Religion classes in school - Megathread

A few years back, I happened to meet a
religious studies teacher during a field trip. In my school, we mostly had secular instructors, so my only real
experience with religious orders was with priests—people I probably wouldn't ☕

To be brief, I spent two really pleasant hours in conversation with him, and the time just flew by.
He was maybe in his early 30s, and everything he stood for... well, it lined up perfectly with my own beliefs. It’s hard to put into words, but honestly, if there were more people like him who actually wanted to teach morality and life lessons at my school, I’d enroll my child in a heartbeat, whether I felt like it or not 😁
Summary:
He opposes keeping religious education in schools unless the environment is right for all children.
He stands against everything that has been broken within church circles for ages, and he isn't afraid to say it. He fights for children's rights, and you can hear the humanity and empathy in every single thing he says. At no point did I feel like he was trying to force his views on me.
I truly respect him. I think he represents a healthy middle ground between being narrow-minded and blindly following every word the church says, or taking a purely atheistic view of the world.

🙂

placidorca16 said:Plus, they haven't exactly mastered any pedagogical, didactic, or methodological skills needed to actually teach kids.🙄

Whether you’re training to be a religious educator or teaching secular subjects, you still have to master the actual art of teaching—the methods and the pedagogy required to make your subject stick.

John Thomas13, there are people everywhere, and let's be honest—idiots are everywhere too. You shouldn't be so exclusive about it. My own neighborhood is actually crawling with folks who are deeply into theology; I've got catechists, former seminary students, and even some staunch atheists living right around the corner. Those two groups can get into some pretty heated debates sometimes. It’s honestly fascinating to listen to. That kind of friction is healthy, and frankly, things would be pretty dull without it.

silentraven6 said:Whether you’re training to be a religious educator or teaching secular subjects, you still have to master the actual art of teaching—the methods and the pedagogy required to make your subject stick.

John Thomas13, there are people everywhere, and let's be honest—idiots are everywhere too. You shouldn't be so exclusive about it. My own neighborhood is actually crawling with folks who are deeply into theology; I've got catechists, former seminary students, and even some staunch atheists living right around the corner. Those two groups can get into some pretty heated debates sometimes. It’s honestly fascinating to listen to. That kind of friction is healthy, and frankly, things would be pretty dull without it.

At which university, though?

placidorca16 said:At which university, though?

I’m lost here... have you actually looked at the curriculum for those religious studies courses they mention in the lectures? As I recall, it covers general pedagogy, didactics, and methodology.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that trying to teach "teaching competencies" through basic pedagogy classes is a total joke. I won't even count the methodology courses I took in Philosophy, because honestly, that department probably feels more philosophical than the entire faculty at the FBI.

I don't know if they still do student teaching observations, but back in my day, even mentioning them as a requirement for teacher certification in secular programs was considered embarrassing—and I was doing my observations at a massive, high-profile school. Okay, fine, I'll make an exception for Reseda... I didn't exactly walk away with "competencies" because I was young, pregnant, and totally unprepared for the job at the time. But I did get a lasting sense of optimism from seeing people who truly love what they do and actually know how to teach at a world-class level.

At the end of the day, religious educators can't step foot in a public school without those pedagogy credits.

silentraven6 said:I’m lost here... have you actually looked at the curriculum for those religious studies courses they mention in the lectures? As I recall, it covers general pedagogy, didactics, and methodology.

Besides, anyone with half a brain knows that trying to teach "teaching competencies" through basic pedagogy classes is a total joke. I won't even count the methodology courses I took in Philosophy, because honestly, that department probably feels more philosophical than the entire faculty at the FBI.

I don't know if they still do student teaching observations, but back in my day, even mentioning them as a requirement for teacher certification in secular programs was considered embarrassing—and I was doing my observations at a massive, high-profile school. Okay, fine, I'll make an exception for Reseda... I didn't exactly walk away with "competencies" because I was young, pregnant, and totally unprepared for the job at the time. But I did get a lasting sense of optimism from seeing people who truly love what they do and actually know how to teach at a world-class level.

