Religion classes in school - Megathread

Lawrence Torres56 said:You’ve gotta be kidding me, right?😉
History is supposedly founded on hard facts... and all that jazz? Especially more recent history?😁
Like American English, where they seem to tweak the style guides every single year?
Or biology and physics, where they're constantly dropping new theories on us?

By the way, principles and theories aren't "facts"—Heisenberg or non-Euclidean geometry could be totally debunked next year for all we know.
And it took over a century for non-Euclidean geometry to even get accepted, effectively challenging Euclidean geometry; so why on earth should we assume that some other set of rules won't just come along tomorrow and flip the script again?

Also, how can you be so absolutely certain that God doesn't exist and that everything taught in religious studies is just empty talk? Has science actually proven that God isn't real?

True, physics relies on established facts. When new data emerges, new theories arise to explain them.
As for grammar rules, if they change frequently, it’s clearly a sign of poor craftsmanship, not a lack of objective fact.
The same applies to history. It's about interpreting known facts. Once a new fact surfaces, nobody tries to hide it from historians—though politicians are a different story entirely.

by the way, principles and theories aren't facts. Heisenberg's principle or non-Euclidean geometry could be "debunked" as early as next year.
And it took over a century for non-Euclidean geometry to be accepted; if it eventually moves past Euclidean geometry, why shouldn't we assume the rules could change tomorrow?

I won't get bogged down in Heisenberg, but your take on non-Euclidean geometry is off base. Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't negate anything. Just because it exists doesn't mean Euclidean geometry is "wrong." Mathematical models don't necessarily require a physical basis to exist, so they can't really be "wrong." They might be inaccurate if their postulates are technically flawed, but they aren't "incorrect."

also, how can you be certain God doesn't exist and that religious studies are just empty talk? Has science proven the non-existence of God?

That is nonsense. Science hasn't proven the non-existence of aliens either, yet we don't teach children about extraterrestrial civilizations in school.
There is a massive mountain of things science hasn't proven, which is exactly why they aren't part of the curriculum.
By your logic, if someone invents a story that a large number of people believe in, we should teach it to children until science finally proves the story is false.

Why is there such a refusal to debate the unscientific nature of theology classes compared to other core subjects?

James Alvarez2 said:But the kid didn't get a trial run of Sunday school. They could've had a trial practice. Could've had five trial practices before you went out and bought all the gear.

Basically, you asked a 6 or 7-year-old if they wanted to learn about something totally abstract (even if you're a believer living by the teachings of the Church, your kid can't wrap their head around that yet) and then you drag them for eight—not even YEARS, but eight—to do something they don't like, if they don't like it.

I get the idea that you can't try everything and quit after two tries. But religious education is a super sensitive topic for that kind of logic.

They have it on Tapatalk! 😬

As far as I'm concerned, I don't even need a trial period, because if my kid is actually interested in something, it's on me to handle the "trial" phase myself, right? It shouldn't be about making kids who already know what they want waste their time while my kid sits there overthinking whether they should sign up or not...
And for my little one, it wasn't about being forced at all; she knew exactly what she was getting into and embraced it just like she did with math, English, and everything else....

Besides, religious education isn't a mandatory subject in American schools anyway, right? Nobody is forcing you to enroll your kid in religion class in first grade. You could literally just ask the instructor if the kid could sit in for a few school hours just to see if they're into it, and if they decide to commit, they can officially start the following year...

brighteagle86 said:Consider this—science isn't a static monument; it’s an ongoing upgrade. Theories evolve as new data hits the desk—nothing is sacred, and everything remains up for debate if the facts simply don't hold up. 🎉

I mean, sure, but shouldn't we actually embrace that mindset and act like it instead of getting all defensive over stuff that might end up being proven wrong by tomorrow morning? 😉

brighteagle86 said:Are you suggesting that according to Catholic doctrine, non-believers simply bypass hell entirely?

yeah😉 just go read the Catechism and you'll see that Catholic teaching doesn't even mention anything like that. 😁

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, sure, but shouldn't we actually embrace that mindset and act like it instead of getting all defensive over stuff that might end up being proven wrong by tomorrow morning? 😉

yeah😉 just go read the Catechism and you'll see that Catholic teaching doesn't even mention anything like that. 😁

Really?

Lawrence Torres56 said:I mean, sure, but shouldn't we actually embrace that mindset and act like it instead of getting all defensive over stuff that might end up being proven wrong by tomorrow morning? 😉

yeah😉 just go read the Catechism and you'll see that Catholic teaching doesn't even mention anything like that. 😁

Science is actually a lot more stable than people give it credit for, mostly because the whole thing is built on actual evidence. And no, the facts aren't just going to flip-flop on us every other week.

Just responding to your last post.
The thing about biology is that theories aren't just shifting for the sake of it; it’s because medicine is tucked right inside it, and since medicine is such a young science, it’s evolving at a breakneck pace. It isn't like we're tossing out established facts every other Tuesday—you actually need some pretty heavy-duty evidence before anyone dares to claim the old way of thinking was wrong.

