Religion classes in school - Megathread

Karen Richardson3 said: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?

Are you suggesting a theologian might understand philosophy better than someone who earned a philosophy degree from Harvard University?

I assume you're thinking of that history of philosophy textbook by Cali (or something similar) with the labyrinth design on the cover. That one is strictly designed as a historical survey.

But now there's this other, much thicker and larger textbook by Tom Reiss ( that some schools—mine included—actually use. It’s structured completely differently. Instead of just a chronological history, it’s broken down into several units, each covering a specific branch of philosophy. If I recall correctly, the first section was an overview of philosophy in general, the second dealt with God, and then there were sections on politics, ethics, epistemology, and maybe a few others. In each unit, you're presented with various texts from philosophers across different eras and perspectives. Below those texts are questions meant to guide your analysis. For instance, I seem to remember there were texts representing both pro-life and pro-choice views regarding abortion. In the section about God, they included pieces by Richard Dawkins, as well as Thomas Aquinas and Immanuel Kant. At the end

Karen Richardson3 said: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 don't see anything controversial about that. Since logic and ethics are fundamental branches of philosophy, it’s perfectly normal for people with philosophy degrees to teach them. There isn't really a specific degree that makes you solely a professor of ethics or logic. Plus, it's pretty common for people to double major in philosophy and sociology, so philosophy professors often end up teaching sociology as well. It happens quite frequently, I guess.

Reskovac was actually my mentor back in the day, so I can tell you firsthand—it’s a safe bet that theology students have more than enough expertise to work through that textbook.

Karen Richardson3 said: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.

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.

Yeah, because: 1. ... 2. In the same breath where you list countries that don't have religious education—while also mentioning places that *do* have it or teach religious culture—you’re claiming it's "everywhere," just like here in America. Which, let's be real, isn't actually true.

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 just held you to your own word—which you’re clearly misinterpreting, by the way—because... Nah. It’s the same story everywhere—especially when you consider that some countries don't teach religion at all, while others just offer religious studies as a standalone elective that has zero connection to any specific church. Plus, there's a massive difference between people born into a tradition and those who actually choose a faith—they aren't the same group when it comes to how they practice or how they treat atheists and people of other faiths. They usually behave quite differently. But you? You’re just shoving everything into one big pile without making any distinctions—as if America is somehow identical to every other country in the European Union.

I gave you an extra example involving the KFB and the FFO here in the States—it’s a total anomaly that you won't find anywhere else, though maybe that's flying over your head. Anyway, here are some links regarding how this whole thing started:

Students at the College of Arts and Sciences are making waves—apparently, they’re staging protests over enrollment issues. It's the usual chaos.

Why are students flocking to the seminary? It’s becoming a bit of a trend—everyone seems to be heading toward the clergy lately. Honestly, it makes you wonder if there's some hidden logic behind the sudden surge in enrollments.

And here’s a link from the FFa student union right before their final FFa Council meeting—just in case anyone actually cares. https://www.facebook.com/slobodni.fi...91727064332632

Karen Richardson3 said: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.

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.

Yeah, exactly.

Would you actually get that degree without sitting through all four years of the program? I know—sounds absolutely ridiculous and impossible when you put it that way.

Of course not. How would that even be possible? — honestly.

So, are they actually looking to let people pull a double major—like Theology paired with something else at the College of Arts and Sciences—without having to deal with the usual admissions hurdles? If that’s the case, will they bump up the capacity at the College of Arts and Sciences, or is the Seminary going to get priority in the enrollment rankings? Honestly, the whole idea sounds pretty half-baked to me. 🤔

So, they’re looking to set up these "joint double-major programs" with the College of Arts and Sciences. At first, the idea was to pair them with "religious pedagogy and catechetics"—basically for teaching religion—over at the KBF, but since that initial plan got shot down, the new version of the contract suggests pairing them with every single program at the KBF. The quotas were originally supposed to be "extra," but in this second draft, they've been moved into the "regular" slots. Also, the original plan allowed KBF students to skip the entrance exams for their chosen double-major track at the College of Arts and Sciences, but they've walked that back too—now you'd actually have to take the exam. To top it all off, they’re proposing "joint degrees" where everyone gets a diploma for their respective parts of the program—which is legally impossible unless they plan on lobbying to change the laws entirely. Honestly, given how things work in this country, I wouldn't put it past the Catholic Church to try and bend the law to fit.

