Talk:Religious education in Romania

[Untitled]
Although education was an area where churches registered success in the early stages of post-communist transition, religious education has remained understudied.  quote Jmabel
 * I meant to say not researched, not much taken until now in consideration for study, research, etc. Bonaparte   talk  20:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Understudied refers to the fact that turnout for these classes is quite low - that is, in comparison to, say, commerce or law or engineering, theology is studied by quite a small number of students. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the two of you don't agree what it means. You've each opted for one of the two possible readings I suggested. Please, work out what you want to say and say it, because the current wording is absolutely ambiguous. And, preferably, cite for your claim: Bonaparte's, especially, would be opinion (since it postulates some deserved amount of study, whereas Ronline's meaning has a clear point of comparison) and would therefore pretty much require citation and attribution. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Current situation
As far as I know, the current structure is that religion is an optional, ungraded subject in both primary and secondary school. Students can opt out of studying religion - those that do study non-religious Ethics curricula, so it's not compulsory in primary schools (this would violate both freedom of religion provisions and Romanian secular legislation, since Romania has no national church). Religion is offered in all of the 15 denominations depending on demand. Ronline ✉ 09:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Article 9 of the Romanian Education Law claims clearly that religion is a compulsory subject, but that students may opt out of it, with a signed request from a parent (see the law here ) - but there have been cases where students were bullied because of choosing not to take religion (see here and here for a scientific analysis of the phenomenon ) --Xanthar 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Non-Neutral POV
This writing is wholly biased towards religion. Its nowhere near neutral, even claiming that a religion fully saved a country without proof. It is written as if manna was literally raining down on the country now, and seems to refuse any acknowledgement that there could have been other contributing factors. If someone with knowledge can fix it, that would be preferred; as it is now, it reads like an advertisement or a sermon. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)