Sure, history is supposed to be built on hard facts and actual evidence. The fact that someone gets offended or that textbooks are packed with ideologically slanted fairy tales isn't some failure of science itself; it’s just a failure of the system and the mindless bureaucrats who write them.

Lawrence Torres56 said:As far as I'm concerned, I don't even need a trial period, because if my kid is actually interested in something, it's on me to handle the "trial" phase myself, right? It shouldn't be about making kids who already know what they want waste their time while my kid sits there overthinking whether they should sign up or not...
And for my little one, it wasn't about being forced at all; she knew exactly what she was getting into and embraced it just like she did with math, English, and everything else....

Besides, religious education isn't a mandatory subject in American schools anyway, right? Nobody is forcing you to enroll your kid in religion class in first grade. You could literally just ask the instructor if the kid could sit in for a few school hours just to see if they're into it, and if they decide to commit, they can officially start the following year...

There is zero chance you can show a kid at home what they'll be doing in sports, drama, language, or religion class. Not because I think you don't know how to grab a ball or play an English song, but because it depends entirely on who is teaching and how they teach.

Like, someone mentioned their kid was told non-believers go to hell or that they had to pray before meals. What?

That teacher should be teaching kids that we're all different. Just like some people play tennis, others take Chinese, and others take religion—some people pray, some kneel, some won't eat when the sun is out, some wear specific clothes...

Religion class should be about teaching that only God decides the final judgment, and it's not our job to tell anyone where they're going after they die.
The problem is just that not everyone does that.
I even know a guy who graduated from a major university and doesn't believe in evolution. He doesn't accept it as a valid theory at all. And that is definitely NOT what they teach at a major university.

That's why religious studies should be moved outside of schools, and then we can do a massive purge of the professors. Then maybe we can move forward.

We could really open up a massive discussion here about how the very foundations of Christianity—rooted in ancient councils and early edicts—might actually be working against the religion itself. We could dive into the systemic sexism baked into its core, stemming from that old-school assumption that men are the central protagonists of the entire divine narrative. Then there’s the issue of how institutionalized religion has spent centuries veering off track, and why it still struggles so much to adapt to the modern world today. On the flip side, we could talk about how some of the most groundbreaking scientific principles were actually formulated by brilliant Christian, Protestant, Buddhist, or Hindu thinkers. It seems like, for them, God wasn't an obstacle, nor were those "ideologically charged fairy tales." We could even tackle the way certain ideologies seep into catechisms where they simply don't belong.

We could also dive into the crisis facing modern science and how its irreversible fragmentation is creating this absolute nightmare. We’re reaching a point where a scientist specializing in one hyper-niche field can’t even wrap their head around what’s happening in the field right next to them. If you’ve spent any time digging into postmodernist theories regarding scientific shifts—whether you're looking at the humanities or the hard sciences—you start to see the bigger, much messier picture of how broken this system has become.

I also think we need to talk about how the way we teach both religion and science in our American school system is just incredibly dogmatic. It doesn't leave any room for actual interpretation. When it comes to religion, that's even more obvious because there’s this heavy emphasis on needing to have faith without any scientific proof to back it up. But then you look at science, and it's almost the opposite problem—it's like they completely shut out the practical side of things. They ignore science as an actual process of research and experimentation, treating it like a closed book rather than a playground for discovery. There's this rigid pressure to accept certain fundamental ideas as absolute truth, which doesn't allow for the possibility of being wrong. It’s funny, really—you actually need a massive amount of "faith" to believe that this supposedly untouchable system of evidence and logic, which is meant to prove the core principles of our lives, is somehow incapable of error.

You could also look at how modern science and big capital are intertwined, and honestly, it’s pretty much the same story as the relationship between the Church and big money. It all boils down to the same thing: there’s a lot of shady business going on behind closed doors. This is especially true in the pharmaceutical industry—which is basically one of the fastest-growing sectors in science right now—and it’s exactly why people are losing faith in it, just like they lost trust in the Church.

We can do it—we really can—even if I honestly feel like this isn't even the right place to be talking about it.

The core argument here really boils down to one thing: regardless of our traditional roots or the historical fact that, for centuries, it was actually the clergy who built and drove our entire education system, we made a choice. We decided to become a secular society. And because that’s the path we took, we need to act according to those principles.

Look, let's just stop with the stubborn insults regarding people's beliefs—those rights are protected by the Constitution, after all. We really shouldn't be questioning scientifically established subjects just because they clash with someone's ideology. Instead, let’s actually talk about why this subject creates practical problems on an operational level. It honestly doesn't belong in the middle of a secular school curriculum. As a society, we just aren't mature enough for it yet. We don't have a structured way of teaching religion that would introduce children to the fundamentals of different faiths from a neutral, academic distance, keeping the actual rituals and ceremonies reserved for the family and the church.