So, the KBF is currently pushing through its study accreditation via the University Senate—skipping the College of Arts and Sciences entirely. They actually listed themselves as the primary institution while claiming the College of Arts and Sciences just "hosts" their secondary subjects. It’s honestly absurd—the College of Arts and Sciences is a fully autonomous university entity that manages nearly 100 different dual-degree programs on its own; they don't need KBF's permission for anything. The whole thing is just a power grab by KBF, backed by the University President and the top brass at the main campus administration. Incidentally, this is the same crew that campaigned for him to become President because he promised them he’d "push this through" at the university level. He even tried to sneak a blank contract titled "Cooperation with KBF" past the College of Arts and Sciences Council without any actual text included—and then, surprise, he won the election. It wasn't until the new leadership stepped in at the College of Arts and Sciences that the mess was finally uncovered. They released the original contract and the Council rejected it by a massive majority. But—and there's always a "but"—they aren't done yet. If they can break the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Science is next on the list—basically everything taught in schools except for religious studies. As Dean Tonči Matulić put it during a chat with the President, they are looking to restore the "old medieval glory."😲😲😲

Everything’s on hold for now—the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences pulled that item from the agenda entirely. Apparently, seven of the most prestigious departments at the College of Liberal Arts (we're talking Psychology, Philosophy, Sociology, English, Art History, and a few others) all voiced their opposition to the contract. The Dean is clearly just trying to protect his standing within the university—even if he's being squeezed by the President and the top brass at the University Board—but now he's already started playing the "job security" card with faculty positions. We'll see how this plays out, though. My money is on this hitting the local news soon.

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.

I wasn't really thinking of that—though it's related—but rather that specific agreement regarding "joint dual-degree programs" between KBFa and FF.

Of course, they’re pivoting toward philosophy and ethics now. Naturally, they're throwing everything into the mix—American studies majors, political scientists, sociologists—just so it doesn't look like it's solely theologians and religious educators trying to qualify to teach these subjects. Honestly, if you actually know the material, the way these disciplines overlap with philosophy looks pretty ridiculous. As an American studies major, I don't see myself as competent enough to teach ethics or philosophy—maybe education philosophy or linguistics, but that's a whole other story 😁—and I have no idea what a sociologist would even be doing there, maybe through some interdisciplinary correlations? I don't see a political scientist fitting in either, except perhaps in certain seminars on political or social philosophy. And as for a theologian taking over bioethics or modern philosophical principles... well, maybe they could guest lecture on Aquinas or Spinoza. But a religious educator? Definitely not. Their curriculum can't even be compared to theology, let alone philosophy.

That's basically what people mean when they talk about exerting pressure.

Trying to force religious instructors into philosophy classes is a disgraceful move, regardless of how bad the current curriculum is or how much of a massive overhaul it desperately needs.

Sure, but it's not just about that—it's about a total restructuring of the College of Arts and Sciences. The goal seems to be turning it into a satellite office meant to serve KBFa—basically a long-term plan to clericalize society at the university and scientific level. If they get away with this blatant takeover of the College of Arts and Sciences, moving onto the other departments—with the College of Science being the most interesting target—is only a matter of time.

Karen Richardson3 said: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?

😲 Where did you get this idea that theologians are better at philosophy than actual philosophers? What’s your basis here? At the College of Arts and Sciences, they train students across more than 23 scientific disciplines in over 100 combinations—philosophy being just one specific science, which you clearly don't realize. Other students from different majors wouldn't even dream of applying for philosophy jobs because they lack the credentials. So why would theologians have them?

From my own experience, the same person taught me philosophy, logic, sociology, and ethics back in high school. I can't even remember if she was a specialist in all of those or just some of them.
It was clearly either too expensive or impossible for the school to find separate people for every subject, so she just filled her schedule like that.

