Religion classes in school - Megathread

shadowcrane91 said: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.

Could you explain that a little better for me? If the Bible is just a collection of stories where the lesson depends entirely on how someone interprets them within their own era and system—and if God didn't actually create the world in six days—then why are we paying people to "teach" this to kids? Why pay religious instructors in elementary and high schools, or have Catholic colleges in the US funded by taxpayer money just to teach children a bunch of stories that aren't grounded in anything specific, but instead rely on individual interpretation? We can't even find room for computer science in our schools—which is knowledge you basically need just to get a job cleaning floors these days—yet we have space in the curriculum to spend two hours a week teaching "stories"?? Also, I've heard the "believers don't agree with everything in the Bible" argument way too many times. How can you claim to be competent enough to take certain parts of the Bible as your absolute life guide while simply ignoring the parts you don't like? On what basis do you decide which parts of the Bible to live by and which ones you can just brush off without a second thought (since you consider yourself a believer)?

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.

Catholicism and the Church only recently accepted the theory of evolution.
And now science is questioning it again, but that's beside the point.

But yeah, Catholicism and the Church are definitely against most IVF procedures.
Back in med school, we had an ethics elective where we discussed things like this using a specific textbook on reproductive tech.
I won't go into how advanced the writing was or how tough it was for me to wrap my head around as a med student, but the bottom line is that the Church views IVF as a sin.

Daniel Gomez10 said:Catholicism and the Church only recently accepted the theory of evolution.
And now science is questioning it again, but that's beside the point.

But yeah, Catholicism and the Church are definitely against most IVF procedures.
Back in med school, we had an ethics elective where we discussed things like this using a specific textbook on reproductive tech.
I won't go into how advanced the writing was or how tough it was for me to wrap my head around as a med student, but the bottom line is that the Church views IVF as a sin.

If IVF is considered a sin, then what are you supposed to do with a child conceived that way? 😕
Do they even have a right to live? 🕺

Are they allowed to be baptized (once the parents have gone to confession and been absolved)?
Can children conceived through IVF attend religious education classes?

Is this topic ever brought up in elementary or high school religious studies?
And if it is, how is it handled?

Personally, I think it’s fine to debate these topics in medical school. If someone isn't prepared to tackle those kinds of heavy ethical questions, maybe they should just specialize in ophthalmology or proctology instead. 🤷

So sure, there’s no such thing as free will, kids don't exist, sin isn't real, and there are zero problems. 🤷

Susan James said:If IVF is considered a sin, then what are you supposed to do with a child conceived that way? 😕
Do they even have a right to live? 🕺

Are they allowed to be baptized (once the parents have gone to confession and been absolved)?
Can children conceived through IVF attend religious education classes?

Is this topic ever brought up in elementary or high school religious studies?
And if it is, how is it handled?

Personally, I think it’s fine to debate these topics in medical school. If someone isn't prepared to tackle those kinds of heavy ethical questions, maybe they should just specialize in ophthalmology or proctology instead. 🤷

A bit provocative, but look... 😬

Sin isn't some credit you inherit. You committed it, not your kid.

Every child has the right to baptism, regardless of what their parents did or if they went to confession after the IVF.

So, what, we're talking about original sin?
Isn't that just something we all inherited from Adam the second we were born?

Adam and Eve weren't even real people; ever since evolutionary theory took hold, the whole thing has been treated as a metaphor, so I’m not even sure where the concept of Original Sin comes from. 😁

Two things keep this subject alive in our education system, and they are equally critical: the influence of the Vatican and the sheer stubbornness of a massive, misguided segment of the population against the "establishment." Religious studies don't actually instill positive values in children, even when we discuss values we can all agree on. Kids just sit there staring at the clock, counting down the forty-five minutes until they can escape, while their friends on the other side of the wall are running through the hallways or hanging out in the library just waiting for the bell to ring. That money could be better spent upgrading school facilities or investing in economic innovation. But since it has always been the fashion for conservatives to dig their heels in to protect their own interests, we will continue to have religious instruction in our schools.

redridge13 said:So, what, we're talking about original sin?
Isn't that just something we all inherited from Adam the second we were born?

Original sin is the root of every single sin humans commit, including the one mentioned above. Any Catholic needs to grasp why confession happens before communion.