My faith is built entirely on my family. It’s at the heart of everything for me. Even within my own house, we aren't all on the same page—I actually have an agnostic relative who is steadily moving toward atheism. But that's okay. This family is my core, my foundation. It's the place where I can hold onto my beliefs and pass them down, provided I do it in a way that's respectful and doesn't cause any harm to anyone else just because they see the world differently.

I also really hope—and I mean truly hope—that because religion is so deeply woven into our art, our science, and our very sense of ethics, we don't end up seeing some kind of reverse discrimination. My biggest fear is that one day my kid is going to walk through that front door absolutely distraught because someone told them they’re just believing in nonsense that can't be "proven" by a lab test. It would be devastating if every single mention of faith was scrubbed from their literature classes, their art projects, or even their core science curriculum. Honestly, where does this obsession with being so narrow-minded and insulting actually lead? It feels like we're heading toward a pretty dark place.

We’re trying to teach kids tolerance at every single level, right? But this current approach to religious education just doesn't make sense for anyone involved. It's completely counterproductive. On one hand, it turns out to do nothing but produce people who haven't actually learned how to think critically about their own faith. On the other hand—and I totally get where this is coming from—it creates this massive, deep-seated resistance toward science. Honestly, until we can overhaul the curriculum so it actually functions within a secular American system, there's no point in having it at all. As long as these outdated ideas are being pushed, we aren't going to get anywhere with ideological debates centered on pure conviction versus persuasion. We need something better than this.

I remember having this conversation once with a friend of mine who is just a hardcore, die-hard atheist on every possible level. He’s incredibly blunt—almost brutal—when he starts laying out his views on how science and religion should interact. He actually had the nerve to ask me how I could possibly believe in things like burning bushes or some terrifying, judgmental God. He even went as far as asking if I felt any shame teaching my kid to believe in things that can't be proven. The thing is, he doesn't have the slightest clue what I actually believe. His entire argument is built on nothing more than a surface-level reading of the Old Testament. He hasn't even touched the New Testament, let alone picked up a single piece of actual theological literature regarding these debates—you know, the kind of stuff that looks at certain parts of the Bible from a historical perspective rather than just taking everything at face value. It's all very one-dimensional.

I just asked him one single question: How can you actually trust a person—or even their entire perception of reality—when everything we’ve ever achieved in science is just a byproduct of a homeocentric system? It’s all just a product of our own limited thinking. How can you teach your child that the only things that truly exist are the ones produced by our pathetic, flawed human minds, just so we can navigate this world a little easier?

And look, that doesn't mean I don't believe in evolution or the fundamental postulates of physics and the laws of nature. What I mean is, I think there's a real possibility that we're missing the mark entirely. Our scientific conclusions might be totally worthless compared to what a more advanced civilization could know. Maybe somewhere out in some distant galaxy, they're laughing at us, looking at us like we're nothing but narrow-minded dogmatists trapped in a tiny handful of dimensions.

The way I accept scientific consensus is purely practical—it's for the short lifespan I have, and honestly, I don't claim to have the capacity to uncover deep scientific truths myself. That's my compromise. My faith is how I reconcile all these thoughts, all the scientific evidence, and all our human imperfections. It’s an attempt to question everything and find a path toward understanding. Yeah, I use all sorts of allegorical stories to read to myself and my kids—stories I interpret and challenge, which lead me back to what I believe. To someone else, it might sound like some silly tale about a higher power, but to me, it's a fundamental belief that I am not the yardstick. The true measure hasn't been discovered yet, and I feel like I need to spend my whole life trying to uncover it, in every field, including science. Science also helps me stay grounded today because I’m a physical being in motion; I have mass and reach, and every single day I feel the pull of gravity—more in some places than others—because, damn it, I have to live in this world, there's no other way. I guess my box has become transparent during the process of growing up; even if I can't step outside of it, at least I can sharpen my vision and look out beyond the edges.

Totally agree with you.

That evolution thing wasn't an atheist trying to prove some religion teacher is an idiot.
In theology school, they hammer it into future teachers that the Bible isn't meant to explain the mechanics of how Earth and life actually formed—it’s about who created it, based on the religious principles taught there.

Look, I'm a believer. A practical one. I went to Sunday school and my kid will too, at least until they grow up and decide otherwise... if that even happens.
But I just don't get how anyone teaching any religion can look a kid in the eye and flat-out say all their non-believing friends are headed straight to hell. We could pull sections from the Catechism right now: 846, 847, 848 all talk about how no one is saved if they consciously reject God or turn away from Him.
Then you've got the 1996 version saying: Our justification comes from God's grace. Grace is favor, unmerited help that God gives us so we can respond to His call: to become children and daughters of God, heirs, participants in the divine nature and eternal life.
And then there's this: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21)
So we have all this deep stuff in the New Testament that theologians debate for years, yet it's somehow okay for a teacher to walk up to a seven-year-old and tell them their best friend sitting next to them in class is going to hell just because they aren't a believer?
That's what I'm talking about.
It doesn't sit right with me, and I don't want my kids having teachers like that.

