Religion classes in school - Megathread

briskbison55 said:I guess it just doesn't make sense if you look at it logically 😁 or do you think only the "good" atheists get a say when we're talking about the Islamic Studies Department? I really hope I don't have to explain that further.

When it's used correctly, I’ve got nothing against logic. But when "logic" somehow dictates that kids who don't take religious education shouldn't have access to health insurance... goodness gracious, give me a break.

And I've already stated my position on religious studies quite a few times now. Here it is again—feel free to take it or leave it, just please DON'T bring it up in the middle of everything else. If it's an elective, then let it be scheduled as an elective so your personal preferences don't create massive holes in everyone else's schedule. No matter how much you enjoyed ditching class to flirt with girls back in middle school. ☕

Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

It occurs to me that the separation of church and state isn't just undermined by religious instruction itself, but rather by all this accompanying ritualistic fluff... Take the first day of school, or those bread blessing ceremonies—you have a priest walking right into the building to bless the staff, the students, and by extension, my child. If there is a need for such things, why on earth can't it be scheduled for a Saturday or a Sunday, allowing anyone who actually wishes to participate to attend?

Personally, I wouldn't mind a dedicated course on religious studies at all; in fact, I think making it a mandatory subject would be perfectly fine. We could simply allocate the hours based on the actual demographics of the country to reflect our diverse reality. For instance, if we allocated six hours to Buddhism, forty-two to Islam, and perhaps a hundred and twelve to Christianity, it would feel much more balanced. I’m just throwing numbers out there, of course...

But the crucial point is the methodology: it should be taught through an academic lens, much like how we studied ethics back in middle school, where we learned "Buddhists believe X" or "Catholics believe Y," rather than presenting specific doctrines as absolute, indisputable facts.

Instead, everything is presented as if it were an objective truth, which is where the problem lies. To me, that approach would be entirely acceptable; let the children learn about various customs and belief systems, especially since the majority of people in the US celebrate these traditions anyway, so they might as well understand the "why" behind them. Besides, I already discuss these topics with my son at home whenever he shows interest, as it is something people talk about constantly and is always being depicted in movies and media...

In a nation where the public school curriculum is often built upon foundations of faith rather than rigorous scientific fact—and given that faith is inherently personal and unprovable—one must question if we truly live in a secular society. True secularism demands a complete separation of church and state, ensuring that every belief system stands on equal footing before the government. While I recognize that achieving absolute secularism is an impossible ideal, much like perfection in democracy, equality, or individual liberty, it is painfully evident that America remains far from even the mere illusion of being a secular state.

I find myself opposed to the introduction of "ethics" as a standalone course, provided that ethics is treated as a philosophical discipline within high schools. Whether a concept is beneficial or detrimental shouldn't necessitate a dedicated subject; rather, it should be woven into the fabric of daily upbringing, considering that a school is, by its very nature, an educational and formative institution. Concepts such as honesty, helping one's peers, or environmental stewardship are themes that naturally permeate the existing curriculum anyway.
I am unequivocally against the inclusion of religious studies in our schools. Out of the vast ocean of human knowledge available to us, religious instruction is certainly not what children should be sacrificing countless hours of their youth to study, all while risking the physical toll of sitting at a desk. If we are to replace religious education with something else, wouldn't it be far more productive to allocate that time to mathematics or physical education?

Regarding religious studies as a subject, I really don't have an issue with it being held in school classrooms, provided it follows the same rules as any other elective or non-core topic—you know, like astronomy or even astrology, for all the good that's worth. My main sticking point is that it shouldn't be squeezed right into the middle of the mandatory curriculum. Plus, we taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for "religious instructors" through our tax dollars, and it certainly shouldn't count toward a student's GPA (let alone official academic competitions, like those ecology contests they used to hold before they realized how silly that was)

Similarly, I’m against having "religion" listed as its own distinct subject. You can easily cover those themes within history, literature, art, or even ethics classes. To echo what Michelle Nelson4 mentioned earlier, why not dedicate those hours to things like physical education, art, music, or home economics? (I'm not talking about the elementary levels where computer science is a given, but for the older kids.) If we shifted the focus, maybe students would spend less time memorizing facts and more time actually enjoying school.