At the end of the day, religious educators can't step foot in a public school without those pedagogy credits.

Yeah, I was at the College of Liberal Arts. I never actually saw didactics or methodology anywhere—not even in my curriculum—and I only caught general pedagogy during my theology studies, which wasn't even part of the Religious Education and Catechesis track. On that program, though, I did take three specific courses: 1) religious education for preschoolers, 2) religious education and catechesis for children and pre-teens, and 3) religious education for adolescents and young adults. Now, what exactly would those fall under when it comes to pedagogical competence?

Let’s be honest—trying to measure teaching competencies within pedagogy courses is a total joke for anyone with half a brain. I’ll leave out the methodology classes I took at the College of Liberal Arts, since that course was probably more philosophical than the entire Department of Pedagogy over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.

Even if that were actually the case—which, let’s be honest, is a total reach—what does it have to do with the actual study programs offered at the College of Liberal Arts regarding pedagogical competence?
Link: Check out this link for the College of Liberal Arts studies—specifically the track for religious education and catechetics:

The Teacher Training Center at the Faculty of Humanities—on the other hand—offers this: Check out the regular study programs over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—details are all right here:

Religious education teachers can't exactly walk into a classroom without having tackled those pedagogy courses first—it's just how things work.

Oh, I can definitely pull it off. It’s just that we aren't actually supposed to—but let's be honest, who's really going to go checking besides the church authorities?😁

Take a little time to look over this.

So, they have their own dedicated department, just like most colleges focused on teacher training would. The Teacher Training Center basically steps in when someone who originally pursued a pure science track wants to beef up their resume and boost their market value 🤣 by taking those specific courses to stay competitive.

As for the pedagogy courses and the overall quality at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let's not even get into that mess. I don't know if anything has actually changed. It seems like people are just trying to rack up certain credits now. I see they’re offering things like working with gifted students and all these random electives that, back in my day, were probably just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing facts for an exam you cram for two days after never even showing up to the lectures.

Look, for me, the issue with religious education in schools is mainly because it gets treated more favorably compared to other electives. Plus, the whole situation with kids who opt out isn't handled well. But I would never question someone's pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher just because they earned those credentials somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Generally speaking, though, I think pedagogy courses need a complete overhaul at every university.

Besides, this list of their core and elective courses looks way better than what the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences offers, doesn't it? It covers both the broad strokes and the deep dives into the heart of the educational process. Imagine having a course in philosophy that actually focuses on the specific didactics and pedagogy of teaching philosophy itself, rather than just some vague, messy overview. I haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has ever told me that their pedagogy classes actually helped them once they started teaching.

I'm not sure if things have evolved over the years. My sources have been in the classroom for a long time, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately—I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into it. But I used to hang out with people from the Society of Jesus and sat in on some of their courses; I remember they had to take those subjects too.

silentraven6 said:Take a little time to look over this.

So, they have their own dedicated department, just like most colleges focused on teacher training would. The Teacher Training Center basically steps in when someone who originally pursued a pure science track wants to beef up their resume and boost their market value 🤣 by taking those specific courses to stay competitive.

As for the pedagogy courses and the overall quality at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let's not even get into that mess. I don't know if anything has actually changed. It seems like people are just trying to rack up certain credits now. I see they’re offering things like working with gifted students and all these random electives that, back in my day, were probably just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing facts for an exam you cram for two days after never even showing up to the lectures.

Look, for me, the issue with religious education in schools is mainly because it gets treated more favorably compared to other electives. Plus, the whole situation with kids who opt out isn't handled well. But I would never question someone's pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher just because they earned those credentials somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. Generally speaking, though, I think pedagogy courses need a complete overhaul at every university.

Besides, this list of their core and elective courses looks way better than what the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences offers, doesn't it? It covers both the broad strokes and the deep dives into the heart of the educational process. Imagine having a course in philosophy that actually focuses on the specific didactics and pedagogy of teaching philosophy itself, rather than just some vague, messy overview. I haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has ever told me that their pedagogy classes actually helped them once they started teaching.

I'm not sure if things have evolved over the years. My sources have been in the classroom for a long time, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately—I'll admit I haven't done a deep dive into it. But I used to hang out with people from the Society of Jesus and sat in on some of their courses; I remember they had to take those subjects too.

Just because someone holds a chair in religious pedagogy and catechetics doesn't mean they’re actually accredited with the pedagogical competencies needed to work with kids in a school setting. Besides—what you wrote in bold actually contradicts what you said earlier—because if someone already had those competencies (assuming they earned them through an actual pedagogy department), there would be zero reason for them to head over to the Teacher Training Center for the exact same thing. But, if they *are* going, it clearly means they don't have them—or at least not enough. Like you mentioned, one is a scientific field and the other is religious; pedagogy is a science, not a matter of faith.

Based on a study from Marino Ninčević’s doctoral dissertation—titled "pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher"—which he defended at the Department of Pedagogy, Faculty of Philosophy in Chicago back in 2012, the pedagogical skills of religious teachers aren't exactly anything to write home about. In fact...We really need to step up the game when it comes to improving pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher—it’s for their own sake as much as the students'. After all, you can be a theological genius, but if you can't actually teach, mediate, or organize a lesson without it falling apart—you're just not going to be an effective teacher.So, if you wanted to summarize that dissertation—which, by the way, was supervised by Dubravka Maleš, one of our most respected pedagogists—here’s what you'd get.
The Archdiocese of Zadar just dropped a new update regarding the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher process—basically, more paperwork to navigate. It looks like they’re trying to streamline things through the College of Liberal Arts, though I’m sure "streamlining" is just code for more digital hoops to jump through.

As for the quality of the pedagogy courses over at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences—honestly, let’s just not go there. Nebulous.I don't know if anything has actually changed—it feels like you need to rack up specific credits now—but I see they’ve added working with gifted students and all sorts of courses that, back in my day, were basically just pipe dreams for students who wanted more than just memorizing a list for an exam you cram for two days after skipping every single lecture.

Why "nebulous"? — honestly, I’m stumped.🤣 Points get racked up everywhere—that’s just how the Bologna Process studying works. It’s nothing new, really; been this way for ages.

Look, my biggest gripe with religion classes in schools is how they get treated like the golden child compared to other electives—it’s totally lopsided—plus the whole situation with kids who don't opt in is just a complete mess, but... I would never question someone's pedagogical competence just because they picked them up somewhere other than the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, though personally—and this is just me—I think pedagogy courses need a total ground-up overhaul at pretty much every university.

It’s not actually about that—it's about accreditation. If you're accredited, you're cleared to provide those training modules to others for their education and skill acquisition.

Besides, their list of required and elective courses looks way more impressive than what we have at the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, doesn't it?

Not for me—sorry, but absolutely not.

It implies diving into both the general and specific cores of the educational process—imagine if, say, a philosophy major had a course focused specifically on the didactics and pedagogy of philosophy itself, rather than some vague, messy mishmash. I honestly haven't met a single student from the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences who has claimed their pedagogy classes were actually useful in a classroom setting.

Look, pedagogy and didactics are scientific disciplines. You can't just shrink them down into some other field. They can be applied within other professions, sure—just like teaching methodologies work—but religious education isn't easily fused with a scientific discipline or methodology, given that it isn't exactly a science. Then there's the fact that they want the same status and treatment as actual sciences; that's why the Church tries to be so pushy within the secular school system through religious ed, attempting to wedge its way further into higher education. But, in my opinion, it won't be quite that easy.

I'm not sure if things have shifted over the years—my sources have been teaching for ages, and I haven't really kept up with this topic lately, so I haven't done any deep dives. That said, I have spent time with people from the Jesuit order and sat in on some courses; I remember they had to pass those subjects.

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you aren't exactly up to speed with current campus happenings. As for the Jesuits, in my experience, they're much closer to philosophy than to catechesis.☕

Honestly, who gives a damn what these kids are actually learning in religious ed? It’s all just noise. Look at my high school cafeteria for proof—back on Wednesday, when everyone was posting about the start of Lent, the lunch menu had squid and Salisbury steak. Not a single kid touched the squid; they just inhaled the steak. That’s how much they actually care about their faith.

placidorca16, if someone were to write a dissertation on the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher, I think the results would be just as devastating. I’ve actually read this paper, and honestly, it isn't quite as bleak or one-sided as you're making it out to be.

Look, I'll admit I might have missed the mark on a few things, but I'm certainly not losing my mind here. It's not like there was some massive revolution within the accredited programs—let's not be overly bold by nitpicking formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance of the argument.

By the way, you seem to have completely misread the points I made in my initial post; they were actually pretty straightforward.

And besides, other disciplines tend to tear down the humanities in this exact same way—by obsessing over trivial nonsense that nobody actually needs. Do we really have to drag this debate down to that level?

silentraven6 said:placidorca16, if someone were to write a dissertation on the pedagogical competence self-assessment high school religious teacher, I think the results would be just as devastating. I’ve actually read this paper, and honestly, it isn't quite as bleak or one-sided as you're making it out to be.

Look, I'll admit I might have missed the mark on a few things, but I'm certainly not losing my mind here. It's not like there was some massive revolution within the accredited programs—let's not be overly bold by nitpicking formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance of the argument.

By the way, you seem to have completely misread the points I made in my initial post; they were actually pretty straightforward.

And besides, other disciplines tend to tear down the humanities in this exact same way—by obsessing over trivial nonsense that nobody actually needs. Do we really have to drag this debate down to that level?

Where did I say it was "one-sided or bleak"? I didn't read the whole thing myself—I just quoted a snippet from the published findings. That said, I trust Prof. Maleš—as a mentor, she knows her stuff—so I doubt she'd let anything pass that wasn't strictly scientific. But yeah, the results are what they are.

Look, I admit I missed the mark there, but I'm neither stupid nor crazy. There hasn't been some massive revolution in accredited programs—let's not be obnoxious and nitpick formalities instead of focusing on the actual substance.

Where did I call you "stupid or crazy"? Why the projection? And I never mentioned a "revolution" regarding accreditation—that's not what was said. Still, scientific standards have to exist—even if they're debatable when it comes to religious studies. So, really, we *are* talking about the substance.

By the way, you completely misunderstood my enrollment details—they were perfectly clear.

What exactly did I miss? Care to elaborate?

Besides, other sciences could humiliate the humanities in the exact same way by wasting time on useless nonsense—do we really have to debate at that level?

Sorry, but what does "humiliating the humanities" have to do with the pedagogical competence of religious teachers?

My kids are definitely taking religion classes since they're an option. I want them learning about the faith I'm raising them in from someone who actually knows the theology better than I do...
Plus, I’m a believer—not just a "paper Catholic" like half the people out there—and since I’m raising my kids in this faith, it’s a no-brainer that they take the class...

I get the feeling we’re the only nation that seems "ashamed" of its faith and wants to hush it up or rip it out by the roots...

In almost every other religion, faith holds a massive place in life and education, yet in Christianity, it’s treated like it's some kind of nuisance...

We are a Catholic country, and minorities should adapt to us, not the other way around...

But here's the kicker—even the big-time Catholics in this country seem bothered by Catholic symbols...

Look, if you aren't Catholic, I get why it might bug you... but seriously, you're living in this country, just deal with it...
What I don't get is why it bothers CATHOLICS too...
Real Catholics probably don't care... it's mostly those people who just love bragging about being Catholic or Christian on paper...

shadowcrane91 said:My kids are definitely taking religion classes since they're an option. I want them learning about the faith I'm raising them in from someone who actually knows the theology better than I do...
Plus, I’m a believer—not just a "paper Catholic" like half the people out there—and since I’m raising my kids in this faith, it’s a no-brainer that they take the class...

I get the feeling we’re the only nation that seems "ashamed" of its faith and wants to hush it up or rip it out by the roots...

In almost every other religion, faith holds a massive place in life and education, yet in Christianity, it’s treated like it's some kind of nuisance...

We are a Catholic country, and minorities should adapt to us, not the other way around...

But here's the kicker—even the big-time Catholics in this country seem bothered by Catholic symbols...

Look, if you aren't Catholic, I get why it might bug you... but seriously, you're living in this country, just deal with it...
What I don't get is why it bothers CATHOLICS too...
Real Catholics probably don't care... it's mostly those people who just love bragging about being Catholic or Christian on paper...

That’s your opinion, and nobody in this world should stop you from having it—much like how people say an opinion is as much a part of you as a limb.

The other issue is the social responsibility believers have toward the rest of society and protecting minorities (in this case, the kids in the hallways). From a civic standpoint, it's the right thing to do, and from a religious standpoint, it aligns perfectly with the teachings of the Society of Jesus.

silentraven6 said:That’s your opinion, and nobody in this world should stop you from having it—much like how people say an opinion is as much a part of you as a limb.

The other issue is the social responsibility believers have toward the rest of society and protecting minorities (in this case, the kids in the hallways). From a civic standpoint, it's the right thing to do, and from a religious standpoint, it aligns perfectly with the teachings of the Society of Jesus.

Look, if things aren't organized properly at certain schools, I'm with you on that...
In some places, it really is a mess....
But then again, that isn't a problem with religious education itself, it's a management problem within the institution... right???

Besides, why should the majority be forced to bend to the minority instead of the other way around???

I don't see a single decent reason why religious ed should be kicked out of schools in a Christian and Catholic country like America....

Everywhere in the world, the minority adapts to the majority, depending on which religion dominates where....
And just like that, every country teaches its own faith both inside and outside of institutions....

And I'm totally fine with that!

It's not like I can just fly to India and start a riot because "hey, my kid is being exposed to their faith in public schools, and as a believer of a different faith, nobody is respecting me."

If I'm there as the minority, I'm going to adapt to them.....
I won't adopt their faith, but I also don't have any right to complain...

Same goes for me—I think in a Catholic country, the minority should adjust to the majority....
If you aren't a believer and you aren't raising your kid in the faith, they don't have to attend religious ed, but it's totally wrong to trash the subject because of it....

The only issue is that here, everyone acts LIKE they're believers, yet that exact same faith is what bugs them when it's in the public eye....

So now, are twenty students supposed to compromise just for those five who skip religious ed...?

Seriously—it makes zero sense to me.

Here's the deal: the group of kids starting school with mine will all be in religious ed except for three of them (and we're all from the same neighborhood, basically known each other since daycare)...
Are we really expected to scrap religious ed for the whole class just because of those three???

shadowcrane91 said:Basically, this group is heading to school with my kids, and everyone’s taking religion class except for three of them (we all live in the same neighborhood, so we've known each other since they were in daycare)...
So now, because of those three people, the whole entire class is supposed to just skip religion class????

It shouldn't be about everyone giving up religion; just move the classes to where they actually belong—in a church.☕

My kids don't do religion class, and honestly, the schedule here works out great. It’s just the last two hours once a week, so my girls get home early.

Rachel Gray24 said:It shouldn't be about everyone giving up religion; just move the classes to where they actually belong—in a church.☕

My kids don't do religion class, and honestly, the schedule here works out great. It’s just the last two hours once a week, so my girls get home early.

So what, every other religion gets to promote their beliefs wherever they want, but we’re the only ones who should "tuck ours away" in one specific spot???
☕

That’s why I think the only people pushing to scrap religious ed in schools are minorities who expect the majority to just bend to their will.☕

Look, the way schools handle it right now is a total mess because religious studies is an elective—it's supposed to be a choice! So, logically, those classes should happen after the regular school day is already wrapped up...
I mean, why can't schools just organize it like any other elective? Honestly, I have no clue...

But I'm not saying we should kick it out entirely. I'm saying we need a better structure so you don't have kids wandering aimlessly through the hallways; make it the first period or the last one.

That’s really all there is to it.
We live in a Catholic nation, and if you aren't Catholic, you simply have to adapt to the culture.
It isn't as if the Church isn't already making an effort to implement this.
I hope it's clear to you why geneticists like myself are so opposed to it.

shadowcrane91 said:That’s why I think the only people pushing to scrap religious ed in schools are minorities who expect the majority to just bend to their will.☕

Look, the way schools handle it right now is a total mess because religious studies is an elective—it's supposed to be a choice! So, logically, those classes should happen after the regular school day is already wrapped up...
I mean, why can't schools just organize it like any other elective? Honestly, I have no clue...

But I'm not saying we should kick it out entirely. I'm saying we need a better structure so you don't have kids wandering aimlessly through the hallways; make it the first period or the last one.

So, you're saying you don't know? It feels a bit strange to me, doesn't it? Just take a moment to think about it—you could even look it up online.

If you dig around, you'll find that under the agreements with the Vatican, religious education in schools is regulated as an elective subject with a very specific legal standing. This unique status is strictly defined so that religious studies are treated as a core subject. Because of this, it has to be integrated directly into the standard daily schedule; it can't be pushed to before or after school hours the way other electives, foreign languages, or computer science classes might be.

Now, just try to consider what kind of intention lies behind setting it up that way.

Quincy said:Look, if you aren't religious and you aren't raising your kid with faith, they don't have to take religion class. But it's totally uncalled for to trash the subject because of it....

Sent from my Galaxy J3 using Reddit

Oh, sure. They’re perfectly entitled to spit on Mexicans, non-Americans, atheists, or anyone else who skips religion class. I mean, they're all headed to hell anyway, right?

shadowcrane91 said:That’s why I think the only people pushing to scrap religious ed in schools are minorities who expect the majority to just bend to their will.☕

Look, the way schools handle it right now is a total mess because religious studies is an elective—it's supposed to be a choice! So, logically, those classes should happen after the regular school day is already wrapped up...
I mean, why can't schools just organize it like any other elective? Honestly, I have no clue...

But I'm not saying we should kick it out entirely. I'm saying we need a better structure so you don't have kids wandering aimlessly through the hallways; make it the first period or the last one.

It's structured that way because it has to be. Per the treaty with Vatican City, religion classes hold the same legal status as mandatory subjects, which means they have to be part of the regular daily schedule.

shadowcrane91 said:My kids are definitely taking religion classes since they're an option. I want them learning about the faith I'm raising them in from someone who actually knows the theology better than I do...
Plus, I’m a believer—not just a "paper Catholic" like half the people out there—and since I’m raising my kids in this faith, it’s a no-brainer that they take the class...

I get the feeling we’re the only nation that seems "ashamed" of its faith and wants to hush it up or rip it out by the roots...

In almost every other religion, faith holds a massive place in life and education, yet in Christianity, it’s treated like it's some kind of nuisance...

We are a Catholic country, and minorities should adapt to us, not the other way around...

But here's the kicker—even the big-time Catholics in this country seem bothered by Catholic symbols...

Look, if you aren't Catholic, I get why it might bug you... but seriously, you're living in this country, just deal with it...
What I don't get is why it bothers CATHOLICS too...
Real Catholics probably don't care... it's mostly those people who just love bragging about being Catholic or Christian on paper...

That's not quite right—don't say that! America isn't a Catholic country; it's a secular one. There is no state religion, and all faiths are considered equal here.
Also, saying a minority should have to adapt to the majority is a pretty dangerous road to go down—because eventually, you might find yourself in the minority position for whatever reason, and then you'll see things differently.
Everyone has the right to their own opinion and their own faith. You have every right to raise your child however you think is best, but an atheist or agnostic has that same right to raise their child without religion—just like a Muslim has the right to raise their child according to their own needs.
The real issue is that since this is part of the public school system, it becomes a problem in a secular nation when one specific faith is being pushed on everyone. No one is questioning your right to enroll your kid in Sunday school—where they can learn from a priest or a nun in the faith you choose—but using taxpayer money for religious classes is the sticking point. That money comes from both believers and non-believers alike, and it feels like non-believers are being pressured into religious classes because there isn't a comparable alternative provided.