I think we're on the same page—the way religious ed is handled in schools right now isn't what you or I would want for our own kids.

On top of all the logistical headaches for parents and the kids who don't attend, I have my own solid reasons for wanting religious ed out of the public school system... and it's specifically because my faith is so deeply personal and important to me.

Beautifully put. I find myself disagreeing with quite a few points here, but the prose itself is exceptionally well-crafted.
All credit where it's due.

I honestly think there’s something to be said about how much we overcomplicate things sometimes, you know? It feels like whenever we try to tackle a big problem, we immediately jump to the most complex solution possible instead of just looking at what’s right in front of us. It reminds me of that old saying about not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—we’re out here swinging heavy tools when a simple tap would do the trick. I've spent way too many nights staring at my laptop, trying to engineer this perfect, flawless plan, only to realize later that the simplest path was the one I ignored because it didn't feel "sophisticated" enough. We need to learn to trust our gut more and stop letting the fear of being "too simple" hold us back from actually getting stuff done.

Lawrence Torres56 said:You’ve gotta be kidding me, right?😉
History is supposedly founded on hard facts... and all that jazz? Especially more recent history?😁
Like American English, where they seem to tweak the style guides every single year?
Or biology and physics, where they're constantly dropping new theories on us?

By the way, principles and theories aren't "facts"—Heisenberg or non-Euclidean geometry could be totally debunked next year for all we know.
And it took over a century for non-Euclidean geometry to even get accepted, effectively challenging Euclidean geometry; so why on earth should we assume that some other set of rules won't just come along tomorrow and flip the script again?

Also, how can you be so absolutely certain that God doesn't exist and that everything taught in religious studies is just empty talk? Has science actually proven that God isn't real?

Honestly, you clearly haven't done the homework on these topics, which is why you're just out here spinning this kind of endless, mindless nonsense.

Look, at the end of the day, history isn't just some set of dry facts floating around in space; it’s built entirely on the sources we find. But those sources aren't magic—they have to be interpreted and placed into a larger context to actually mean anything. It really all comes down to the researcher—their specific skills, their depth of knowledge, and how they choose to look at the puzzle pieces. That's why whenever someone digs up a fresh source, it’s such a massive win, because it adds a whole new layer of color to everything we thought we already understood.
The real issue here is that every single researcher is boxed in by their own ideological framework, and honestly, there’s just no escaping it. It’s like when you have three different people trying to recount the exact same thing that happened at a bar last night—you’re always going to get slightly different versions because everyone brings their own perspective and context to the table. But just because the storytelling shifts depending on who's talking doesn't mean the actual event didn't take place.

Honestly, I feel like all this constant arguing over grammar rules and spelling standards isn't even really about linguistic expertise anymore. It’s more about politics and keeping certain people in their cozy, taxpayer-funded positions. It feels less like a pursuit of clarity and more like a way to justify sinecures for specific bureaucrats who are just living off the federal budget.

When you talk about biology or physics and people "dropping new theories," I honestly think you might be using the word "theory" a little bit sideways. It’s a common slip-up, but in those fields, a theory isn't just some random idea someone tosses out over coffee; it's something much more heavy-duty. You probably mean they're putting forward new hypotheses—sort of like laying down a preliminary track before the actual train starts moving.
Think about it this way: religions have been tossing out these massive hypotheses since the dawn of time, yet not one single claim has ever actually been proven. It’s like they’re constantly throwing ideas at the wall to see what sticks, but because none of them have transitioned from a mere suggestion into something backed by hard evidence, the whole concept of a religious hypothesis has never actually graduated into being a legitimate religious theory. 😁

I honestly feel like we need to take a step back and really look at the bigger picture here, because it feels like everyone is just reacting to the immediate noise without considering how all these moving parts actually connect. It’s kind of like when you’re trying to fix a massive engine issue in your car; if you just start tightening random bolts without understanding the underlying mechanics, you’re probably just going to end up making the whole thing rattle even louder. We see people jumping to conclusions every single day, fueled by quick headlines or half-baked takes, and instead of digging into the actual substance of the argument, they just grab the nearest available weapon to use in a debate. I think if we could just find a way to slow down the conversation—to move past that knee-jerk reflex to be outraged—we might actually get somewhere productive, rather than just spinning our wheels in the mud.

