Religion classes in school - Megathread

Canada? The Czech Republic? Estonia?...

Susan James said:It’s not completely out of left field, either.

Think about how we celebrate various holidays through school programs or community events.
Like blessing bread,
holding a mass to kick off the school year,
the blessing of a gym,
or even blessing sports gear and equipment.

They weave it all in through literature, music, art, history, geography, or foreign language classes... you even see it on preschool worksheets where they sneak in a little religious touch. It just gets integrated seamlessly.

At the end of the day, we ALL observe Catholic holidays.
Those are our federal holidays.
(Personally, I’d much rather have Ash Wednesday off than Juneteenth! I could really use a break in February, whereas June feels like we already have too many days off, but hey, life happens.🥳 We really need to put some pressure on the new administration to make Ash Wednesday a public holiday so people can actually stay home and observe their fast in peace.)

Okay, if it isn't "off," then I have to say this feels way worse than religion class—honestly, even sitting in the hallway during religion class was better.😁

rowdypanther12 said:Who says Western countries are all that much better? Lol, I mean, abortion was banned in Ireland until just yesterday, and people there still swear by the Bible and stuff like that.

But yeah, I agree with you. Personally, I don't think religious education belongs in public schools, whether we're talking about the US or Poland or anywhere else.
I wouldn't mind having some kind of religious culture included—maybe even as a required subject—but only from fifth grade onwards.

That’s just my take on it, anyway. 😁 But looking at reality for a second, I get that we live in a melting pot and we aren't getting out of this for decades, so there's no way we're seeing widespread secularization or the constant accommodation of minorities and those kinds of things anytime soon.
We really need to look for practical solutions to real problems.
And that brings us back to what you said: asking the government to implement alternative programs or specific activity hours instead.

Well, we all say it, don't we?
I mean, how can anyone label a country as backwards or some primitive wasteland unless they're measuring it against places that actually aren't?

but yeah, I'm with you there. Personally, I feel like religious studies have no business being in public schools, whether we're talking about the US or Poland or pretty much anywhere else.
I wouldn't mind if there was some kind of religious culture taught, maybe even an elective, but starting from fifth grade onwards at most.

Actually, my take is that even religious culture is kind of unnecessary, especially since elements of Christianity and other faiths naturally bleed into other subjects anyway—I mean, you can't really teach literature, history, or art without touching on them.

So, how are we supposed to please everyone? 😁

let's get real for a second; I get that we're stuck in this bubble and won't be breaking out of it for decades, so let's not talk about secularization or respecting minorities like it's some imminent miracle.

See, you're proving my point—we're still just that "stuck bubble we won't escape for decades."
If you step back and look at the rest of the world, the US is actually quite advanced. Seriously, damn it, we are. 😁
In most places, ideology—whether state-run or religious—is way more dominant, and respect for minorities is basically non-existent.

And as far as being secular goes... the United Kingdom isn't even a truly secular nation, considering the Prime Minister can't be Catholic. See how much more advanced we are? 😁

At the end of the day, it mostly boils down to the arrogance of atheists (and look, I'm one of them 😁) who think everyone else's beliefs are just laughable.
The other half of the problem is the media pumping out propaganda about how backward and "extremist" America is, while totally ignoring the fact that, when it comes to freedom of belief for both believers and non-believers, America is actually ahead of most of the globe.

Honestly, schools shouldn't even need substitute teachers; they should just provide a room and let the kids be adults for a moment—reading, drawing, finishing homework from the previous period, whatever.
(Basically, what some schools already do by giving students who skip religious class a place to go so they aren't left hanging).

Michelle Nelson4 said:Canada? The Czech Republic? Estonia?...

So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

Karen Richardson3 said:So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

Of course. As long as the Catholic majority continues to operate from a position of sheer force, these arguments remain hollow. The Church will always fall back on the same old playbook: "We are the majority, so we get our way. If you actually care about your children's future, enroll them in religion classes."
That is how it looks from an atheist's perspective.

Matthew Young35 said:Of course. As long as the Catholic majority continues to operate from a position of sheer force, these arguments remain hollow. The Church will always fall back on the same old playbook: "We are the majority, so we get our way. If you actually care about your children's future, enroll them in religion classes."
That is how it looks from an atheist's perspective.

The thing is, a massive chunk of people just checked "Catholic" on the census. So yeah, Catholics are technically the majority. But the second it doesn't suit those self-proclaimed Catholics, suddenly everyone's an atheist.

Look, I'm Catholic, but I'm not for having religion classes in public schools. Those people pushing for it aren't being honest about what they actually want, and it's on them. This whole "majority rule" argument wouldn't even exist if actual Catholics were honest about their numbers. Fewer kids would enroll, and schools would be forced to find different ways to handle those free periods.

Blessing the bread and all that stuff doesn't bother me. It didn't bother me when we lit Hanukkah menorahs in class or tried fasting for a day because we had friends with different traditions. Honestly, the whole class used to get pretty hyped about learning stuff we didn't have at home or knew nothing about, just because it was part of our classmates' lives.
Obviously, nobody was forced to help set up Nativity scenes, light candles, or fast until sunset—the librarian and one teacher would hang out with the kids who didn't want to participate. They could do homework, read, eat, play, or just stare at a wall, but someone was watching them for those 45 minutes so they weren't running wild in the halls.

Matthew Young35 said:Of course. As long as the Catholic majority continues to operate from a position of sheer force, these arguments remain hollow. The Church will always fall back on the same old playbook: "We are the majority, so we get our way. If you actually care about your children's future, enroll them in religion classes."
That is how it looks from an atheist's perspective.

Look, I totally get where you're coming from, and honestly, I used to lean on those exact same points, but I eventually realized they were built on this flawed idea that this is some unique dysfunction specific to how the US handles its relationship with the Church.
The reality is that most people across the globe are believers, and religious education is a staple in schools everywhere—not even mentioning the places where religion essentially dictates the legal code.
So, if we follow your logic, then the majority of the entire world is basically just "acting from a position of power." 😁

I just wanted to point out that it feels a bit reductive to frame the whole debate as just "America is a backward country, and the proof is that we have religious instruction in public schools."

The 5th grade American language textbook 🤔
At this rate, they might as well start working Jesus into the math problems too... 🙄

While you're praying?!

I’m just hoping this is for a school assignment so I can help my kid come up with some properly subversive answers. That bit about "gratitude" really strikes a chord with me 😬

Man, you have no idea how much I’d hate going back to school. 😁 Since I was such a rebel during middle school, something like this would honestly just be my dream scenario. 😂

But seriously, it's just unbelievable—and not in a good way. That's really the worst part about living in this country. 😁

Karen Richardson3 said:So, I actually found a list online that’s pretty much like what you’d see on Wikipedia:
http://www.vjeroznanci.com/content/v...lang,american/

The internet basically points out that religious education isn't even part of the curriculum in schools in France, Canada, Bulgaria, or Albania.
Could that be true for the Czech Republic and Estonia too?

It seems like France is its own unique case, while the rest falls into that group of former communist nations.
In most other places, public schools either teach religious culture or dedicated religious studies.

I just wanted to point out that using the US as an example of how shameful Church influence on the state can be doesn't really hold water when you look at the bigger picture. It feels like this pattern exists everywhere. Most people are believers, whether they stick to it because of deep-seated convictions or just because it's the tradition they grew up with.
Honestly, if we held a national referendum on having religious education in our schools, I bet a huge majority—probably over 80%—would vote YES.

The only real "battleground" here is demanding that the government provides actual childcare or supervision for the kids who aren't enrolled in those classes, because saying "well, religion class is just the first period, so they can show up later" isn't a practical solution for a little first-grader (I mean, I'm personally not going to drop my kid off at school at 7:40 AM just because of a schedule conflict).
Everything else is just shouting into the wind.

I wouldn't exactly agree that everything is the same as it is in America, because there are places where religious instruction isn't even an option in schools. Plus, there's a massive difference between having confessional religious instruction and having a "religious culture" course—they are completely different subjects. You couldn't even have the same teachers for them. For instance, as an atheist, I wouldn't mind at all if my kid took a religious culture class—if such a thing were even possible in the US—because that would likely cover various religious discourses from around the world rather than just one specific church doctrine. The fact that the Church in America meddles in education way more than in other countries is obvious when you look at things like the University of Chicago—where the current rector is essentially forcing the dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to sign a contract with the Catholic Theological Faculty. This is all just so religious instructors could get a degree in yet another subject to qualify for teaching in schools via the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. After they pull that off, they apparently plan to move onto the Faculty of Science too. You won't find examples like that anywhere else in Europe.

Since we're already talking about Europe, does anyone actually know how they handle this practically?
I mean, what happens to the schedule, or where do the kids go if they don't take religious studies? How does it all work on the ground?
Also, I'm curious about other school activities—do they have religious events scattered throughout the school year, or do priests show up to give blessings at school programs? And do they ever ask students in other classes to write about things like prayer or similar topics?

darkgull20 said:The 5th grade American language textbook 🤔
At this rate, they might as well start working Jesus into the math problems too... 🙄

Look, any professor worth their salt knows a textbook is really just a supplemental tool.

So, I guess it’s fine if it’s in the textbook, as long as the professor doesn't actually assign it as homework? 😁

placidorca16 said:I wouldn't exactly agree that everything is the same as it is in America, because there are places where religious instruction isn't even an option in schools. Plus, there's a massive difference between having confessional religious instruction and having a "religious culture" course—they are completely different subjects. You couldn't even have the same teachers for them. For instance, as an atheist, I wouldn't mind at all if my kid took a religious culture class—if such a thing were even possible in the US—because that would likely cover various religious discourses from around the world rather than just one specific church doctrine. The fact that the Church in America meddles in education way more than in other countries is obvious when you look at things like the University of Chicago—where the current rector is essentially forcing the dean of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences to sign a contract with the Catholic Theological Faculty. This is all just so religious instructors could get a degree in yet another subject to qualify for teaching in schools via the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. After they pull that off, they apparently plan to move onto the Faculty of Science too. You won't find examples like that anywhere else in Europe.

Alright, let's take this one step at a time:

You quoted my post where I was specifically pointing out which countries don't offer religious education, and then you hit me back with that line about how some countries don't have religion classes in their schools at all.

Look, I already pointed out in my previous post that there's a massive difference between teaching religious education and teaching religious culture, but you're still out here insisting they're one and the same thing.
I know they aren't perfect, which is exactly why I’m bringing up the fact that one or the other actually exists.

Alright, here’s my third take on this whole situation regarding the pressure being put on universities:
I'd really love it if someone could drop a link here, because honestly, I feel like I'm just flying blind right now and have no clue what we're actually talking about.

So, I finally wrapped things up at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, but here’s the kicker—if you actually want to add another subject to your teaching credentials, you can't just stop there; you basically have to go through the whole grind of finishing the entire program first. Come on, man, just lay it all out for me—give me the full rundown of the whole degree program..
So, what you’re actually saying is that the University President is pulling strings behind the scenes just to make sure a student from the Theological Faculty can walk away with a degree in American history, English, or linguistics?
Do you think they could actually walk away with that degree without sitting through every single second of those four years? I know, I know—it sounds totally ridiculous and basically impossible when you say it out loud, but I mean it.
Are they actually looking to let students pull off a double major—like pairing Theology with something else over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—without having to jump through all the usual admissions hoops? Because if that’s the plan, I’m wondering if they’ll just bump up the capacity at the Humanities department, or if those Theology students will still get that special enrollment priority. Honestly, the whole idea feels a little half-baked to me. 🤔

Look, can you just drop a link or maybe break down how this whole university situation actually works? I'm trying to wrap my head around the specifics here.

If you look at how things work over in Europe, the way various churches—whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or whatever else—interact with the government is actually pretty varied and generally stays on quite positive terms. It’s a world away from the vibe we have here in the States, where everything feels like this constant, exhausting tug-of-war between the "leftists" who can't stand the church and the "right-wingers" who basically treat it like their best friend.

It feels like here in the States, everyone—from the far left to the far right, even the church—just can't help but turn everything they touch into a political statement; you just don't see that level of constant maneuvering everywhere else.
It feels like people around here are just so easily swayed by the noise, honestly. It’s like everyone is being played, and because they've been conditioned to view everything through such a specific political lens, their entire stance on religion ends up being shaped by those partisan biases instead of anything else.

rowdypanther12 said:Since we're already talking about Europe, does anyone actually know how they handle this practically?
I mean, what happens to the schedule, or where do the kids go if they don't take religious studies? How does it all work on the ground?
Also, I'm curious about other school activities—do they have religious events scattered throughout the school year, or do priests show up to give blessings at school programs? And do they ever ask students in other classes to write about things like prayer or similar topics?

You could have checked out the link I posted earlier 😁

Every country handles this its own way. Even within federalist systems, you see huge differences in how things play out.
Basically, some places teach formal religion, while others focus on religious culture; it all happens right inside the school buildings during normal hours, and kids who don't want in can just opt for ethics instead.

(Just a quick side note regarding ethics being the alternative—that’s still on the government to organize. For instance, when those previous liberal administrations were in power, they had to manage that, just like the state has to provide the funding to ensure there's a room with an adult supervisor for kids who choose the non-religious route).

As for religious symbols (though honestly, I have no idea how many schools around here have actually stripped them out), take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lautsi_v._Italy

The Lautsi v. Italy case went all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. On March 18, 2011, they ruled that the Italian law requiring crucifixes in state school classrooms doesn't actually violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

I'm not sure if our local anti-religion activists can even answer those last questions for you. Usually, they just jump straight to that "we're backwards, it's not like this anywhere else" argument without actually looking at how things work in the rest of the world.

Let me reiterate my newly discovered take 😁 which is that everyone uses this whole debate as a way to keep everything hanging in limbo and just stir up tension between citizens.

rowdypanther12 said:So, I guess it’s fine if it’s in the textbook, as long as the professor doesn't actually assign it as homework? 😁

Personally, I don't mind anything as long as the teacher frames the question more like, "For those of you who pray, have you ever stopped to think about what this sentence actually implies?" 😁

Anyway, just grab your old schoolbooks and take a look for yourself.
I don't know when you were in grade school, but our textbooks back then were pure brainwashing—I spent a few years dealing with the leftovers of the old communist era before everything shifted into that whole newly-found nationalism phase.

Kids who aren't dimwitted tend to see right through all of it and naturally push back. The ones who aren't really thinking just swallow whatever they're fed.

Honestly, parents are probably better off not even looking at the curriculum; my folks definitely had no clue what kind of stuff I was being taught back in fifth grade. 😁

Regarding all the pressure being put on the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and other departments, I think we're looking at this specific issue. There’s actually a really solid article right here.

Of course, they're pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now, and naturally, they're throwing everyone into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's only theologians and religious educators trying to qualify themselves to teach these subjects. But honestly, once you actually know the material, seeing how much these different fields overlap with philosophy just looks ridiculous. As someone studying American studies, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy, at most maybe the philosophy of education or linguistics (though even then, I don't see myself doing that even after finishing my degree, but that's a whole different conversation 😁); I have no clue what a social scientist like a sociologist would even do there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations; I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in specific seminars on political or social philosophy; and I don't see how a theologian could take over bioethics or the principles of modern philosophy—maybe they could be a guest lecturer for Spinoza or something...; and as for religious educators, I really don't see it; their curriculum truly, truly can't be compared to studying theology, let alone philosophy.

I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about exercising pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into teaching philosophy is a shameful move, regardless of how bad current instruction is and how desperately it needs a massive overhaul.

silentraven6 said:Regarding all the pressure being put on the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and other departments, I think we're looking at this specific issue. There’s actually a really solid article right here.