Religious studies is one of those subjects that everyone ends up paying for, yet it somehow manages to divide kids into "us" and "them." It’s funny because even though the teachers are paid through our tax dollars rather than by any church, religious content still finds a way to be pushed onto everyone, whether they signed up for the class or not. Plus, because it's baked right into the curriculum, students end up losing out on time that could have been spent on much more practical, valuable subjects...

I mean, look—even the teacher running that astronomy club gets paid their hourly rate, which goes right into the payroll 😉 just like how the coach for the high school football team gets their time logged

Sarah Hall53 said:I mean, look—even the teacher running that astronomy club gets paid their hourly rate, which goes right into the payroll 😉 just like how the coach for the high school football team gets their time logged

It all comes down to whether they're state employees teaching a course officially recognized within the school curriculum. Astronomy makes perfect sense as an extension of physics, but religious studies? That falls more into the realm of astrology, geomancy, or other esoteric, unscientific curiosities. I can't see why taxpayer money should fund that; if someone wants to take those classes, they should probably just pay out of their own pocket.

Karen Richardson3 said:Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

It’s definitely not secular. Secularism means a total separation of church and state. Period. That means everything the government touches has to be completely free of religious influence. Since schools are public institutions, religious studies shouldn't have any business being part of the official curriculum... I don't have a problem with schools letting churches rent out space for religious classes, but that should be an after-school activity, not part of the actual school day...

Karen Richardson3 said:Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

Totally. A lot of European Union countries, including the US, aren't even close to what actual secularism looks like. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing—especially if a nation thrives because of that community connection. But the issue I see with Americans is that we don't actually prosper because of religion. If anything, religion has always been the thing pushing us toward being submissive and stuck in this outdated, servant-class mindset, just like it does today. On the flip side, look at how things work in places like Denmark, where you have Krifa—that influential association of Christian labor unions. They’re an actual organization fighting for better worker rights based on Christian values. That is worlds away from our version, where you've got these feudalistic priests more interested in building themselves monuments out of onyx than actually helping people. They lose their minds the second some progressive Pope suggests the church should actually try to connect with real people... So, the real problem isn't religion itself, it's the way it's used by certain people here to spread a primitive worldview...

Karen Richardson3 said:Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

See, that’s exactly where it gets messy: ethics and morality are two totally different beasts that can end up looking at the same problem from opposite sides...
So, I was just digging into this whole "ethics vs. morals" debate... it’s actually pretty wild how much people mix them up. Basically, think of it like this: Morals are that internal compass you carry around. It's your personal gut feeling about what's right and wrong—the stuff your family or your upbringing drilled into your head. It's deeply personal, almost instinctive... Ethics? That’s a different beast entirely. Ethics are the external rules provided by an outside source, like your job or a professional organization. Like, if you're working at a big firm in NYC, there's a code of conduct you have to follow regardless of how you feel personally. You might personally disagree with a rule, but ethically, you still gotta play by the book... One is about who you are deep down, and the other is about how you act within a specific group or system. They overlap a lot, sure, but they aren't the same thing at all...

The biggest issue right now is how the church sticks its nose into ethics and tries to dictate the rules for society on everything from marriage and death to abortion and education... all based on these primitive, outdated views. And it’s even worse because certain people within the church—and I’m being careful not to say "religious people," since most aren't even religious fanatics who just use faith to vent their frustrations—these specific types feel like they have the right to call the shots... forcing it... People love telling everyone else how to live their lives. In actually secular countries, people just lead by example and show you how it's done through their own actions. But here? It's just our backwater priests preaching at us when they can't even set a decent example themselves with their own trash morality...