I honestly feel like we need to talk about the whole ego thing, because it’s such a massive, heavy weight that people carry around without even realizing how much it's actually slowing them down in life. It’s like when you’re driving down a highway in Los Angeles and someone gets all worked up over a tiny lane change; they aren't actually mad about the traffic, they're just stuck in this loop where their pride feels threatened by a stranger in a Honda, and it turns a simple commute into this unnecessary psychological battlefield. We do this to ourselves constantly, letting our sense of self become this fragile, inflated bubble that pops the second someone offers even a shred of constructive criticism or disagrees with our take on a movie. If we could just learn to let go of that need to be "right" or "superior," we’d probably find that life becomes a lot smoother and way less exhausting, kind of like how everything feels easier once you finally stop trying to prove everyone wrong and just start living for yourself. kaže: I just wanted to step in and clear up one little misconception I see people tripping over constantly in this thread—everyone keeps asking why religion class isn't scheduled as either the very first period or the absolute last one of the school day. So, if you’re sitting there wondering why kids are just loitering in the hallways or wasting their time hanging out in the library instead of actually being productive, the answer is pretty straightforward: it’s exactly what the Church wants to happen. The government basically signed off on this themselves, so they can't really act surprised now that everything is playing out exactly how they agreed to let it happen..

I’ve already said this before, but honestly, I don't see the point in aiming all this anger at the church. It feels like we're barking up the wrong tree. The real target should be the government, because they're the ones who actually codified this negligence into law—basically making it legal to ignore kids when they fail to enroll in those mandatory subjects required for voting age.

I honestly feel like we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here because sometimes it feels like everyone is just reacting to the surface level instead of actually digging into what’s happening beneath it all. It’s kind of like when you’re watching a high-stakes game between the Yankees and the Red Sox and everyone is screaming about one single bad call by the umpire, completely ignoring the fact that the entire pitching strategy was flawed from the very first inning. We get so caught up in these tiny, isolated moments that we lose sight of the actual momentum of the situation, which is pretty wild if you think about it. I’m not trying to be difficult or shut down the conversation, but I really believe if we don't address the core issues—the stuff that actually drives these patterns—then we're basically just running in circles and getting nowhere fast. It’s about looking at the foundation, not just the cracks in the paint. kaže:
Why is it such a massive taboo to actually sit down and have a real conversation about why religious studies feels like it's operating on a completely different wavelength than, say, math or history? It’s like there’s this invisible wall in our schools where you can debate the nuances of the Constitution or dive deep into the scientific method all day long, but the second you try to question how religious education fits into the academic hierarchy, everyone loses their minds. I honestly feel like we're missing out on a huge opportunity for critical thinking because people treat the subject as this untouchable, sacred thing that shouldn't be scrutinized, whereas every other subject is fair game for skepticism and rigorous analysis. It's almost like we've decided that certain topics are off-limits for logic, which seems pretty counterproductive when you think about how much we value intellectual curiosity in everything else.

I actually started heading down that path myself, but things just kind of hit a standstill.
Honestly, I feel like that’s where the whole thing falls apart right at the foundation.
It honestly feels like such a massive waste of resources when you think about it—taking these public buildings that were specifically built to foster education and using them as a platform to push the religious doctrines of one specific interest group is just total nonsense. It's like if we took a local community college or a public library and turned it into a private headquarters for some niche organization; it completely defeats the whole purpose of having taxpayer-funded spaces dedicated to learning and growth for everyone.

James Alvarez2 said:There is zero chance you can show a kid at home what they'll be doing in sports, drama, language, or religion class. Not because I think you don't know how to grab a ball or play an English song, but because it depends entirely on who is teaching and how they teach.

Like, someone mentioned their kid was told non-believers go to hell or that they had to pray before meals. What?

That teacher should be teaching kids that we're all different. Just like some people play tennis, others take Chinese, and others take religion—some people pray, some kneel, some won't eat when the sun is out, some wear specific clothes...

Religion class should be about teaching that only God decides the final judgment, and it's not our job to tell anyone where they're going after they die.
The problem is just that not everyone does that.
I even know a guy who graduated from a major university and doesn't believe in evolution. He doesn't accept it as a valid theory at all. And that is definitely NOT what they teach at a major university.

That's why religious studies should be moved outside of schools, and then we can do a massive purge of the professors. Then maybe we can move forward.

Are you actually raising your kid to just swallow everything anyone tells them and build their entire worldview on it? Or are you teaching them to listen to everything, process it, and then decide for themselves what fits their life and what they can just ignore?

Sorry, but if I'm being totally blunt, it feels pretty pointless to vent about what someone said and how our kids took it, especially when you immediately pivot to talking about diversity... because look, if we're teaching our kids at home that everyone is different and that every single person has inherent value regardless of what they believe in, then that kid isn't going to see "non-believers go to hell" or "pray before eating" as a personal attack; they'll just see it as someone else's way of life...
Which basically means the fault doesn't lie with the people saying those things—they're just living their truth and sharing their faith—it lies with us for being so inconsistent with the values we claim to teach our children.

Religious ed isn't mandatory in American schools; we all have the choice whether to enroll our kids or not, and that's where our diversity is respected. Trying to purge it from the system completely just undermines everything we say about embracing differences, and honestly, that says a lot more about us than it does about the people preaching about hell or pre-meal prayers.😉

@Karen Richardson3, please don't 😉,

Lawrence Torres56 said:Are you actually raising your kid to just swallow everything anyone tells them and build their entire worldview on it? Or are you teaching them to listen to everything, process it, and then decide for themselves what fits their life and what they can just ignore?

