Religion classes in school - Megathread

Karen Richardson3 said:I’m almost at a loss for words because I pretty much agree with everything you said 😁

I was really just speaking from my own personal experience living in Cleveland.
Basically, this past summer, I found myself in these deep conversations about how kids who opt out of religious studies get treated in Cleveland. It felt totally surreal to me, especially when you consider the actual percentage of non-Catholics in the city—you've got Orthodox folks, Muslims, atheists—and that whole local vibe where people try to brand the city as this "cool, progressive, tolerant, anti-fascist hub."

Based on what my friends were telling me, I fully expected my kid to be one of the few outliers who didn't participate, so I decided to just take the risk of dealing with some potential discrimination.

But guess what? Nothing happened. In fact, nearly half the class skips it; they just sit there watching Disney cartoons while the others are off in religion class.

What I find fascinating is this growing narrative about the near-persecution of kids who don't attend these classes, which has somehow made its way even to Cleveland—a place that, if my gut is right, probably has some of the lowest participation rates in the entire US.

It would feel just as bizarre if that kind of blatant discrimination were happening in Washington, D.C., too. Sure, I can wrap my head around individual people making snide comments because that's how they were raised, much like how people might face prejudice simply because they aren't originally from D.C. and moved there later (if we're being honest, there seems to be more online bashing of people from the South or rural areas than there is actual outcry over kids skipping religion class), but that doesn't mean the city itself is inherently discriminatory.

On the flip side, I completely get why it feels so much harder in smaller towns, where any kind of deviation from the norm gets you some pretty nasty looks.

As for the textbooks and stuff, I haven't really followed it closely; I saw a headline about that controversial religious textbook, but then just the other day there was that whole drama involving a woman and her mom, and I'm starting to get the impression that people just love to stir up panic. Even the liberal media outlets jump on it, framing everything as this looming "threat of backwardness" just to trigger clicks and comments. It’s a total conflict of interest because these news sites aren't trying to inform you; they're just chasing engagement.

Personally, a much bigger issue for me is that Disney cartoon featuring Mickey Mouse where they sing that song about "it's a mouse thing"—it sounds so suggestive, almost like they're singing about a penis, and to me, it honestly feels like some weirdly inappropriate pamphlet. 😁

I honestly just sat there and cried. I really did. I can't stop questioning myself, wondering what on earth that whole mess was actually supposed to mean. 😂

Moms and women... honestly, they can be a bit slow on the uptake sometimes, but hey, at least they’ve given us plenty of good material to work with.

I’ve rarely looked at the whole religious education debate here in Washington, D.C., through the lens of it being direct discrimination or an insult to someone's beliefs. To me, it feels more like a question of how the subject is categorized and the very real anxiety felt by people who aren't being offered any kind of alternative or way to opt out. It’s about that lack of choice. And honestly? I don't think the situation is the same whether you're living Downtown or out in the Suburbs.

No, maybe this whole thing—this intense, almost aggressive pushback against non-believers and anti-theistic trends (which, let’s be honest, is basically just Mark wearing a different outfit)—actually has some positive resonance. In my own little circle, the people who have known me since I was a kid back in my small hometown, their first reaction was that this was all just some fashion statement. They figured it was just a rebellious phase born out of pure boredom, because let's face it, life in Washington, D.C. can feel pretty stagnant despite all its complexity and constant activity. But even then, a certain percentage of them started asking the real questions. They wondered what kind of shift had to happen to make that kid, who used to sing in the church choir, decide to skip religious studies altogether.

Maybe there’s a bit of influence coming from that whole rebellion brewing in the big cities. If we can just keep our egos in check and avoid spiraling into this loud, mindless clucking against stupidity—because let's face it, injustice exists everywhere you look—we might actually get somewhere. Honestly, when protesting has become such a massive social event these days, it feels like your post is leaning right into that vibe, if I'm being blunt about it.

Cleveland is pretty much a secular spot 😁 I always think of the old industrial plants whenever Cleveland comes to mind

That religious education class always seems to fall right in the middle of the school day, never first thing in the morning or at the end of the afternoon... it’s honestly pretty distasteful how they try to force kids into these classes, or if they're in elementary school, just leave them wandering the halls without any supervision.
Interesting. Ethics was on Saturday this year, during the last period.

silentraven6 said:I’m going to find out today if my teacher is actually going to follow through on her offer to give us some extra math tutoring. 😁

silentraven6 said:NASA mentioned today: "That's part of my scheduled hours."