.You already answered that—logic and ethics are part of philosophy, so philosophers are the ones qualified for it. For sociology, you need sociologists, though at the College of Arts and Sciences, you can do a double major (one program) combining philosophy and sociology. That way, you get a degree covering both and the competencies for both distinct fields.

On what grounds would a theologian with a theology degree (or a religious ed teacher) be qualified for that, please?😲

I also understand how this creates a problem for philosophers, since a religious ed teacher could fill their schedule with both religion and philosophy.

In no other country can a religious ed teacher fill their hours with philosophy if that country actually has a dedicated philosophy department—except in America, unfortunately.🙄 In some places (like Germany), teacher training isn't even considered a scientific study, nor is such an institution part of the University system, because it's simply not treated as a science. But here, it is.😁🙄

Look, I’ve been reading up on this, and while I have plenty of gripes regarding the terms of these kinds of agreements (because let's face it, we're still living in a bit of a backwater here and we're being totally naive about what these contracts are actually supposed to represent), the idea of making studies more interdisciplinary isn't a bad one at all. We’re already a weird case where you can study almost identical subjects at two different universities just a few miles apart; it’s already a precedent.

When you look at it from the perspective of the KBC and the FFZG, it actually seems like a pretty valuable move if you really think about it. You'll have people who are incredibly well-versed in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, enrolling in a philosophy program at the FFZG to round out their expertise. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see a problem with it—if someone wants to study it, they should go for it. Honestly, having the secular influence rub off on the sacred might even help build tolerance among KBC students and encourage them to step away from dogma a bit (even though it's not like everyone there is strictly denominational, for example).

But then again, if we're talking about this kind of fluidity, I’d want to see it applied to other fields too. For instance, I’d love to be able to pair Russian language and literature with geology at the FFZG, just to stay competitive in the job market. Or maybe art history with musicology, or molecular biology with linguistics, or automation with American studies—the combinations are endless.

If things actually worked the way the Bologna process was intended to work in its core principles, it would be amazing to see, say, a Science student pairing mathematics with theology. I wouldn't see any issue with that whatsoever; it would be nothing but a benefit. But that's assuming we were in some other country and Boras wasn't one of the most influential figures in the Old Catholic Church.

We all know what’s actually going on here. They just tacked on those other majors as an excuse, a way to provide an alibi so they can claim this isn't a blatant attempt to wreck the critical thinking that still manages to exist in certain pockets of the FFZG philosophy department.

People don't really understand philosophy itself. There's this widespread misconception that anyone who asks a few fundamental questions straight out of Kalin is a philosopher. To them, sociology and philosophy are the same thing, psychology gets lumped in there too, and why not theology? These sciences have different subjects and different methodologies. Throwing them all into the same basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and sure, they should overlap—every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and I don't mean just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two disciplines?

To be honest, I’m less worried about who ends up teaching philosophy, sociology, or even psychology, and more concerned about why religion teachers in elementary schools are being given homeroom duties. Even in classes where kids don't attend religious studies, they're still assigned as advisors, and that just doesn't sit right with me.
I just have a bad feeling about a child having their religion teacher following them through their entire academic journey—handling parent communications, grades, absences, field trips, even graduation stuff. I honestly don't understand how public schools are allowed to permit that kind of setup.
It feels like a way to subtly "nudge" students into sticking with that elective subject until they graduate.

And don't even get me started on the civic or health education topics that they suggest homeroom teachers should cover during class time.
(Though, I suppose there are some psychologists acting "on behalf of the family," but I’m really hoping the psychological association does its job if anyone tries to push an agenda onto them.)

Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

The first and second parts kind of clash, don't they?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

I completely agree with placidorca16 (that has a nice ring to it 😁)

Lawrence Torres56, we get it, believe me....we understand your message.
Now YOU try to understand the absurdity of your own statements and convictions.
Would you?
Of course you won't, so don't even bother trying to convince the rest of us of your absolute truth and fairness.☕

James Alvarez2 said:The first and second parts kind of clash, don't they?

They aren't just clashing; it's more like the ER and the fire department arrived at the scene. From the sheer force of the impact, 🙂>

James Alvarez2 said:The first and second parts kind of clash, don't they?