Sorry, but if I'm being totally blunt, it feels pretty pointless to vent about what someone said and how our kids took it, especially when you immediately pivot to talking about diversity... because look, if we're teaching our kids at home that everyone is different and that every single person has inherent value regardless of what they believe in, then that kid isn't going to see "non-believers go to hell" or "pray before eating" as a personal attack; they'll just see it as someone else's way of life...
Which basically means the fault doesn't lie with the people saying those things—they're just living their truth and sharing their faith—it lies with us for being so inconsistent with the values we claim to teach our children.

Religious ed isn't mandatory in American schools; we all have the choice whether to enroll our kids or not, and that's where our diversity is respected. Trying to purge it from the system completely just undermines everything we say about embracing differences, and honestly, that says a lot more about us than it does about the people preaching about hell or pre-meal prayers.😉

@Karen Richardson3, please don't 😉,

I’m struggling to follow your train of thought here—could you walk me through the logic of why removing Catholic doctrine from school buildings specifically designed to prep kids for the workforce is somehow an act of rejecting diversity?

Lawrence Torres56 said:Are you actually raising your kid to just swallow everything anyone tells them and build their entire worldview on it? Or are you teaching them to listen to everything, process it, and then decide for themselves what fits their life and what they can just ignore?

Sorry, but if I'm being totally blunt, it feels pretty pointless to vent about what someone said and how our kids took it, especially when you immediately pivot to talking about diversity... because look, if we're teaching our kids at home that everyone is different and that every single person has inherent value regardless of what they believe in, then that kid isn't going to see "non-believers go to hell" or "pray before eating" as a personal attack; they'll just see it as someone else's way of life...
Which basically means the fault doesn't lie with the people saying those things—they're just living their truth and sharing their faith—it lies with us for being so inconsistent with the values we claim to teach our children.

Religious ed isn't mandatory in American schools; we all have the choice whether to enroll our kids or not, and that's where our diversity is respected. Trying to purge it from the system completely just undermines everything we say about embracing differences, and honestly, that says a lot more about us than it does about the people preaching about hell or pre-meal prayers.😉

@Karen Richardson3, please don't 😉,

So you're saying an atheist should sit their kid down before school starts and basically prep them for the fallout? Like, tell them, "Hey, someone might try to scare you with hellfire, but don't sweat it—we don't believe that crap, and everyone's different..." Just a heads-up so they don't get blindsided...

It’s like someone who doesn't eat pork telling you that you're messing up and you're gonna end up in some hellhole just because you're grabbing a different burger today...

It’s not even about the kids. The real issue is the adults—the teachers and professors—and how they choose to push their faith on them...

That's exactly the point you're making... religion classes should be elective, plain and simple. That's how they ought to be handled.
Why does this have to happen right in the middle of class? Seriously... Why can't they just do it before or after school? Or even during a different shift? Makes zero sense...

Both sides just need to get on the same page here. For the kids actually taking religion class, they deserve to be around other kids who are there because their parents actually want them to be—kids raised with those same values. It makes more sense. And on the flip side, the kids who aren't doing religion shouldn't have to wander the halls or sit stuck in some library just because they're "the ones without that class"... it's stupid...

I’m gonna be a little rude here, but what’s even the point of Millie from 2nd grade being in religion class if she’s only there to just show up...
She’s learning stuff at school that she never hears about at home. Doesn't go to church because her parents don't bother with it either. The Catholic curriculum in elementary school shouldn't be some massive mashup of every other religion just so they can claim "everyone knows a little bit about everything." She's being taught about this God, but at home, they tell her that's just not how it works. They say God couldn't have made the Earth in a few days, that He couldn't part the sea, or that it's totally unfair how the father was happy when the prodigal son came home... meanwhile, at home, they had a son who spent his entire life just bowing down to his old man. Now all she hears about is Heaven and Hell, like those are the only destinations based on whether you believe or not...
He’ll show up for communion, hit the confirmation, and skip every single Sunday service in between because why bother? Then he’ll just walk down that aisle and get married in a church anyway...
So Millie’s gonna send little Peter to religious ed too. Just because the neighbors are breathing down her neck about it... He’ll get all his sacraments done and whatever, but she isn't showing up to church with him. Her own old man never even bothered going with her...
The 2041 census shows both Millie and Peter declaring themselves believers. Why?

Religious studies as an elective? Sure, why not.
Let the kids who actually want to go attend, even if their parents happen to be believers. Great.
If it’s not their thing, they can opt out. They’ll have plenty of time to figure it all out in 10, 15, or 20 years when they start seeing things differently anyway.
Kids from religious families will have plenty of time to realize it’s not for them too.

How am I being "inconsistent" just because I tell my kid that faith is a personal choice? Just like how Peter chose to be an atheist, or how Anna's mom does yoga.
We all practice our own free choices during our own time.
I don't see hypocrisy or inconsistency here. I just see a parent explaining to their kid why it's cool for their buddy in class to be in the lesson straight through, instead of having some random period where everyone's just hanging out and causing trouble—which would just lead to complaints from the parents of the kids who *do* attend.