I really need to pull her aside and ask how that actually works. And yeah, she made it pretty clear that things will stay this way again this year, because they do a great job and actually enjoy the extra work—plus, she noted it's an opportunity reserved specifically for students who don't take religious studies. Apparently, the whole setup is going to change next year.

I'm dying to know how they'll pull that off.

Well, a decision was finally reached at the school level regarding our scheduling. It turns out that this time around, they’ve officially aligned the math tutoring sessions with the period when part of the class is away for religious studies. It’s all been formally integrated into the master schedule and logged as an official subject in the digital gradebook. This means everything is above board—the teacher is being officially compensated for the extra time, and there aren't any awkward gaps in the daily timetable.

This is honestly the first genuinely positive thing I’ve seen happen at our school, and it feels like such a refreshing break from the usual mediocrity. Of course, the IT teacher is clearly putting a massive amount of effort into this, though if I’m being honest, I think the sophomores might still be a little too young to fully grasp the scale of his projects!

In any case... 👍 Cheers to our school for making this move! 🥂

And when is the math remedial scheduled for those students enrolled in religious studies? I would be absolutely incensed by such a "solution"... ☕ It carries the implicit suggestion that children in religious education are somehow more intellectually gifted than their peers—as if these poor souls require extra help, while the others are apparently sharp enough to grasp everything on the first try. 😛

It honestly baffles me how a teacher can officially run extra tutoring sessions during religious education hour—and I mean it’s part of her paid contract. I get why some parents love it; if their kid isn't sitting through religion class, they'd rather have them doing something productive instead of just staring out the window at the clouds. But the logistics? It makes zero sense.

If my little girl needed extra help with math (especially since she’s stuck in that religion class anyway), I’d expect the teacher to carve out an hour for her too. You know, along with all the other kids who actually need the help while they're sitting there during religion hour. If she wants to run two hours of tutoring, fine. Let her. ☕

Michelle Nelson4 said:Well, a decision was finally reached at the school level regarding our scheduling. It turns out that this time around, they’ve officially aligned the math tutoring sessions with the period when part of the class is away for religious studies. It’s all been formally integrated into the master schedule and logged as an official subject in the digital gradebook. This means everything is above board—the teacher is being officially compensated for the extra time, and there aren't any awkward gaps in the daily timetable.

This is honestly the first genuinely positive thing I’ve seen happen at our school, and it feels like such a refreshing break from the usual mediocrity. Of course, the IT teacher is clearly putting a massive amount of effort into this, though if I’m being honest, I think the sophomores might still be a little too young to fully grasp the scale of his projects!

In any case... 👍 Cheers to our school for making this move! 🥂

Our kid has extra help, and it's been wonderful since he actually loves math.

Computer science might still be a bit advanced for them, but you can tell something good is brewing for next year.

The answer to that sneaky post about intelligence and stupidity can be found on the Archdiocese website, which I linked recently. Heaven forbid that I, as an imperfect believer, should try to be a bigger Pope than the Pope himself and start worrying about all that. God forbid there's injustice. Let the parents handle the math situation at home. They aren't out in the hallways while this type of instruction is happening; they're busy taking care of things.

Besides, how can people call parents "conformists" just because they sign their kids up for religious studies so they aren't left wandering the halls? If any other elective were offered, they'd probably pick that instead. Would they really stand alongside all those parents who skip religious studies due to their convictions, faith, or different views—parents whose kids would then be left standing in the hallways?

silentraven6 said:Our kid has extra help, and it's been wonderful since he actually loves math.

Computer science might still be a bit advanced for them, but you can tell something good is brewing for next year.

The answer to that sneaky post about intelligence and stupidity can be found on the Archdiocese website, which I linked recently. Heaven forbid that I, as an imperfect believer, should try to be a bigger Pope than the Pope himself and start worrying about all that. God forbid there's injustice. Let the parents handle the math situation at home. They aren't out in the hallways while this type of instruction is happening; they're busy taking care of things.

Besides, how can people call parents "conformists" just because they sign their kids up for religious studies so they aren't left wandering the halls? If any other elective were offered, they'd probably pick that instead. Would they really stand alongside all those parents who skip religious studies due to their convictions, faith, or different views—parents whose kids would then be left standing in the hallways?