So here's my bottom line: since schools basically bake a certain worldview into everything they teach, I really don't want my kid getting brainwashed by those primitive ideas the local church keeps pushing on Americans... but if they were spreading prosperity-driven ideas like Krifa does in Denmark, then I'd actually be all for it

The lack of secularism shows up more in how other subjects are taught than in the mere existence of religious studies, even when they're squeezed into the middle of a class period.

rowdypanther12 said:The lack of secularism shows up more in how other subjects are taught than in the mere existence of religious studies, even when they're squeezed into the middle of a class period.

Those two things shouldn't be exclusive. We need to ditch the religious classes entirely AND strip all those religious undertones out of the actual curriculum too...

But honestly, this is a much bigger deal and a far more passionate issue than people actually realize, yet it barely gets any attention.

Karen Richardson3 said:Questions:

1. For all the Americans out there who identify as atheists or believers but still think religious education shouldn't be part of the public school curriculum:

What's the actual logic behind saying the government isn't truly secular just because religion is taught in classrooms? Do you really think other Western nations—places that aren't strictly religious cultures but still include religious studies in their schools—are somehow non-secular?

2. For the folks who support religious classes because they believe it teaches kids about ethics and morality:

If that’s the case, would you be okay with scrapping specific religious instruction entirely—since, let's face it, Catholic instruction is specifically about teaching the tenets of that faith rather than just being a general guide on "being a good kid"—and replacing it with a mandatory Ethics course for every single student, regardless of what they believe?

And honestly, how do you even draw a line between someone's personal ethics and their religious identity? When you look at the facts, faith doesn't actually define whether a person is a saint or a sinner, especially when you see plenty of religious people doing absolutely terrible things, ranging from theft and murder to much darker stuff.
At the end of the day, skepticism is really a product of the modern era; not too long ago, almost everyone believed in some kind of deity, and the amount of bad stuff humans were pulling wasn't exactly small.

I suppose I believe that school and religion ought to be kept separate. It seems to me that the church and faith don't really have a place in the classroom. If someone wants their child to be Christian, they can send them to Sunday school or whatever that is called, take them to mass, or teach them prayers...

My grandkids didn't attend religious classes. I didn't have them baptized, either. I raised them to prioritize empathy above all else. I guess the fundamental principle of any ethics is empathy toward others; it’s the foundation upon which every moral law is built. Once a child grows up, they will decide for themselves whether they want to be religious, spiritual, part of some movement, agnostic, or an atheist.

It seems to me the government and public schools have no right to indoctrinate a child into religious beliefs, though they do have a duty to teach ethical principles like loving one's neighbor, respecting others, tolerance, and the willingness to help people in need.

In that regard, an ethics course would be ideal.

Drew Johnson2 said:It occurs to me that the separation of church and state isn't just undermined by religious instruction itself, but rather by all this accompanying ritualistic fluff... Take the first day of school, or those bread blessing ceremonies—you have a priest walking right into the building to bless the staff, the students, and by extension, my child. If there is a need for such things, why on earth can't it be scheduled for a Saturday or a Sunday, allowing anyone who actually wishes to participate to attend?

Personally, I wouldn't mind a dedicated course on religious studies at all; in fact, I think making it a mandatory subject would be perfectly fine. We could simply allocate the hours based on the actual demographics of the country to reflect our diverse reality. For instance, if we allocated six hours to Buddhism, forty-two to Islam, and perhaps a hundred and twelve to Christianity, it would feel much more balanced. I’m just throwing numbers out there, of course...

But the crucial point is the methodology: it should be taught through an academic lens, much like how we studied ethics back in middle school, where we learned "Buddhists believe X" or "Catholics believe Y," rather than presenting specific doctrines as absolute, indisputable facts.

Instead, everything is presented as if it were an objective truth, which is where the problem lies. To me, that approach would be entirely acceptable; let the children learn about various customs and belief systems, especially since the majority of people in the US celebrate these traditions anyway, so they might as well understand the "why" behind them. Besides, I already discuss these topics with my son at home whenever he shows interest, as it is something people talk about constantly and is always being depicted in movies and media...

Here is the full list, with my best regards.

I'm with the majority here regarding why religious instruction doesn't belong in public schools.