There's this beautiful Quote: Speak about Christ only when asked, but live in such a way that people ask you about Christ.
Swap "Christ" for "Faith" and you've got it.
That’s basically my guiding principle most of the time.

And that’s the whole basis for making religious studies an elective. People keep harping on about "forcing" religion out of schools.
As long as you, as a believer, raise your child in the faith and teach them how to treat their peers, then religious studies belongs in school. Your kid might say a prayer before a meal—quietly, to themselves. Maybe nobody notices, maybe a classmate asks why. Maybe when talking about "how I spent my winter break," they mention traditions from home or church. Maybe you show them a cool book or a board game. A kid can weave their faith into so many other parts of life that don't need to be labeled "Religion Class," whether it's third period on Tuesday morning or second period on Friday afternoon.

I mean, seriously, what even is that? Is anyone actually going to try and defend this? It’s just wild to me how we can sit here and act like this makes any sense when it clearly doesn't. Does anyone else feel like they're living in some kind of weird fever dream where logic just went out the window entirely? Honestly, I'm just staring at this wondering if we've all collectively lost our minds or if someone is playing a massive prank on us. How do you even respond to something that's this ridiculous without just laughing in its face?

James Alvarez2 said:So you're saying an atheist should sit their kid down before school starts and basically prep them for the fallout? Like, tell them, "Hey, someone might try to scare you with hellfire, but don't sweat it—we don't believe that crap, and everyone's different..." Just a heads-up so they don't get blindsided...

It’s like someone who doesn't eat pork telling you that you're messing up and you're gonna end up in some hellhole just because you're grabbing a different burger today...

It’s not even about the kids. The real issue is the adults—the teachers and professors—and how they choose to push their faith on them...

That's exactly the point you're making... religion classes should be elective, plain and simple. That's how they ought to be handled.
Why does this have to happen right in the middle of class? Seriously... Why can't they just do it before or after school? Or even during a different shift? Makes zero sense...

Both sides just need to get on the same page here. For the kids actually taking religion class, they deserve to be around other kids who are there because their parents actually want them to be—kids raised with those same values. It makes more sense. And on the flip side, the kids who aren't doing religion shouldn't have to wander the halls or sit stuck in some library just because they're "the ones without that class"... it's stupid...

I’m gonna be a little rude here, but what’s even the point of Millie from 2nd grade being in religion class if she’s only there to just show up...
She’s learning stuff at school that she never hears about at home. Doesn't go to church because her parents don't bother with it either. The Catholic curriculum in elementary school shouldn't be some massive mashup of every other religion just so they can claim "everyone knows a little bit about everything." She's being taught about this God, but at home, they tell her that's just not how it works. They say God couldn't have made the Earth in a few days, that He couldn't part the sea, or that it's totally unfair how the father was happy when the prodigal son came home... meanwhile, at home, they had a son who spent his entire life just bowing down to his old man. Now all she hears about is Heaven and Hell, like those are the only destinations based on whether you believe or not...
He’ll show up for communion, hit the confirmation, and skip every single Sunday service in between because why bother? Then he’ll just walk down that aisle and get married in a church anyway...
So Millie’s gonna send little Peter to religious ed too. Just because the neighbors are breathing down her neck about it... He’ll get all his sacraments done and whatever, but she isn't showing up to church with him. Her own old man never even bothered going with her...
The 2041 census shows both Millie and Peter declaring themselves believers. Why?

Religious studies as an elective? Sure, why not.
Let the kids who actually want to go attend, even if their parents happen to be believers. Great.
If it’s not their thing, they can opt out. They’ll have plenty of time to figure it all out in 10, 15, or 20 years when they start seeing things differently anyway.
Kids from religious families will have plenty of time to realize it’s not for them too.

How am I being "inconsistent" just because I tell my kid that faith is a personal choice? Just like how Peter chose to be an atheist, or how Anna's mom does yoga.
We all practice our own free choices during our own time.
I don't see hypocrisy or inconsistency here. I just see a parent explaining to their kid why it's cool for their buddy in class to be in the lesson straight through, instead of having some random period where everyone's just hanging out and causing trouble—which would just lead to complaints from the parents of the kids who *do* attend.

There's this beautiful Quote: Speak about Christ only when asked, but live in such a way that people ask you about Christ.
Swap "Christ" for "Faith" and you've got it.
That’s basically my guiding principle most of the time.

And that’s the whole basis for making religious studies an elective. People keep harping on about "forcing" religion out of schools.
As long as you, as a believer, raise your child in the faith and teach them how to treat their peers, then religious studies belongs in school. Your kid might say a prayer before a meal—quietly, to themselves. Maybe nobody notices, maybe a classmate asks why. Maybe when talking about "how I spent my winter break," they mention traditions from home or church. Maybe you show them a cool book or a board game. A kid can weave their faith into so many other parts of life that don't need to be labeled "Religion Class," whether it's third period on Tuesday morning or second period on Friday afternoon.

