 😵

haha... Nicole James, good to see you popping up after forever.

People absolutely love religious studies... Everything feels so cheery now that the holidays are rolling in.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:And how exactly does reducing religious classes in schools lower the number of believers if they're just going to church anyway? 😁 You either believe or you don't, regardless of where you're sitting in a classroom or a pew.

I don't know, I never said that.

Karen Richardson3 said:The era of oppression isn't over; it's just shifting depending on who's doing the pressing. Honestly, whether it's the left or the right doesn't matter much to me because, ideologically speaking, I sit somewhere in the middle. So, imagine this: even though I'm an atheist, I still consider myself someone with a really strong sense of national identity.

Anyway, I’m not against religious education as a concept itself—meaning, it never crosses my mind to ban anyone from being a believer, a queer, or a 35-year-old woman choosing to have a third abortion after already having two kids (though I definitely have opinions on every group mentioned here). My issue is specifically with keeping it in public schools.

What really gets to me are people like you, who equate opposing religious instruction in school buildings with threatening the very survival of Catholicism, and then immediately leap to talking about Communism.

If you're curious about what I think regarding Communism: I believe it was a deeply unfortunate period in our history, and we're still feeling the fallout today.
However, I don't view it as tragic because someone "banned" faith—and I put that in quotes, because everyone I knew went to church and participated in all the rites without any issues; we lived in the outskirts of Monterey. I see it as tragic because it crushed the middle class and left us ruled by the rural crowd.
We’re still feeling that rule by the rural population today, and it’s going to take decades to recover from the loss of the civic layer that ended up leaving the country.
But what truly scares me is the fact that the citizens are still fleeing the country while the rural types stay behind.

But getting back to the point:
That whole "there isn't enough space" excuse you're using is just shameful.
For you, or anyone else, to claim that, we would first have to reach a point where kids are flocking to parishes for religious instruction in such massive numbers that they can't even fit inside.

Only then could the Church ask the government to hand over school buildings for religious studies, simply because the needs of the American people are so vast that the Church can't meet them (at least until they build enough of their own facilities).

In that scenario, the state could provide the buildings for use outside of regular school hours.

But that hasn't happened. It was never actually established that there’s a shortage of space.

The way you're acting today is exactly how the party used to act back in the day. Once you realize that, IMO, you might actually become better people and more sincere believers.

Thanks for the long-winded lecture on absolutely everything. 😁

Give me one actual, decent reason why you're against religion in schools, and maybe I'll believe it's not just pure hatred for different worldviews.

wanderingbadger44 said:Integrating religious education directly into the standard school day is really just the most practical way to ensure high attendance. The second factor is ensuring students receive proper grades. We all understand those basics, and what you pointed out just serves as further confirmation of that reality.

If you look at it through the lens of basic math and logic, forcing these classes into only the first or last slots would essentially require five times as many instructors, each working only a fifth of a full-time schedule. What would they even do during the hours between the first and sixth periods? It’s completely unfeasible from a logistical standpoint.

There isn't some divine reason why religious education can't be held after school hours; rather, it seems to stem from the Church's deep-seated fear that their enrollment numbers would plummet if they weren't integrated into the main day.

They seem so convinced of the necessity and desirability of having religion taught in schools that they won't even risk offering it as an extracurricular option. If I could feel any sympathy for them, I might, but there is something deeply unsettling about seeing such insecurity—this realization that their program might not be wanted—driving them to use these sneaky tactics to wedge themselves into the regular curriculum.

Maybe if they held classes at midnight, you'd finally be happy. See? I told you—participation in religion classes is tiny.

Jacob Lewis5 said:Some people find these posts terrifying or nauseating, but nobody is actually using them as a solid foundation for a real counter-argument. Throwing insults isn't going to get you anywhere.

The democratically elected government that came to power in the early 90s was operating under very specific, intense circumstances. They didn't have weapons, a standing army, or diplomatic leverage... they were dealing with internal uprisings and their own military turning against them. We had to lean hard into American identity and Catholicism because that was literally all we had left. Sorry, but back then, the government wasn't worrying about today's "New Age" parents complaining about an hour or two of lost time in their kid's schedule.🙄

Religious ed isn't being forced on anyone. There aren't really "religious" or "non-religious" kids—if there were, it would actually be a great chance for kids to learn how to live alongside people who are different. You're using such heavy language to describe religious ed and the relationship between the Church and the State, but there's nothing dramatic happening here. In religious ed, kids just draw pictures of Moses and Jesus and then talk about spiritual values.

