- Joined
- Dec 3, 2016
- Messages
- 8,932
- Reaction score
- 4,192
- Location
- Floriduh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a conservative Christian watchdog group, has launched a legal campaign to fight what it calls “Buddhist meditation” in American public schools. The group takes issue with the secular mindfulness programs that have been implemented in some schools, in which audio recordings guide students through stress-reduction practices. The organization says that mindfulness practices “equate to Buddhism.”
The ACLJ is a Christian conservative watchdog group founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, who in the past has compared Buddhism to a disease. Jay Sekulow, the organization’s chief counsel, is on President Trump’s legal team. One of the ACLJ’s main activities is the promotion of Christian prayer in public schools.
“We’re launching a multifaceted legal campaign including representing parents of these students, sending demand letters, state FOIA requests, and if necessary, litigation,” reads a petition on the organization’s website. “Indoctrinating young kids in public schools with Buddhist meditation is outright unconstitutional.”
In November, representatives from the ACLJ reportedly attended a school board meeting in Colorado to oppose mindfulness programs in schools.
According to the ACLJ, the practices are meant to help students handle stress, calm down, and concentrate on school work. Representatives from the ACLJ say students are asked to sit at their desk and find goodness inside of themselves or connect with nature.
On Sekulow’s radio show, Jay Sekulow Live, one commentator called the programs “aggressive Buddhist teaching.” Abbey Southerland, the ACLJ’s senior counsel, said the programs tell students to “’look inside yourself,’ ‘find the goodness within yourself’ — things that are clearly antithetical to the Christian religion.”
A blog post on the ACLJ website raises fears around the program, writing:
Imagine your elementary school child coming home one night and explaining the actions that their teacher asked them to do that day—to close their eyes and obey an audio recording that tells them to clear their minds, to watch their memories and emotions float away on clouds, and to feel the love and warmth from their connection to the universe. How would you react if this same audio recording is telling your child to look inside themselves to reach inner-goodness and peace?
Said one caller on Sekulow’s radio program, “This is toxic ideology. This goes beyond just bad education. This could be corrupting our children’s eternal souls. I have two small children, and I don’t want them sitting around just thinking about creation and goodness and peace. I mean, if my two angels, who are innocent, are gonna be learning about explorers, they should be learning about Jesus or Trump.”
Imo Christians cannot control what others do in this world, they can only control what they and theirs do...since I don't believe this type of meditation is beneficial in any way and could be harmful if exercised in the wrong way...I would handle it in the same way I handled other events that went on in school when my children were little...I would select to have them opted out from the event...no harm, no foul...I agree with ya...what the ACLJ is doing is overkill...
I've done meditation and it works (lowers BP, heart rate, reduces stress, etc.). There is nothing inherently religious about it, really. I think prayer can be seen as a form of meditation.
I've done meditation and it works (lowers BP, heart rate, reduces stress, etc.). There is nothing inherently religious about it, really. I think prayer can be seen as a form of meditation.
Is the meditation part of empirical psychology or Buddhism? This is earmarked for the Supreme Court.
I don't see the argument from effect passing muster with SCOTUS; that premise opens a can of worms already sealed by SCOTUS. It will have to be an argument that successfully dissociates the religious origin from the soft-scientific co-option of the practice. I'm guessing that divorce is only about 50 years old. The success of an argument from science will depend on how much research has actually been done on meditation as a secular therapy.The way it's being taught is based on empirical psych, if I'm reading right. FWIW, the meditation technique I first learned was more Hindu in origin, but no Hindu "stuff" was included.
If the SCOTUS decides it's wrong, so be it, but I think the idea that what is being taught is anti-christian or Buddhist in nature is whacked.
Is asking someone to calm down and take a deep breath pushing religious dogma now?:roll: Well, okay...
I don't see the argument from effect passing muster with SCOTUS; that premise opens a can of worms already sealed by SCOTUS. It will have to be an argument that successfully dissociates the religious origin from the soft-scientific co-option of the practice. I'm guessing that divorce is only about 50 years old. The success of an argument from science will depend on how much research has actually been done on meditation as a secular therapy.
I'm not conversant with the Christian fundamentalist arguments for school prayer, so I can't comment on the contradiction and hypocrisy of arguing that school prayer is not but meditation is promoting religion.It would be an interesting case, and I really don't have a horse in the race.