Look, I honestly feel like anyone who actually walks the walk—you know, people who genuinely live their lives according to the values they preach to the world—is going to raise their kids with that exact same backbone. They’ll instill that sense of integrity from day one, right? And once that’s set in, none of that outside noise or the endless drama from people trying to tear them down is even going to register. Why would it matter what some random critic says when you've built a life on something real?

If I'm reading the situation right, we've got one religious studies teacher handling the whole elementary block from first through fourth grade. So, we need to figure out how to make this schedule actually work, especially since they need to hit two sessions a week, even though we’re looking at a standard five-day school week. How are we supposed to squeeze that all in without making everyone lose their minds? 🤷
So, regarding that whole situation with religious studies being held during the afternoon session—it seems like you’re totally fine with the idea of twenty-two kids showing up late in the day just for that? Is it really that simple for you? I mean, are we just supposed to ignore the fact that twenty-two different sets of parents now have to play Tetris with their schedules to figure out how to coordinate those two specific days with everything else they have going on? And don't even get me started on the logistics of trying to make sure those two students from the class aren't just wandering around the school library while everyone else is in class? It feels like a massive headache waiting to happen, doesn't it?🤔Come on, man, you really might want to give that some actual thought before you jump the gun.😁
On top of all that mess, most of these kids are signed up for religion classes, which pretty much tells you everything you need to know about their parents, right? It’s either they’re actually devout, or they’re just putting on this massive act to look like "good people" in the eyes of the community. I mean, why even bother asking them? If people were actually brave enough to drop the fake internet personas and speak their minds under their own names, schools could finally just set up one specific classroom for the kids who don't want to deal with that stuff. They could just build a schedule around it and call it a day, wouldn't they?

I mean, what is even the deal with Millie from class 2.C? Honestly, you should probably just go straight to her parents with those questions. Look, I have zero interest in weighing in on whether parents decide to enroll their kids in religious studies or not—that’s their call, their reasons, and their life entirely. Purely from a human standpoint, I can listen to the explanations and I can certainly have my own opinions on the whole thing, but I really don't want to be out here judging. Isn't it obvious that we're all grown adults with fully formed personalities at this point, so why would anyone feel the need to start second-guessing how everyone else lives their lives?

Look, if you've got 25 kids in a class and 20 of them are hitting sports, music lessons, or language classes, parents have to figure it out, right?
It’s totally doable. A friend of mine goes to a school where religion class is always just the first or last period. Since everyone isn't starting and ending at the exact same second every single day, it works... you just need better organization.

For sure, I agree regarding classes without religion, just like there are classes with one or two languages or after-school programs.
But you've got some kids who do religion but skip the after-school stuff, and vice versa. It all comes down to priorities.
And the priority should be the kid standing in the hallway during mandatory classes, not the convenience of 22 parents who CHOSE to sign their kid up for an ELECTIVE.

Millie's issue is most obvious at Sunday Mass. You see a bunch of Millies sitting there with their legs crossed, chewing gum, whispering, and laughing.

And that whole crowd of Millies only exists because they're signed up for religion class just so they don't have to sit in the hallway.

Lawrence Torres56 said:You’ve gotta be kidding me, right?😉
History is supposedly founded on hard facts... and all that jazz? Especially more recent history?😁
Like American English, where they seem to tweak the style guides every single year?
Or biology and physics, where they're constantly dropping new theories on us?

By the way, principles and theories aren't "facts"—Heisenberg or non-Euclidean geometry could be totally debunked next year for all we know.
And it took over a century for non-Euclidean geometry to even get accepted, effectively challenging Euclidean geometry; so why on earth should we assume that some other set of rules won't just come along tomorrow and flip the script again?

Also, how can you be so absolutely certain that God doesn't exist and that everything taught in religious studies is just empty talk? Has science actually proven that God isn't real?

Give me an answer—where was God at Auschwitz?

Is telling a child they’re headed straight to hell if they don't believe in God really an expression of "diversity"?
I am firmly against allowing that kind of "diversity." It doesn't matter who is delivering the message—whether it's a peer or a religious instructor. Honestly, I would ban those types of instructors from having any access to children, and I'd warn any kid saying such things to stop immediately.

In the 21st century, when church attendance is dropping, a significant number of kids end up hearing more about God than they do about math or computer science. Naturally, you run into situations where one child tells another they'll burn in hell. And that's what the child learned in school, not from some backward parents. That is a true failure of our education system.

What used to be Marxism is basically just religion at this point. One ideology just swapped places with another.

Larry Walker24 said:Give me an answer—where was God at Auschwitz?

I don't agree with what you quoted, but Catholic doctrine is basically built on the idea that God gave people free will. Because of that, humans can choose their own path... let's not get too deep here, but we can turn toward good or evil. That's just human choice, not some puppet master pulling the strings.