• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christians : Do You Agree With the ACLJ?

<alt>doxygen

"I want MY WALL!"
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2016
Messages
8,932
Reaction score
4,192
Location
Floriduh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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 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...
 
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.
 
This seems to be about mindfulness meditation, which isn’t religious, mystical or spiritual. I’m an atheist and meditate. Hell, Sam Harris is one of the most vocal atheists in the world and he wrote a book on the benefits of meditation. Likewise, yoga can be completely secular.

Of course there ARE people and groups who infuse their meditation with religious significance.
 
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.

Nothing wrong with meditating on the right things, which is what I taught my children but that type of meditation is best done on your own, not as a group in some class at school...

"Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are of serious concern, whatever things are righteous, whatever things are chaste, whatever things are lovable, whatever things are well-spoken-of, whatever things are virtuous, and whatever things are praiseworthy, continue considering these things. The things that you learned as well as accepted and heard and saw in connection with me, practice these, and the God of peace will be with you." Philippians 4:8,9

"Ponder over these things; be absorbed in them, so that your advancement may be plainly seen by all people. Pay constant attention to yourself and to your teaching. Persevere in these things, for by doing this you will save both yourself and those who listen to you." 1 Timothy 4:15,16
 
Is the meditation part of empirical psychology or Buddhism? This is earmarked for the Supreme Court.
 
Is the meditation part of empirical psychology or Buddhism? This is earmarked for the Supreme Court.

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...
 
Why not a compromise instead: students can do Buddhist inspired meditation, as long as they have a Christian inspired cross burning at the end of the session?
 
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 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.

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.
 
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.

You correctly note the Calvinist orientation of these folks. And, "antithetical" is the correct word to quote. In my view, Calvinism is antithetical (incompatible) with our form of government, but that's another discussion.

I am not seeing anything I disagree with in your stated position on the matter. I personally have managed to use meditation as a non-religious therapeutic tool, but I have religious friends who use it in a religious way. Let the courts sort it out, but I'd rather the last word on it not come from Texas.
 
There's quite a lot of neuroscience evidence now that mindfulness mediation has a lot of benefits. It has a lot to do with creating new neural pathways that integrate the more primitive 'fight flight freeze' 'lizard' part of the brain, the amygdalae, the emotional limbic area, and the rational frontal cortex areas. People who successfully do mindfulness meditation are less stressed, don't get 'triggered' as easily, and have much better emotional regulation. What's not to like?

It's not a religion.

I personally would like to see mindfulness meditation offered in high-schools by trained professionals, but I understand that there are parents who would choose not to have their children learn this, which is fine.
 
Last edited:
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 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.

67246097d1544937091-funny-offensive-religion-pictures-thread-hosted-roguewarrior-my-religion-jpg
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 made no sense at all

The only argument is that meditation promotes a religion, and the ACLJ is not even making that argument. Instead, they are arguing that meditation should be banned from public schools because it is antithetical to a specific cult - an argument that has absolutely no basis in the law, and for good reason.

Next, the ACLJ will argue that the teaching of biology is antithetical to the belief in the virgin birth, that geography is antithetical to the belief in heaven and hell, and that chemistry is antithetical to the belief that water can be turned into wine.
 
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 made no sense at all

The only argument is that meditation promotes a religion...
That's close enough to the sense of my post, it seems to me, to obviate a quarrel.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

Call it selfielation

"All right, children, now put away your smart phones and quietly do five minutes of selfielation.

to selfielate, v., (from selfie + elate), to engage in politically correct navel-gazing
 
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/

Where I agree that the idea of reducing stress on students that are way too stressed is it good thing calling it meditation is just like calling it prayer. Whether you want to admit it or not meditation is a spiritual practice. And since we can't use words like prayer we shouldn't be able to use words like meditation. I personally think paying lip service to anybody whether you call it prayer or meditation or super special quiet time is ridiculous.

It's a battle of language and the first salvo was thrown years ago. I am of the belief that prayer should be an individual thing I don't even practice group prayer in church. But I don't see a problem with it. Some people do.

I think such people are overly sensitive and more interested in beating down the linguistics around religion than they are about freedom.

I don't think school should hold through prayer I don't think they should practice any kind of meditation on an official level. Allowing the students to do that for themselves should be mandatory. and if a few people within the same religion want to get together and have a seance or a spiritual sacrifice it is not the school's business to say anyting.

Public schools have become too much of a societal engineering apparatus when they really should be teaching children basics for life.
 
Back
Top Bottom