And it’s definitely not the same thing as inheriting sin from your parents.

neontinker5 said:Adam and Eve weren't even real people; ever since evolutionary theory took hold, the whole thing has been treated as a metaphor, so I’m not even sure where the concept of Original Sin comes from. 😁

Two things keep this subject alive in our education system, and they are equally critical: the influence of the Vatican and the sheer stubbornness of a massive, misguided segment of the population against the "establishment." Religious studies don't actually instill positive values in children, even when we discuss values we can all agree on. Kids just sit there staring at the clock, counting down the forty-five minutes until they can escape, while their friends on the other side of the wall are running through the hallways or hanging out in the library just waiting for the bell to ring. That money could be better spent upgrading school facilities or investing in economic innovation. But since it has always been the fashion for conservatives to dig their heels in to protect their own interests, we will continue to have religious instruction in our schools.

but if you follow that logic, it implies none of the other figures existed either, like Moses or Jesus... 😉

the issue with religion is how it simplifies natural processes by personifying them. most people don't realize it's just personification, so they take these characters and their deeds as literal historical facts.
honestly, the problem with the church here in America is that it actively promotes this totally flawed way of understanding religious philosophy. that’s exactly why I don't want my kid learning about religion from such primitive sources. if you compare it to the university system, you reach the depressing conclusion that the entire American education system works the exact same way. professors at colleges are stuck using outdated theories and old-school methods because just like our national approach to religion, we haven't progressed in knowledge—we're actually regressing. it’s honestly fascinating to me that my kid hasn't learned anything useful in two months; school feels more like daycare now (and a worse one than the one they went to, where the teachers were trained to provide actual quality education through advanced developmental programs)...
so, the takeaway is that there's a systematic dumbing down happening in America. I don't want to point fingers at anyone specifically, but if you try to connect the theology departments with the philosophy departments, you can see a pattern of who's actually responsible for this intellectual stagnation at every level...

I mean, you only have to look at Western Europe or the UK to see they sorted out their issues with religion ages ago—some even did it 400 years ago during the Reformation. meanwhile, we're still over here struggling with fairy tales and nonsense, acting like a kid is a sinner by default because of "original sin." the best response to that question is just "mind your own business"...

Daniel Gomez10 said:Catholicism and the Church only recently accepted the theory of evolution.
And now science is questioning it again, but that's beside the point.

But yeah, Catholicism and the Church are definitely against most IVF procedures.
Back in med school, we had an ethics elective where we discussed things like this using a specific textbook on reproductive tech.
I won't go into how advanced the writing was or how tough it was for me to wrap my head around as a med student, but the bottom line is that the Church views IVF as a sin.

I suppose it just depends on whether the child was created under the old laws or the new (Milinović's) ones...

If it’s under the old rules, then it’s a sin, but if it follows Milinović's way, then it isn't. 🤣

Just kidding, totally joking there...

Susan James said:If IVF is considered a sin, then what are you supposed to do with a child conceived that way? 😕
Do they even have a right to live? 🕺

Are they allowed to be baptized (once the parents have gone to confession and been absolved)?
Can children conceived through IVF attend religious education classes?

Is this topic ever brought up in elementary or high school religious studies?
And if it is, how is it handled?

Personally, I think it’s fine to debate these topics in medical school. If someone isn't prepared to tackle those kinds of heavy ethical questions, maybe they should just specialize in ophthalmology or proctology instead. 🤷

Again, it really just comes down to which set of rules you're following... 🤣

For those who aren't caught up on the specifics:
- Under the old ways and the current Democratic Party's approach—if you will—fertilizing all available cells and freezing embryos is permitted.
- Under Milinović's rule—only three randomly selected eggs can be fertilized, and no embryo freezing is allowed. That is the only type of IVF the Church approves of.

Our little guy follows Milinović's rule, he's been baptized, and his godparents are very devout Catholics, so hopefully, he'll be just fine attending religious ed class... 🕺

Edit: Just teasing again, don't take me too seriously... 😁

On topic: I personally think religious education should be moved back into churches where it belongs—anyone who wants to participate can certainly go...

During our prayer today, we reminded ourselves that we shouldn't rely so heavily on science, but instead turn more toward the spiritual side of life. Last week, scientists were busy trying to force their short-sighted ethics upon us. Just another typical day, I suppose. 🙂

neontinker5 said:During our prayer today, we reminded ourselves that we shouldn't rely so heavily on science, but instead turn more toward the spiritual side of life. Last week, scientists were busy trying to force their short-sighted ethics upon us. Just another typical day, I suppose. 🙂

When you're having a heart attack, you don't reach for a textbook, you pray

Rhino, nobody actually has a conscientious objection at the clinic 😁
It’s much easier to handle this stuff privately.
Besides, people perform illegal abortions all the time, even by those who claim they have moral objections at the hospital 🥳

feralmoose32, from what I understand, the church is against any kind of interference in the process of creating life.
Miller's law is basically just as close to their stance as the Democratic platform.
Politicians can't go that far to ban abortion outright.

Daniel Gomez10 said:Rhino, nobody actually has a conscientious objection at the clinic 😁
It’s much easier to handle this stuff privately.
Besides, people perform illegal abortions all the time, even by those who claim they have moral objections at the hospital 🥳

feralmoose32, from what I understand, the church is against any kind of interference in the process of creating life.
Miller's law is basically just as close to their stance as the Democratic platform.
Politicians can't go that far to ban abortion outright.