It’s early, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I missed something: is that bolded part actually your opinion, or is it something we can find printed on the official pages of the Archdiocese (I don't even see a link)?

Because if this isn't an after-school program, the remedial and extra help sessions are scheduled for either the first or the last period. That way, a kid who doesn't need to stay late can either stay home or head straight back to their house. There shouldn't be kids hanging out in the halls during extra help sessions. And there certainly shouldn't be kids left unsupervised during religious ed classes—at least not at our local school. Students are under supervision.

And that bolded section really rubs me the wrong way: Are you suggesting my child should be penalized by missing out on extra help just because they attend religious ed? Absolutely not... I wouldn't allow that for a second.

frozenrider15 said:It’s early, and I haven't had my coffee yet, so I missed something: is that bolded part actually your opinion, or is it something we can find printed on the official pages of the Archdiocese (I don't even see a link)?

Because if this isn't an after-school program, the remedial and extra help sessions are scheduled for either the first or the last period. That way, a kid who doesn't need to stay late can either stay home or head straight back to their house. There shouldn't be kids hanging out in the halls during extra help sessions. And there certainly shouldn't be kids left unsupervised during religious ed classes—at least not at our local school. Students are under supervision.

And that bolded section really rubs me the wrong way: Are you suggesting my child should be penalized by missing out on extra help just because they attend religious ed? Absolutely not... I wouldn't allow that for a second.

Basically, moral relativism might be acceptable when it comes from the perspective of moral absolutists—those who have been fighting against relativism for centuries through the absolute center of morality, God—but it's totally unfair to those who end up being disadvantaged by that very relativism, even if we aren't trying to follow some kind of utilitarian logic.

Let me explain...

What I just said is a bit of a cheeky dig, because any parent whose child takes religious ed should really be aware of how these classes are handled. You have to realize that nowhere are children properly supervised just because someone is getting paid a fee for the job. Nowhere. Based on what you've said (regarding the extra help and elective courses in elementary schools), which I'm not even trying to deny because it's true, there's simply no way to legally and properly supervise these kids and ensure someone is actually being compensated for it. And honestly, reliable childcare is a relatively modern concept anyway, and as we've seen in a few posts earlier, some kids aren't being looked after at all.

So, by choosing religious ed, you've essentially chosen moral relativism. And since you've made that choice, let me use that same moral relativism to defend the fact that I'd prefer someone to be properly paid to watch my child and actually do something productive during that time.

If the moral absolutism of believers no longer plays a role, and utilitarianism is blocked by the moral relativism of those absolutists... well, then we're stuck.

And hey, while we're at it, we could dive into the legality of these kinds of school decisions. We could even bring up the legality of the Vatican Treaties—which apparently shouldn't be touched or even reviewed despite twenty years passing—and have a little chat about what is actually morally relative or absolute in all of this.

silentraven6 said:Basically, moral relativism might be acceptable when it comes from the perspective of moral absolutists—those who have been fighting against relativism for centuries through the absolute center of morality, God—but it's totally unfair to those who end up being disadvantaged by that very relativism, even if we aren't trying to follow some kind of utilitarian logic.

Let me explain...

What I just said is a bit of a cheeky dig, because any parent whose child takes religious ed should really be aware of how these classes are handled. You have to realize that nowhere are children properly supervised just because someone is getting paid a fee for the job. Nowhere. Based on what you've said (regarding the extra help and elective courses in elementary schools), which I'm not even trying to deny because it's true, there's simply no way to legally and properly supervise these kids and ensure someone is actually being compensated for it. And honestly, reliable childcare is a relatively modern concept anyway, and as we've seen in a few posts earlier, some kids aren't being looked after at all.

So, by choosing religious ed, you've essentially chosen moral relativism. And since you've made that choice, let me use that same moral relativism to defend the fact that I'd prefer someone to be properly paid to watch my child and actually do something productive during that time.

If the moral absolutism of believers no longer plays a role, and utilitarianism is blocked by the moral relativism of those absolutists... well, then we're stuck.

And hey, while we're at it, we could dive into the legality of these kinds of school decisions. We could even bring up the legality of the Vatican Treaties—which apparently shouldn't be touched or even reviewed despite twenty years passing—and have a little chat about what is actually morally relative or absolute in all of this.

I get where you're coming from (I actually had to re-read that part about moral relativism a few times 😁). I enrolled my little one in religion class specifically because of that logistical fact—so she isn't just wandering the halls while everyone else is in class. That wasn't even the main reason. I actually toyed with the idea of not enrolling her at all, but instead asking that she not be pulled out of the classroom during that period. And frankly, I don't care if she becomes a devout believer at this age; neither of us parents are particularly practicing folks. I mostly went with it because I thought it would be better for my kid, given her age.

From my own experience and from reading through these forums, I see exactly how they try to jam religion class into the schedule and the headaches parents face when they don't sign their kids up. But it's also clear to me that you can't fix one injustice by committing another. So, I truly understand your perspective and your satisfaction in knowing your little one is looked after and doing something fun and useful. However, I wouldn't be happy if that same opportunity were handed to your child but denied to mine. I wouldn't take it out on you, though; I’d take it out on the teacher and demand they provide the same option for my girl.

frozenrider15 said:I get where you're coming from (I actually had to re-read that part about moral relativism a few times 😁). I enrolled my little one in religion class specifically because of that logistical fact—so she isn't just wandering the halls while everyone else is in class. That wasn't even the main reason. I actually toyed with the idea of not enrolling her at all, but instead asking that she not be pulled out of the classroom during that period. And frankly, I don't care if she becomes a devout believer at this age; neither of us parents are particularly practicing folks. I mostly went with it because I thought it would be better for my kid, given her age.

From my own experience and from reading through these forums, I see exactly how they try to jam religion class into the schedule and the headaches parents face when they don't sign their kids up. But it's also clear to me that you can't fix one injustice by committing another. So, I truly understand your perspective and your satisfaction in knowing your little one is looked after and doing something fun and useful. However, I wouldn't be happy if that same opportunity were handed to your child but denied to mine. I wouldn't take it out on you, though; I’d take it out on the teacher and demand they provide the same option for my girl.

Frozenrider15, this isn't just some minor unfairness. This is a total disregard for spiritual principles; it's basically spitting in the face of everyone else who is being told there's such a thing as a moral absolute. I hate seeing one wrong corrected by another, but I also feel like there's no other way to fight back. If the other side is using moral relativism to get ahead, maybe we have to use it too.

It feels like we're on a battlefield, and you see your opponent using the exact same weapon against you, yet some rule tells you that you aren't allowed to touch it, even though they can.

Would you just die, or would you pick up your sword?

And look, please don't take this personally, but in this specific situation, you're being a complete conformist. You're leaning on those relativistic arguments, yet you'd go protesting to the school if some kid named Almir, who happens to be Muslim, got extra time off during class so he wouldn't have to wander the hallways in first grade. You wouldn't deny his parents the same basic treatment, regardless of what's technically "legal." Why aren't you being a conformist about that? Why are you closing your eyes to what's happening right in front of you?

silentraven6 said:Frozenrider15, this isn't just some minor unfairness. This is a total disregard for spiritual principles; it's basically spitting in the face of everyone else who is being told there's such a thing as a moral absolute. I hate seeing one wrong corrected by another, but I also feel like there's no other way to fight back. If the other side is using moral relativism to get ahead, maybe we have to use it too.

It feels like we're on a battlefield, and you see your opponent using the exact same weapon against you, yet some rule tells you that you aren't allowed to touch it, even though they can.

Would you just die, or would you pick up your sword?

And look, please don't take this personally, but in this specific situation, you're being a complete conformist. You're leaning on those relativistic arguments, yet you'd go protesting to the school if some kid named Almir, who happens to be Muslim, got extra time off during class so he wouldn't have to wander the hallways in first grade. You wouldn't deny his parents the same basic treatment, regardless of what's technically "legal." Why aren't you being a conformist about that? Why are you closing your eyes to what's happening right in front of you?

If my life were on the line, I’d probably grab the sword. Though, let’s be real, I’m a coward; I’d likely just run for it 😉.

What I mean is, I get the theory, but in this specific situation, I would fight for my child.
I see "solutions" to this sort of thing at my workplace all the time. They squeeze religious studies into a single hour, and kids who don't participate are supposedly "taken care of" under supervision. Extra tutoring sessions can't happen during that slot; they have to be at the very start or end of the day. If it's an after-school program, the teacher just juggles the kids—assigning one group a task while working with the others. It’s far from an ideal setup for the teacher, frankly.

If that were the case at my daughter's school, I wouldn't sign her up for those classes. But since I couldn't get a straight answer on how the kids not attending would actually be supervised, I wasn't willing to take the risk of her wandering the halls alone.

silentraven6 said:Frozenrider15, this isn't just some minor unfairness. This is a total disregard for spiritual principles; it's basically spitting in the face of everyone else who is being told there's such a thing as a moral absolute. I hate seeing one wrong corrected by another, but I also feel like there's no other way to fight back. If the other side is using moral relativism to get ahead, maybe we have to use it too.

It feels like we're on a battlefield, and you see your opponent using the exact same weapon against you, yet some rule tells you that you aren't allowed to touch it, even though they can.

Would you just die, or would you pick up your sword?

And look, please don't take this personally, but in this specific situation, you're being a complete conformist. You're leaning on those relativistic arguments, yet you'd go protesting to the school if some kid named Almir, who happens to be Muslim, got extra time off during class so he wouldn't have to wander the hallways in first grade. You wouldn't deny his parents the same basic treatment, regardless of what's technically "legal." Why aren't you being a conformist about that? Why are you closing your eyes to what's happening right in front of you?

Fine, call me a conformist. I am one. Why? Because I act in my child's best interest. Period. And no, I wouldn't be running to the school board just because Almir gets extra help while my kid doesn't. That's not the point. I would protest if the teacher organized an extra session for my child too, even if she had to stay two hours late to make it happen. If she found a way to make things easier for HERSELF—and believe me, she did it for herself, mostly so she wouldn't have a gap in her schedule and could avoid staying late during a fifth period—then she should ensure my little girl gets that same opportunity as everyone else.
My question was simple: how is it possible that the teacher officially has a scheduled extra hour during the religious studies block?

frozenrider15 said:If my life were on the line, I’d probably grab the sword. Though, let’s be real, I’m a coward; I’d likely just run for it 😉.

What I mean is, I get the theory, but in this specific situation, I would fight for my child.
I see "solutions" to this sort of thing at my workplace all the time. They squeeze religious studies into a single hour, and kids who don't participate are supposedly "taken care of" under supervision. Extra tutoring sessions can't happen during that slot; they have to be at the very start or end of the day. If it's an after-school program, the teacher just juggles the kids—assigning one group a task while working with the others. It’s far from an ideal setup for the teacher, frankly.

If that were the case at my daughter's school, I wouldn't sign her up for those classes. But since I couldn't get a straight answer on how the kids not attending would actually be supervised, I wasn't willing to take the risk of her wandering the halls alone.

See, there you go—you'd fight for your kid.

Well, everyone else is fighting for their kids too.

We're talking about "supervision" being provided on a voluntary basis, and is that actually fair? You work in a school. Is it right that because of a job someone else is getting paid for, you're expected to work for free?

Setting aside the fact that any normal person would do what you'd do—which is clearly the humane thing to do—on a strictly formal level, it isn't fair.

So, as a parent of a child who chose religious studies, you feel it's fair that someone else has to watch the other kids for free just because they aren't part of that faith or whatever, even though those contracts are problematic and you know it. But it isn't fair that those other kids miss out on meaningful activities with a teacher who is specifically paid to be with the religious studies group.

Is it only unfair because your child is the one missing out? Because you're looking at this solely through the lens of your own kid?

Isn't it also an injustice to go to the school and protest, knowing that by doing so, you're depriving other children of content, leaving a teacher without their paid hours, and potentially costing someone their job or landing them with a black mark on their record?

Isn't that just injustice fighting against injustice?

What’s the bigger harm here? Is it that your child misses out on something you could easily pay for privately since you opted for religious studies, or is it that another child—whose parent also paid for that religious studies class (even though the service isn't needed and puts the teacher in a bind)—misses out on instruction, the teacher loses their pay, and someone ends up getting screwed over?

When you weigh all the damages ethically, which side carries more weight?

I'll say it again: no child in America (as far as I know) is legally guaranteed supervision during religious studies. Just look at labor rights and what the law says about unpaid work (in an idealistic sense, let's not bash American employers too hard), and how volunteering is treated and filed. This kind of supervision is essentially volunteering, which should also be compensated.

Edit: Maybe the teacher is just a conformist, working to protect her own unpaid time that's being forced upon her by certain moral codes. Maybe she’s a conformist because she’s fighting for her own child, who's left alone for an hour while she's stuck providing extra help to your child just because she has the right to.