And let me add one more thing.
It's fundamentally illogical for religion to be part of the standard school curriculum.
Here's the reason: on one hand, students are taught creationism, and from day one, they're being programmed with a specific view of how everything came to be.
Then, in later grades, they're taught the evolutionary concept of origin and we expect them not to lose their minds from the conflicting information. How can we expect them to become educated, high-quality scientists or intellectuals if we're feeding them this kind of double bind?
There's just no logic to it.

hiddenscout44 said:It’s definitely not secular. Secularism means a total separation of church and state. Period. That means everything the government touches has to be completely free of religious influence. Since schools are public institutions, religious studies shouldn't have any business being part of the official curriculum... I don't have a problem with schools letting churches rent out space for religious classes, but that should be an after-school activity, not part of the actual school day...

Totally. A lot of European Union countries, including the US, aren't even close to what actual secularism looks like. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing—especially if a nation thrives because of that community connection. But the issue I see with Americans is that we don't actually prosper because of religion. If anything, religion has always been the thing pushing us toward being submissive and stuck in this outdated, servant-class mindset, just like it does today. On the flip side, look at how things work in places like Denmark, where you have Krifa—that influential association of Christian labor unions. They’re an actual organization fighting for better worker rights based on Christian values. That is worlds away from our version, where you've got these feudalistic priests more interested in building themselves monuments out of onyx than actually helping people. They lose their minds the second some progressive Pope suggests the church should actually try to connect with real people... So, the real problem isn't religion itself, it's the way it's used by certain people here to spread a primitive worldview...

See, that’s exactly where it gets messy: ethics and morality are two totally different beasts that can end up looking at the same problem from opposite sides...
So, I was just digging into this whole "ethics vs. morals" debate... it’s actually pretty wild how much people mix them up. Basically, think of it like this: Morals are that internal compass you carry around. It's your personal gut feeling about what's right and wrong—the stuff your family or your upbringing drilled into your head. It's deeply personal, almost instinctive... Ethics? That’s a different beast entirely. Ethics are the external rules provided by an outside source, like your job or a professional organization. Like, if you're working at a big firm in NYC, there's a code of conduct you have to follow regardless of how you feel personally. You might personally disagree with a rule, but ethically, you still gotta play by the book... One is about who you are deep down, and the other is about how you act within a specific group or system. They overlap a lot, sure, but they aren't the same thing at all...

The biggest issue right now is how the church sticks its nose into ethics and tries to dictate the rules for society on everything from marriage and death to abortion and education... all based on these primitive, outdated views. And it’s even worse because certain people within the church—and I’m being careful not to say "religious people," since most aren't even religious fanatics who just use faith to vent their frustrations—these specific types feel like they have the right to call the shots... forcing it... People love telling everyone else how to live their lives. In actually secular countries, people just lead by example and show you how it's done through their own actions. But here? It's just our backwater priests preaching at us when they can't even set a decent example themselves with their own trash morality...

So here's my bottom line: since schools basically bake a certain worldview into everything they teach, I really don't want my kid getting brainwashed by those primitive ideas the local church keeps pushing on Americans... but if they were spreading prosperity-driven ideas like Krifa does in Denmark, then I'd actually be all for it

Sure, it's "secular," but only one way—as long as you don't even dream about the government meddling in church affairs, spaces, or messages. There's this impenetrable wall protecting them, and any attempt to challenge it is dismissed with a bunch of "but blah blah blah." 😉

mistydrifter55 said:Here is the full list, with my best regards.

I'm with the majority here regarding why religious instruction doesn't belong in public schools.

And let me add one more thing.
It's fundamentally illogical for religion to be part of the standard school curriculum.
Here's the reason: on one hand, students are taught creationism, and from day one, they're being programmed with a specific view of how everything came to be.
Then, in later grades, they're taught the evolutionary concept of origin and we expect them not to lose their minds from the conflicting information. How can we expect them to become educated, high-quality scientists or intellectuals if we're feeding them this kind of double bind?
There's just no logic to it.