Oh, "clashing"—that’s just how people talk when they can't see anything in life except constant conflict, right?😉

John Thomas13 said:I completely agree with placidorca16 (that has a nice ring to it 😁)

Lawrence Torres56, we get it, believe me....we understand your message.
Now YOU try to understand the absurdity of your own statements and convictions.
Would you?
Of course you won't, so don't even bother trying to convince the rest of us of your absolute truth and fairness.☕

They aren't just clashing; it's more like the ER and the fire department arrived at the scene. From the sheer force of the impact, 🙂>

Look, if you had actually processed what was written here, you’d be attempting to counter it with actual arguments—assuming you have any—instead of just trolling, sorry...
Anyway, I don't view this forum as some outlet to vent my personal frustrations; I see it as a place where you should probably think twice before you type, because kids are reading this too...
Unless, of course, someone's actual goal is to go out of their way to encourage kids toward hatred and intolerance, etc...🍿

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

Aha, so "state-run" vs. "public"—that's the big distinction, right? 🤔...
The real difference is that it's funded by everyone's tax dollars—whether you're an atheist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or anything else... and the fact that it is mandatory for all those kids.
I'm just not comfortable with a homeroom teacher being a Catholic who teaches a subject that not all students attend, especially when they're essentially encouraged to push that subject even if the kids don't want to take it.

It's interesting that you skipped over my point about the homeroom teacher situation. 🤔

I can agree with you that how a specific person handles certain topics depends entirely on them. I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was belittling anyone—where exactly did I write that? Ideologically speaking, I don't think a religious studies teacher should be the one teaching certain civics topics.... or do you really think they can, just because of some training organized by a government agency?
If they go through that training and teach a class strictly by the manual, will they still stay true to their own faith?

Personally, I don't mind if religious themes come up during English, Art, or Music class, because I have no intention of denying the incredible art that was created under the influence of various religions.
I actually see that as a strength.
It provides a great foundation for discussion, learning, and critical thinking...

[User Name] said: [Text]

silentraven6 said:Look, I’ve been reading up on this, and while I have plenty of gripes regarding the terms of these kinds of agreements (because let's face it, we're still living in a bit of a backwater here and we're being totally naive about what these contracts are actually supposed to represent), the idea of making studies more interdisciplinary isn't a bad one at all. We’re already a weird case where you can study almost identical subjects at two different universities just a few miles apart; it’s already a precedent.

When you look at it from the perspective of the KBC and the FFZG, it actually seems like a pretty valuable move if you really think about it. You'll have people who are incredibly well-versed in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, enrolling in a philosophy program at the FFZG to round out their expertise. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see a problem with it—if someone wants to study it, they should go for it. Honestly, having the secular influence rub off on the sacred might even help build tolerance among KBC students and encourage them to step away from dogma a bit (even though it's not like everyone there is strictly denominational, for example).

But then again, if we're talking about this kind of fluidity, I’d want to see it applied to other fields too. For instance, I’d love to be able to pair Russian language and literature with geology at the FFZG, just to stay competitive in the job market. Or maybe art history with musicology, or molecular biology with linguistics, or automation with American studies—the combinations are endless.

If things actually worked the way the Bologna process was intended to work in its core principles, it would be amazing to see, say, a Science student pairing mathematics with theology. I wouldn't see any issue with that whatsoever; it would be nothing but a benefit. But that's assuming we were in some other country and Boras wasn't one of the most influential figures in the Old Catholic Church.

We all know what’s actually going on here. They just tacked on those other majors as an excuse, a way to provide an alibi so they can claim this isn't a blatant attempt to wreck the critical thinking that still manages to exist in certain pockets of the FFZG philosophy department.

People don't really understand philosophy itself. There's this widespread misconception that anyone who asks a few fundamental questions straight out of Kalin is a philosopher. To them, sociology and philosophy are the same thing, psychology gets lumped in there too, and why not theology? These sciences have different subjects and different methodologies. Throwing them all into the same basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and sure, they should overlap—every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and I don't mean just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two disciplines?

Look, you can't just shove everything into one basket—especially not religion and science. Besides, before forcing this kind of thing through, there should be some actual mutual interest shown by the departments involved—not just one side aggressively pushing their agenda. Right now, the playing field isn't even remotely level. We're talking about a tiny Seminary with only three programs trying to merge with a massive College of Arts and Sciences that has over 100 different combinations of majors and departments. If we change the hiring system for schools, teachers with different credentials are definitely going to lose out—which would basically put the College of Arts and Sciences students at a disadvantage compared to the Seminary crowd. Why even do that? Honestly, plenty of disciplines here would probably benefit way more from partnering with Law, Economics, Architecture, or the College of Science than with the Seminary. In my opinion, we need to figure out what each school actually needs strategically instead of just forcing the Seminary into the College of Arts and Sciences—especially since the Seminary isn't even a secular institution; it’s run by its own religious authority.

When you look at it through the lens of the Mayo Clinic and Harvard University, this move actually seems pretty brilliant—if you think about it. You’ve got people who are already killing it in scholasticism, patristics, Latin, and Greek, and now they can just pick up a second major like philosophy at Harvard to round out their skill set. Or maybe American studies, or whatever. I don't see any issue with it—if someone wants to study, let them. Honestly, having that secular influence rub off on the religious crowd might actually help Mayo Clinic students become a bit more tolerant and less stuck in dogma—though, granted, not everyone there is strictly religious.

Is it actually a good idea for KBF students to pick up extra training at Harvard University? Maybe. But doing the reverse? Not so much—Harvard students don't gain anything from it, they just end up losing out on enrollment spots and, eventually, job opportunities.

[User] says: [Text]

Look, if I could actually have that kind of flexibility—like picking Russian lit and geology at Harvard just to stay competitive—I’d take it in a heartbeat. Or maybe art history paired with musicology, molecular biology with linguistics, or robotics and American studies... honestly, the combinations are endless.

That’s exactly my point. Why would Harvard University bother giving special treatment to the KBF when they aren't even interested in them? They should be pushing programs like biology, geography, social work, pharmacy, or design instead—but hey, you need a centralized university system for that, which we just don't have.

If the whole credit system actually worked the way its theoretical foundations claim—you know, like it's supposed to—it’d be great to see someone from the College of Science studying theology on the side. I don't see any issue with that, honestly—just pure benefit—if this were some other country and if Miller wasn't one of the most influential members of the Old Catholic Church.

That’s just "what if" territory... but it isn't reality, because this is just a closed-off, narrow-minded American state.🙄

Look, we all know what's actually happening here. They only added those other majors as an alibi—to pretend this isn't a blatant attempt to screw over critical thinking, which is still barely hanging on in certain corners of philosophy at Harvard University.

Of course that's what it is—but there aren't even other majors being forced through... there's really just that one: KBF.

People don't really understand philosophy itself; there's this widespread idea that anyone who asks a few basic questions at the start of a semester is a philosopher. They think sociology and philosophy are the same thing, or that psychology should be shoved in there too—and why not theology then? These sciences have different subjects and different methods. Throwing them all into one basket would be like saying chemistry and physics should be merged (and they should, since every physicist needs to know chemistry and vice versa, and not just at a layman's level), but what does that make the two sciences?

Oh, the people pushing this know exactly what the differences are... that's precisely why they're pushing it.

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

Oh, really? Which specific topics are we talking about here—what could a religion teacher possibly cover from other disciplines if they aren't actually qualified for them?🤣 And why would they even bother doing that when we have actual specialists who are actually qualified to teach those subjects?