Wait, are you actually the same person who was basically squealing at the idea of making religious education mandatory, despite being part of the camp that claims to be fiercely against totalitarianism?

Henry Cox78 said:I don't know, I never said that.

Thanks for the long-winded lecture on absolutely everything. 😁

Give me one actual, decent reason why you're against religion in schools, and maybe I'll believe it's not just pure hatred for different worldviews.

Look, you're the one who dragged communism—which, by the way, vanished from this country back when we were all just little kids—into a discussion about keeping religious instruction inside public school buildings. So, I don't really know how to proceed without rambling about everything and anything, 😁
how we aren't living under communism anymore, but rather in a society that actually values a plurality of opinions. 😁 These debates are fascinating because it's becoming pretty obvious that deep down, we're all a bit totalitarian. 😁

But regarding my reasoning:

First off, I feel like we haven't received a straight answer to one very simple question: why can't religious education just take place in church buildings?
I mean, nobody is trying to ban the teaching of the Catholic faith; freedom of religion is protected by law. But why does it have to be in school buildings—places that are primarily designed to educate and prepare people for the workforce?

I’ve yet to see a clear legal basis for why you're demanding entry into state-run school buildings (though I haven't heard a rebuttal to the idea that the "spiritual development" clause was slipped into the Education Act back in 1991 at the behest of the Church, only to be used later as a roundabout justification for religious classes on campus).

So, I still haven't gotten a simple answer to why not just use churches; besides those half-baked excuses like "there's no room" or "we don't have enough laptops."

At its core, what bothers me is the hypocrisy. Like many others here, I think you're fully aware that a lot of kids wouldn't even show up to church for these lessons (which would be a massive failure if it's true).

But hey, as a powerful interest group, you're certainly doing everything you can to hold onto that social influence and the money that comes with it.

For instance, take brisknomad13, who claims to defend religious education and cares so deeply about the moral and spiritual growth of children, yet she's just one person whose entire livelihood seems to depend on the Church and these school programs.

Me? I don't gain a single cent whether religious education stays in schools or not, so I'd like to think I'm coming at this with a lot less hypocrisy than the rest of you.

But what really gets under my skin is how the government hasn't actually fixed the issue for kids who don't attend religious studies classes; honestly, it feels like they're being treated unfairly and even discriminated against.
Look, if we’re saying tax money from every single taxpayer should go toward supporting the Catholic Church, then the state should be using those same collective funds to finance a real solution where no kid is left stranded in a hallway. There should be dedicated space inside the school buildings specifically for students who aren't participating in those religious lessons to hang out. That’s basically the bare minimum the government could do—even if they didn't prioritize it back in the day, they can certainly figure it out now. Personally, I suggested using the school library, which seems like a totally reasonable fix to me.
And I truly believe—or at least I hope—that it would also be in the interest of the Catholic Church to get this sorted out. They really ought to throw their weight behind these demands, especially since, as brisknomad13 mentioned, they represent about 80% of the population, which gives them massive social influence.

So, regarding the question of why the Church would bother caring about people who aren't part of its flock: as someone who isn't a member, I honestly don't know if the Church as an institution advocates for a positive attitude toward everyone, or if they just focus on their own members?

If we're talking about an institution and people who are supposed to care about the well-being of everyone—not just their own—and considering that under the current legal framework they non-selectively take money from all Americans, I think it's shameful that the Church allowed, and continues to allow, this half-baked solution. Their members get the religious education, and for everyone else, it's like "who cares?" This approach just keeps widening the gap in an already deeply polarized American society.

So you're basically saying we should scrap religious studies just because kids who skip it get a free period to hang out in class and mess around? And now that downtime is considered "discrimination" against them? 😁 It would be hilarious to actually ask those kids if they feel discriminated against or if they just think they hit the jackpot. These modern totalitarians love wrapping themselves in the flag of human rights, tossing the word "discrimination" around left and right just to persecute anyone with different beliefs. Real discrimination is stripping away rights—which is exactly what you're doing by suggesting we stop religious education just because you think schools should only be job training centers rather than places that actually prepare kids for life.

You still haven't actually answered her question.

Why can't religious studies classes just be held inside church buildings?

Half the people following this thread are waiting on an answer. Give us a straight response instead of passing the buck with that whole "so you're saying we should..." routine.