Look, kids can still become scientists. Why not? As long as they accept that doing so makes them evil and destined for hell. 👍

Honestly, I struggle to think of anything that would do more psychological damage to kids in school.

I honestly have no intention of getting dragged into this debate, so please consider this my first and final word on the matter!
It’s quite fascinating how true believers—specifically Roman Catholics, rather than just some fringe extremist groups—actually coexist beautifully with scientific discovery, including the theory of evolution. After all, one day in the eyes of the Lord is akin to a hundred years on Earth, isn't it?
Similarly, mainstream Catholics don't find themselves at odds with medical advancements like IVF, provided we aren't discussing sperm donation.
You know, despite what some might assume, people of faith are certainly not lacking in intelligence, and I truly believe it is entirely possible to be both a deep intellectual and a devoted believer; the trick, I suppose, is to actually study your faith deeply enough to move past those overly simplified Sunday school stories.
Now, I'm not suggesting religious studies should be mandatory in our public schools, but I do find it rather disheartening to see such an intense clash between intolerant, narrow-minded religious types and fiercely tolerant atheists or agnostics.

electricpilot4 said:I honestly have no intention of getting dragged into this debate, so please consider this my first and final word on the matter!
It’s quite fascinating how true believers—specifically Roman Catholics, rather than just some fringe extremist groups—actually coexist beautifully with scientific discovery, including the theory of evolution. After all, one day in the eyes of the Lord is akin to a hundred years on Earth, isn't it?
Similarly, mainstream Catholics don't find themselves at odds with medical advancements like IVF, provided we aren't discussing sperm donation.
You know, despite what some might assume, people of faith are certainly not lacking in intelligence, and I truly believe it is entirely possible to be both a deep intellectual and a devoted believer; the trick, I suppose, is to actually study your faith deeply enough to move past those overly simplified Sunday school stories.
Now, I'm not suggesting religious studies should be mandatory in our public schools, but I do find it rather disheartening to see such an intense clash between intolerant, narrow-minded religious types and fiercely tolerant atheists or agnostics.

On what date did an infallible Pope admit he was wrong and declare that Christian doctrine now officially accepts evolution?

Pretty sure that happened quite recently.

The Bible is all about interpretation... it really just comes down to how you choose to read things...
Obviously, God didn't just snap His fingers and finish the whole world in six literal days. I mean, those "six days" could easily represent millions of years of evolution and time passing...
And look, Jesus wasn't actually born every single year, yet we still celebrate His birth every December...

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything written in the Bible either... and I definitely don't think all Catholics are narrow-minded...
There are plenty of other faiths out there that are way more hardcore and rigid than this...

But yeah, sure—there are closed-minded people everywhere. It doesn't matter what religion they follow.

electricpilot4 said:I honestly have no intention of getting dragged into this debate, so please consider this my first and final word on the matter!
It’s quite fascinating how true believers—specifically Roman Catholics, rather than just some fringe extremist groups—actually coexist beautifully with scientific discovery, including the theory of evolution. After all, one day in the eyes of the Lord is akin to a hundred years on Earth, isn't it?
Similarly, mainstream Catholics don't find themselves at odds with medical advancements like IVF, provided we aren't discussing sperm donation.
You know, despite what some might assume, people of faith are certainly not lacking in intelligence, and I truly believe it is entirely possible to be both a deep intellectual and a devoted believer; the trick, I suppose, is to actually study your faith deeply enough to move past those overly simplified Sunday school stories.
Now, I'm not suggesting religious studies should be mandatory in our public schools, but I do find it rather disheartening to see such an intense clash between intolerant, narrow-minded religious types and fiercely tolerant atheists or agnostics.

It’s a real shame this turned out to be your first and last post, because you really could have used the space to clarify that mess. So, according to you, Roman Catholics are the only legitimate believers within Christianity, while everyone else is just part of some "lost sect"? Well, I suppose that’s one way to handle tolerance and acceptance, isn't it?

There’s actually a thread about this over in the politics section too: