Mindfulness practices, including meditation and
yoga, have recently swept the American nation. These practices have been
adopted by many schools as students and teachers are subjected to classroom led
sessions. Although many Americans believe that yoga and mindfulness aren’t
religious, not everyone accepts that the practices are completely secular.
The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)
has recently called attention to this matter upon creating their petition titled
“Stop Forcing Buddhist Meditation on Kids in School.” They represent parents
who want to ensure that their children are not subjected to these activities
during school instruction since these mindfulness programs go beyond the
boundaries of permissible cultural education and constitute the endorsement of
eastern religious practices. To them, having their child participate feels as
if they are being trained in a religion other than their own. For example, some
yoga poses have religious significance and are considered an
acknowledgement and worship of Hindu deities, and thus conservative Christian parents
feel as though there is a pressure for their student to commit idolatry.
Having roots in both Buddhism and Hinduism, integrating yoga and
mindfulness into public schools could violate laws against government
establishment of religion. Proponents of holding these
practices in schools maintain that mindfulness is a secular practice that leads practitioners to a conscious quality or
state of being. Yet, others argue that even when used as a physical warm-up or
as a way to reduce stress, these practices are still fundamentally religious. Mindfulness
has been even been coined as a “Buddhist Trojan Horse” as well as the “NewAmerican Religion.”
The Supreme court has ruled that public
schools may not endorse religious practices such as prayer (Engel v. Vitale) and
Bible readings (Abington Township v. Schempp) even if students are allowed to
opt out. Additionally, in the past, the court has ruled that practicing religion
in the classroom is coercive (Edwards v. Aguillard) due to the compulsory nature
of education as well as teacher authority and peer pressure.
As well as the perception of religious coercion
by schools created by facilitating these practices, research has shown that
yoga and mindfulness have spiritual effects even when they are
presented secularly. One study found that over 62 percent of students who practiced “secular” yoga
changed their primary reason for practicing from exercise and stress relief to
spirituality.
The United
States religious landscape is changing as the ratio identifying as spiritual is
increasing. Since the First Amendment only prohibits the establishment of religion,
and not of spirituality, spiritually must be constitutionally defined as either
under the umbrella of religion and therefore religious, or a separate entity
not pertaining to religion. Until this is defined, the debate will continue
over whether mindfulness is religious or just relaxation.
I believe deeming
mindfulness practices secular and not under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment
will lead the previous held separation of church and state down a slippery
slope. By allowing this historical practice to be made secular through rebranding,
other religions will highlight the moral and ethical secular value found in their
religious texts such as the Bible, Torah, or Quran and claim that they should
be allowed in schools as well.
Therefore, due to the historical and modern religious
ties of mindfulness to Buddhism and Hinduism, the religious and/or spiritual
dimensions of programs must be acknowledged. If these practices are to be held
during school hours, students and parents should be given the choice to participate.
Using Candy Guther Brown’s proposition, an opt-in model of informed consent
showed be used, giving parents and their student the choice of whether or not
to enroll in a mindfulness program or class, rather than having to take steps
and receive approval to opt out. Once given information about mindfulness and
its history as well as how it will be used in the program or class, I believe parents
can make an informed choice thus making it a constitutional practice in schools.
10 comments:
I agree with Emma’s belief that this issue can be a slippery slope of the interpretation of the Establishment Clause. That being said, I do not think that is not enough of a reason to deem the practices of medication and yoga in schools as unconstitutional. I believe the precedent set in Edwards v. Aguillard does not apply to this issue. In Edwards, the majority believed the Creationism Act had no clear secular purpose because the intent behind it was not sincere and rather a sham intended to endorse religion. I believe the practice of meditation and yoga, despite the relationship to the Buddhist religion, would be seen as a sincere secular purpose to reduce stress for children.
I do agree that a distinction needs to be established between the concept of spirituality and religious belief and exercise. While the terms are interrelated as many times religion is associated with spirituality, spirituality is not always associated with specific religion or even any religion whatsoever. The establishment of the barrier between church and state was to protect against the establishment of any particular religion and oppression of others. This does not translate to the direct opposition of any and all endorsement of spirituality. I don't think it is justifiable to associate all meditation or that type of spirituality with Buddhist religion just because it is one of many which features that as a part of its religious practices.
I agree with Bess and Emma that this is definitely a slippery slope of establishment clause and could come across as coercive. However, I believe that in practice, mindfulness is a secular practice meant to sincerely calm children, not propose a religion upon them. I do understand though that because it is happening during school hours and some people feel it is religious, parents should be able to opt out.
I agree with the author's proposition that this is a slippery slope. However, and if I may, I am going to bring back the reappearing ghost that keeps haunting us: the Lemon Test. Is there a secular purpose? Yes, as stated there are health benefits to yoga/meditation. Does it cause excessive entanglement with religion? Not really; there are no religious instructors involved. Does the practice advance or inhibit religion? In my opinion, no. I feel the practices of meditation and yoga can be seperated from their orgin: Buddhism. Many people, and especially western people, do not see meditation and yoga as a part of Buddhism even though it is practiced within it. I do think it is a weird move on the school's behalf to do this, but I can see where they are coming from.
I agree with Emma that this can become a slippery slope. However, I think it is a stretch to claim that meditation in class is an example of establishment of religion. Although meditation is used as a practice for some religious groups, it also used for the secular purpose of meditation. Therefore, not necessarily constituting as a religious entity. Additionally, if one were to consider the practice of meditation as religious, this particular case would still pass the lemon test. The purpose of it is secular, it does not inhibit or advance religion, or require excessive entanglement with religion.
I agree with Emma on the fact that this is on the slippery slope of the establishment clause and could be perceived as coercive. In my opinion, the practice of mindfulness is a uniformly a secular practice that is meant to understand and calm thoughts and emotions of these children, not to force an opinion of religion onto them. Due to this 'religious' mediation occurring during school hours, parents should have the ability to be able to opt out of this practice.
I agree with Emma that it is difficult to allow such practices to be secularized in schools without there being a slippery slope due to the fact that this may cause any number of religious practices/traditions to become secularized as well. I'd like to point out Emma's reference to a study in which 62% of people who had claimed to do yoga changed their purpose from exercise and stress relief to spirituality. If these individuals are becoming more "spiritual" through yoga, I do not believe that it can be argued that they are becoming more "religious." Many people claim to be "spiritual" and not "religious," so the fact that yoga could make people more spiritual should not threaten the Establishment Clause.
I agree with Emma that this is a slippery slope, but I think that meditation and yoga in schools is constitutional. I believe that this has a secular purpose because it is providing overall health benefits to individuals who want it. Since these practices are during school hours, I agree that individuals should be allowed to opt out, so it is not coercive.
I agree with Emma about how this could become a potential issue, especially since a study has shown that a lot of people who begin meditation as a way to combat stress end up becoming more "spiritual" as a result. Some may even view this as indoctrinating children. However, until the word "spiritual" is actually defined, whether it be found as religious or not, it is hard to not allow it. So, I do not see how anybody could rule it as unconstitutional.
I agree that this presents a slippery slope. I specifically liked the point made about how if this practice is allowed, then it may open a window for other religions to claim how their beliefs or practices could also hold a secular purpose. However, when we looked at cases about public school officials praying before games, we also spoke about how this can be deemed a secular 'moment of silence' where people can either choose to pray or just see it as a respectful practice. I think if the school wants to practice mindfulness and yoga, then there needs to be some sort of option that way it is not coercion but also that there needs to be some sort of information given about the secular health benefits it provides.
Post a Comment