Of course, they're pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now, and naturally, they're throwing everyone into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's only theologians and religious educators trying to qualify themselves to teach these subjects. But honestly, once you actually know the material, seeing how much these different fields overlap with philosophy just looks ridiculous. As someone studying American studies, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy, at most maybe the philosophy of education or linguistics (though even then, I don't see myself doing that even after finishing my degree, but that's a whole different conversation 😁); I have no clue what a social scientist like a sociologist would even do there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations; I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in specific seminars on political or social philosophy; and I don't see how a theologian could take over bioethics or the principles of modern philosophy—maybe they could be a guest lecturer for Spinoza or something...; and as for religious educators, I really don't see it; their curriculum truly, truly can't be compared to studying theology, let alone philosophy.

I suppose this is what people mean when they talk about exercising pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into teaching philosophy is a shameful move, regardless of how bad current instruction is and how desperately it needs a massive overhaul.

Honestly, I don't see any big issue with theologians teaching high school philosophy—especially since, from what I recall, the curriculum is mostly just a history of philosophical thought anyway. I mean, what's the actual difference in training between them and a standard religious instructor?
Is that old-school rulebook still being enforced? Some stuffy, bureaucratic 😁

In my opinion, theologians are actually better educated than most students graduating from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, and at the end of the day, there’s a huge amount of overlap between theology and philosophy. They're basically just religious philosophers, if you catch my drift. 😁

Looking back at my own experience, one single teacher used to cover philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics for me in high school. I can't even remember if she had a degree in one of those or all of them.

It was clearly either too expensive or just impossible for the school to hire separate specialists for every subject, so she probably just filled her schedule that way.

I get why this creates a headache for philosophy majors, though, because a religious instructor could easily fill their roster by teaching both religion and philosophy.

Also, I'm not quite sure how you're using the term "specialist." Back in college in a city like Chicago, they used to call students who were only majoring in a single subject like American literature "specialists," whereas double majors weren't labeled that way. 🤣

Anyway, I had this really interesting debate recently with a friend of mine who's a teacher. He thinks it's ridiculous that teachers are expected to teach *only* their specific major. We were talking about restructuring classes, cutting hours for some subjects, and adding more for others.
He believes that even if a major reform happened, teachers should be allowed to teach subjects outside their primary degree.
And honestly, I'm on his side. High school education—even middle school—doesn't really demand the kind of deep, hyper-specialized knowledge you'd find in a PhD program.
That’s why I think the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences is organized so poorly; they treat pedagogical training like a chore you just have to get through, similar to gym or art class, while focusing almost everything on niche, granular details that you will NEVER actually use in a classroom.
If I were studying history, for example, I feel like half of it wouldn't even apply to me. 😁

I know I'm jumping around here, but this ties right into the whole school system reform conversation.
At one point in college, I had a course on history taught by a Franciscan monk from a monastery, and he was hands-down one of my best professors.
He taught me about the Middle Ages during that teenage phase where I was, you know, super anti-Church and all that.
The fact that he was a monk didn't stop him from delivering an incredible lecture. He was a theologian who had earned his doctorate in history from one of "their" universities.

I also had a political science professor teach one of my courses.

So, if it works at the university level, why shouldn't it work in K-12 schools?

Is this restriction strictly limited to this one subject, or is this kind of flexibility allowed for other disciplines too?

I'm not quite sure how to paint a clear picture for you here.

Let's put it this way: a theology major and a philosophy major have about as much in common as a philosopher and a math professor. Sure, there's some overlap—philosophy uses plenty of math, especially when you get into logic as a formal discipline, which isn't even really on the radar for most theology programs. But look, I'm definitely not qualified to teach calculus.

If you just take a look at the actual course catalogs and curriculum plans, it’ll become pretty obvious to you.

As for anything else... feel free to start a thread about the recent academic reforms. I'd be more than happy to dive into a discussion about that.