Exactly—Miller's approach works for them because the level of interference is kept to a minimum...
As if it doesn't matter that a woman has to undergo repeated stimulation and risk her own health every single time—as if her well-being isn't secondary to everything else.

feralmoose32 said:Exactly—Miller's approach works for them because the level of interference is kept to a minimum...
As if it doesn't matter that a woman has to undergo repeated stimulation and risk her own health every single time—as if her well-being isn't secondary to everything else.

I suppose that's just what happens when you try to fight nature by seeking unnatural medical fixes. Some people just can't grasp that a child isn't something you can simply demand; perhaps it's better to accept fate and move on without children... ☕
But honestly, everything has already been said. For some reason, even the non-believers seem to follow and remember the local church teachings better than the actual faithful here...

feralmoose32 said:When you're having a heart attack, you don't reach for a textbook, you pray

Why the attitude? I'm just doing my job as a journalist.

Daniel Gomez10 said:Rhino, nobody actually has a conscientious objection at the clinic 😁
It’s much easier to handle this stuff privately.
Besides, people perform illegal abortions all the time, even by those who claim they have moral objections at the hospital 🥳

feralmoose32, from what I understand, the church is against any kind of interference in the process of creating life.
Miller's law is basically just as close to their stance as the Democratic platform.
Politicians can't go that far to ban abortion outright.

So, having a baby through medical procedures is a sin. Naturally.
And having a baby through sex is a sin. Of course.
No matter how you spin it, you're "conceived in sin," which then gets "canceled out" by baptism.
🤷Nothing controversial here. Just totally normal stuff.

It makes me wonder: what about all those kids sitting in religious studies classes at school who haven't been baptized? If we follow this logic, isn't that just a bunch of "sinful kids"?
And don't even get me started on the ones who don't even attend religious classes. 😲
Those "sinless" baptized kids? They couldn't care less about which religious class they end up in.
The real issue is that these unbaptized kids aren't showing up to church and aren't leaving donations, and often, the baptized kids are skipping mass right along with them.

But if religious instruction is everywhere in the curriculum and daily life, it gets under your skin. It plants that classic Catholic sense of "guilt" if you happen to miss a service.

The whole point is rounding up the "flock" (and please, don't let the people who don't realize > calls them His flock take offense).
If there aren't enough believers in the pews—and there won't be unless they're constantly reminded the church exists—then there's no reason for anyone to stay, oslobožemenebodi sorry to support their church financially.

However you slice it, it’s all about the money. 🤔☕

I'm with you on the money part, but this...

mistydrifter55 said:So, having a baby through medical procedures is a sin. Naturally.
And having a baby through sex is a sin. Of course.
No matter how you spin it, you're "conceived in sin," which then gets "canceled out" by baptism.
🤷Nothing controversial here. Just totally normal stuff.

It makes me wonder: what about all those kids sitting in religious studies classes at school who haven't been baptized? If we follow this logic, isn't that just a bunch of "sinful kids"?
And don't even get me started on the ones who don't even attend religious classes. 😲
Those "sinless" baptized kids? They couldn't care less about which religious class they end up in.
The real issue is that these unbaptized kids aren't showing up to church and aren't leaving donations, and often, the baptized kids are skipping mass right along with them.

But if religious instruction is everywhere in the curriculum and daily life, it gets under your skin. It plants that classic Catholic sense of "guilt" if you happen to miss a service.

The whole point is rounding up the "flock" (and please, don't let the people who don't realize > calls them His flock take offense).
If there aren't enough believers in the pews—and there won't be unless they're constantly reminded the church exists—then there's no reason for anyone to stay, oslobožemenebodi sorry to support their church financially.

However you slice it, it’s all about the money. 🤔☕

That's straight up wrong. 😬

Michelle Nelson4 said:I suppose that's just what happens when you try to fight nature by seeking unnatural medical fixes. Some people just can't grasp that a child isn't something you can simply demand; perhaps it's better to accept fate and move on without children... ☕
But honestly, everything has already been said. For some reason, even the non-believers seem to follow and remember the local church teachings better than the actual faithful here...

They aren't even following along that well, let alone remembering anything😁...they’re just really good at throwing shade and making insinuations😉
because they don't get that from the perspective of the church, it's not about a "right" to the institution, it's strictly about the rights of the child.

@8472
Kids who haven't been baptized can absolutely participate in religious education classes at school, and yeah, even at the church itself.
The doors to the church are wide open to everyone, really, so the real question is why would someone even bother walking through those doors or signing their kid up for Sunday school if they don't actually believe in God?

just so we don't end up stuck in some hallway for two 45-minute stretches every single week without anyone actually watching over us.