Maybe she's just an ordinary conformist. Why is your brand of conformity more moral than hers?

frozenrider15, let's be real—you didn't enroll her in religion classes just for the sake of faith; you did it because you needed childcare. If she needs extra tutoring and they offer it during religious studies, you can just pull her from the religious class, get the tutoring instead, and still have the kid accounted for.
By the way, does anyone know how many hours of mandatory tutoring teachers actually have to provide for first graders?
Also, where do the kids go who don't need tutoring, extra help, or religious studies?

Should I head home or just stay at the dorm?

What kind of stay? I mean, aren't we all just hanging out in the same classroom together?

hmm, I hadn't really thought about it that way 😂 for us either 😁 but it's often just a separate room; at our school, there's one classroom (obviously the one meant to serve as the common area) that has its own dedicated section for hanging out

Nancy Kelly31 said:And when is the math remedial scheduled for those students enrolled in religious studies? I would be absolutely incensed by such a "solution"... ☕ It carries the implicit suggestion that children in religious education are somehow more intellectually gifted than their peers—as if these poor souls require extra help, while the others are apparently sharp enough to grasp everything on the first try. 😛

Have you reached out to the main office over at Cathedral Hill yet to see if anyone would dare organize something productive for the non-religious students? Otherwise, they’re just stuck staring at a hallway wall, contemplating the grim fate of those who founded the first >s.

I really appreciate how every single one of your posts on this thread manages to showcase the true depth of your "love for humanity and concern for the youth." 🙂

frozenrider15 said:If my life were on the line, I’d probably grab the sword. Though, let’s be real, I’m a coward; I’d likely just run for it 😉.

What I mean is, I get the theory, but in this specific situation, I would fight for my child.
I see "solutions" to this sort of thing at my workplace all the time. They squeeze religious studies into a single hour, and kids who don't participate are supposedly "taken care of" under supervision. Extra tutoring sessions can't happen during that slot; they have to be at the very start or end of the day. If it's an after-school program, the teacher just juggles the kids—assigning one group a task while working with the others. It’s far from an ideal setup for the teacher, frankly.

If that were the case at my daughter's school, I wouldn't sign her up for those classes. But since I couldn't get a straight answer on how the kids not attending would actually be supervised, I wasn't willing to take the risk of her wandering the halls alone.

Well, they didn't make any promises or guarantees to us either. In fact, they were being incredibly sneaky about the number of students opting out of religious ed at the start of last school year—they kept it hidden like a secret. Instead, they were openly nudging parents, saying things like, "It's not too late to change your mind and sign them up." They even tried some little maneuvers early on, suggesting that the kids were actually attending the class after all, but then the library setup meant there wasn't always space for them to be there anyway.

But enough of us were brave and firm enough to ensure our children weren't participating in those classes, officially or otherwise, so now, a year later, we're seeing exactly where that led us.

silentraven6 said:Our kid has extra help, and it's been wonderful since he actually loves math.

Computer science might still be a bit advanced for them, but you can tell something good is brewing for next year.

The answer to that sneaky post about intelligence and stupidity can be found on the Archdiocese website, which I linked recently. Heaven forbid that I, as an imperfect believer, should try to be a bigger Pope than the Pope himself and start worrying about all that. God forbid there's injustice. Let the parents handle the math situation at home. They aren't out in the hallways while this type of instruction is happening; they're busy taking care of things.

Besides, how can people call parents "conformists" just because they sign their kids up for religious studies so they aren't left wandering the halls? If any other elective were offered, they'd probably pick that instead. Would they really stand alongside all those parents who skip religious studies due to their convictions, faith, or different views—parents whose kids would then be left standing in the hallways?

You might want to try Swift if you're looking for a fun way to start; my little one really enjoys it, and it serves as a nice little way to pick up some English along the way.
They love math as well—they used to tackle extra worksheets quite often—so it’s a great activity to have on hand when they aren't busy hanging out in the library.

...

Anyway, regarding those parents who act like conformists—signing their kids up for religious studies just so they aren't stuck wandering the hallways—how would they react if they stood alongside all the other parents who opt out based on their actual convictions, faith, or different perspectives? How would they feel about children being left out in the cold just because their families won't go along with the crowd?

I find myself wondering that quite often too... It feels like we're immediately missing the point of why this isn't "fair." Are we honestly expected to just wait like sheep for some sudden, magically spontaneous, win-win solution to emerge from our school system after our children's rights have been consistently ignored? Who knows if such a solution will even arrive in our lifetime, or ever...