I mean, seriously, what even is that? Is anyone else seeing this right now? It’s just... wow. kaže:
Oh, so we’re splitting hairs over the "crucial" distinction between state-run and public-funded, are we? Please. As if that little semantic dance actually changes anything for us regular folks. 🤔...
What actually makes the whole thing work—what really sets it apart—is that it’s funded by everyone’s tax dollars, right? It doesn't matter if your parents are staunch atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, or anything else under the sun; we're all chipping in from the same public pot. That's what creates that sense of shared responsibility, isn't it? Is it really mandatory? I mean, come on, is this actually required? For all those kids out there.
I’ve gotta say, I’m really not feeling okay with the idea of having a homeroom teacher who identifies as Catholic. Does anyone else get that weird vibe from it? It just feels off to me, honestly. So, I’ve been sitting here thinking about this one—what kind of subject is it that isn't exactly mandatory for every single kid out there, yet somehow the system pushes them to stick with it even when they’re absolutely over it? You know the type, where they basically nudge you into staying on the path even if your heart just isn't in it. It's like, why does the school system act like everyone needs to be an expert in one specific thing just because they started it? Does anyone else feel like we're just being funneled into these tracks?

It’s kind of weird that you totally glossed over that whole bit about class distinction, don't you think? 🤔

I mean, I’m totally on board with what you're saying there, honestly. I honestly don't even know where to start with this one, but let's just dive right into the deep end, shall we? You ever have those moments where you're just staring at the screen, trying to make sense of the absolute chaos unfolding in front of you? It feels like everyone is just shouting into the void without actually saying anything meaningful, and frankly, it’s exhausting. Is it just me, or does it feel like the more we talk, the less we actually understand about how things work in this country? It's wild, really. I mean, think about it—how much of what we consider "common sense" is actually just layers of bureaucracy and noise designed to keep us spinning in circles? It makes you wonder if anyone is actually steering the ship, or if we're all just drifting toward some inevitable cliff while arguing over nothing. It’s pretty ridiculous when you stop to think about it, isn't it? It really just depends on how they choose to spin certain topics, doesn't it? I honestly have no clue where you got the idea that I’m out here trashing anyone—and more importantly, where exactly did you read that I said such a thing? Because it didn't happen. Look, from an ideological standpoint, I just don't see how a theology teacher could ever be the right person to tackle certain civic education subjects... unless, of course, you actually believe they're qualified just because some agency organized a little workshop for them? Is that really how we're playing this?
So, if this guy actually goes through with that training and ends up teaching a class based on everything they taught him there, is he still going to be considered legit in his field? I mean, can you really stay credible when you're following a curriculum that might be totally disconnected from the actual expertise you built up over the years? Is there even a way to maintain that professional integrity once you start checking boxes for a certification program?

I honestly don't get why people are acting like who funds which organization has nothing to do with the massive gap between state-run agencies and public institutions. Like, seriously, what's the connection? Because let me tell you, that distinction is absolutely everything—it’s actually the whole damn point. If you want to understand why things work the way they do, or why certain systems feel so fundamentally broken, you have to look at where the money is coming from. That's where all the answers are hiding.

So, I’m looking at this bolded part here, and honestly, wouldn't it be just perfect if your homeroom teacher was some hardcore Catholic? Wouldn't that just fit you like a glove?😲So, you're actually out there asking professors about their religious affiliations now? Seriously? And what's the logic here—is it just that if someone happens to be Catholic, they're automatically a bad person, or a bad professor, or just generally "wrong" in your book? Is that really how we're judging people these days?😁...seriously, Al, I really hope you’re just kidding around here and that this whole thing is just a symptom of you being totally reckless and rushing into things without thinking—because there is absolutely no way this is actually what you believe...
And look, let's be real here—it's not like it's some big shocker, but the homeroom teacher isn't actually obligated to tutor your kid, you know? It’s just how it works.
Look, you could just have him teach for one year, maybe two if you're feeling generous... but dragging it out for three or four? That’s just asking for trouble, isn't it? It doesn't make any sense to stick around in that situation if it's not working out. You actually have the option to just move the kid up to the next grade level—so why wouldn't you take it? Seriously, use that right you've got; nobody is standing there stopping you from doing what's best.
So, Spike, how exactly is the homeroom teacher supposed to convince every single kid to actually show up for religion class? I mean, seriously, there’s zero logic to it—it’s just completely nonsensical, isn't it?
I mean, come on, does anyone actually believe a teacher’s salary should be tied directly to how their students perform? It just doesn't make sense, right?
I mean, let’s be real—every single professor would much rather deal with a tiny handful of students than some massive crowd, right? It just makes everything easier on them.
Look, let’s be real here—kids through fifth grade actually pick up some foundational stuff, right? So when they move up to the next level, every single subsequent enrollment is basically just a remix of what they already learned, plus a little bit of new material sprinkled on top. It’s just one big cycle of revisiting the basics while adding a few extra layers, you know?