It's just ironic to me that Christians who want prayer in public schools as ACLJ does, argue that their prayer isn't pushing religion but are arguing here that "mindfulness" (or whatever they call it) is pushing Buddhism, and that it's detrimental to Christianity. That's weird in several respects.
For some reason this reminds me of the old "rock music contains Satanic backmasking" thing that was being pushed in the 1980's.
I'm not conversant with the Christian fundamentalist arguments for school prayer, so I can't comment on the contradiction and hypocrisy of arguing that school prayer is not but meditation is promoting religion.
On the argument that meditation is "detrimental" to fundamentalist Christian belief, the word quoted in the article is "antithetical," not "detrimental," and from a certain point of view that is certainly Christian, mankind is a fallen creature, and I suppose from a certain fundamentalist understanding (like that of old-school Calvinism) instructing students that they will find "goodness" inside themselves might be viewed as "antithetical" to doctrine.
To my mind this is a purely political and practical issue, and that, I expect, is the perspective SCOTUS will have to maintain if this question comes before it. SCOTUS is not, and should not be in the business of deciding religious matters. If it holds meditation to be inextricably Buddhist in nature, it must decide against meditation in schools; if it can distinguish psychological therapeutic meditation from Buddhist meditation, then it can decide in favor of school meditation.
I'm not conversant with the Christian fundamentalist arguments for school prayer, so I can't comment on the contradiction and hypocrisy of arguing that school prayer is not but meditation is promoting religion.
On the argument that meditation is "detrimental" to fundamentalist Christian belief, the word quoted in the article is "antithetical," not "detrimental," and from a certain point of view that is certainly Christian, mankind is a fallen creature, and I suppose from a certain fundamentalist understanding (like that of old-school Calvinism) instructing students that they will find "goodness" inside themselves might be viewed as "antithetical" to doctrine.
To my mind this is a purely political and practical issue, and that, I expect, is the perspective SCOTUS will have to maintain if this question comes before it. SCOTUS is not, and should not be in the business of deciding religious matters. If it holds meditation to be inextricably Buddhist in nature, it must decide against meditation in schools; if it can distinguish psychological therapeutic meditation from Buddhist meditation, then it can decide in favor of school meditation.
The only argument of interest here is the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument, and therefore SCOTUS must find a distinction between gravy and sauce if it wishes to uphold meditation in schools.The antithetical argument has no value. In fact, it is worse than being without value.
In this nation, we do not ban the teaching of something in our public schools simply because it is antithetical to the teachings of some christian cult. If that were so, then we would have to ban the teaching of science because science is antithetical to a number of claims made in the bible such as virgin birth, resurrection, etc
public schools are not allowed to promote or denigrate a specific religion.
The only argument of interest here is the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument, and therefore SCOTUS must find a distinction between gravy and sauce if it wishes to uphold meditation in schools.
That's close enough to the sense of my post, it seems to me, to obviate a quarrel.That made no sense at allThe only argument of interest here is the "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" argument, and therefore SCOTUS must find a distinction between gravy and sauce if it wishes to uphold meditation in schools.
The only argument is that meditation promotes a religion...
This seems like a big over-reaction to me. Possibly more a reflection of the anger they feel over not being able to push Christian prayer into public schools.
I don't think meditation is religious in and of itself. You can make it so if you like, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Thoughts?
https://www.lionsroar.com/conservat...gainst-buddhist-meditation-in-public-schools/
The term "meditation" is related with some religions that practice it.
Maybe, they should've used a neutral term, like contemplation? Reflection? Rumination?
Our society has mastered coming up with politically-correct terms.
Surely, they can find something in lieu of meditation?
Imo Christians cannot control what others do in this world, they can only control what they and theirs do.....
By "cannot" do you mean "incapable" or "shouldn't be permitted to".
Both...we live in a secular world, not a theocratic, in spite of what some people may think...this is not a nation under God, never has been...
This seems like a big over-reaction to me. Possibly more a reflection of the anger they feel over not being able to push Christian prayer into public schools.
I don't think meditation is religious in and of itself. You can make it so if you like, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Thoughts?
https://www.lionsroar.com/conservat...gainst-buddhist-meditation-in-public-schools/
By "cannot" do you mean "incapable" or "shouldn't be permitted to".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?