Look, you don't even have to agree with me—for heaven's sake, it’s not like we’re living in the dark ages or anything. I just honestly can't wrap my head around how a grown adult can judge people that way... especially when they conveniently forget that this religious studies teacher is a highly educated professional, a human being, a citizen, a parent, and all that other stuff. At the end of the day, isn't it true that how someone manages to actually connect with kids and make the material stick has absolutely nothing to do with their personal faith, and everything to do with their actual will and ability to teach?
And even if you’re aiming straight for that whole discussion about sex, don't you think it would be better to let someone else handle the basics for the kid? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to learn about intimacy from someone who doesn't treat having sex like some mandatory "must-do" checklist just to act cool in front of their classmates, rather than someone who probably has nothing else going on in their life besides chasing that high?😉
I mean, seriously, why on earth wouldn't a teacher stay true to their subject matter after sitting through an entire training session on how to properly use Google? Is it really that hard to maintain some level of professional integrity once you've been updated on the tools?😉 Do you honestly think clergy are some different species that somehow lacks any concept of sex, politics, or basic human relationships? I mean, seriously, no offense intended, but what on earth drives you to cling to those kinds of prejudices?

placidorca16 said:Oh, really? Which specific topics are we talking about here—what could a religion teacher possibly cover from other disciplines if they aren't actually qualified for them?🤣 And why would they even bother doing that when we have actual specialists who are actually qualified to teach those subjects?

So, who exactly is the "specialist" for GO? Or better yet, who's the "expert" at being a homeroom teacher?
Please, just spare me the nonsense.🍿

Religious educators answer to the Church, and the Church is their only real line of accountability—that’s a fact a lot of people seem to miss. In bigger cities, they might have a bit more autonomy, but in smaller communities, people tend to stick their noses into their private family lives. They aren't supposed to teach GO outside of what the Church mandates, and we all know how rigid they can be when it comes to topics like contraception, sexuality, or even LGBTQ rights.

To me, those values should be second nature to anyone who has chosen this path of life. That said, I’d definitely be open to letting someone present their own perspectives as a guest speaker within a GO class. Nothing more than that.

How can someone be a homeroom teacher if they don't actually know all their students? Not even going to get into the deeper issues here.

[No content provided to rewrite]

Lawrence Torres56 said:So, who exactly is the "specialist" for GO? Or better yet, who's the "expert" at being a homeroom teacher?
Please, just spare me the nonsense.🍿

So, instead of an actual answer, you’re just offering a question paired with some ironic commentary? Sorry, but that doesn't exactly count as an explanation—or a credible introduction, for that matter. I don't mind addressing your point, really—but let's try getting an answer to my previous question first, since that's still hanging in the air. So, if you're claiming this:
[User Name] said: "..."

Lawrence Torres56 said:Look, schools aren't state-run agencies; they're public institutions, and once you actually wrap your head around that distinction, you’ll probably see how totally pointless this whole complaint really is....
Anyway, I’m going to quote
"The leaders of the county professional boards are organizing training sessions on the topic of GOO for all teachers, regardless of their subject or specialty."
Which basically means that if that religion teacher finishes that training, they are officially qualified to cover those specific topics from GO, no matter who likes it or who doesn't....
By the way, a religion teacher might actually be more skilled or deliver the material better than some biology, English, or math professor... and honestly, there is absolutely no reason to go around trashing someone's expertise or profession just because of your own personal biases...

So—could you actually explain how a religious studies teacher is supposed to be any more "expert" or "high-quality" than a biology, English, or math professor when it comes to those specific subjects? I'm genuinely curious—can you actually answer that?

rowdypanther12 said:How can someone be a homeroom teacher if they don't actually know all their students? Not even going to get into the deeper issues here.

Plus, they haven't exactly mastered any pedagogical, didactic, or methodological skills needed to actually teach kids.🙄