Export thread
Religion in schools
#1
Necronic
Necronic
I think most would agree that religion has no place in public schools, aside from being taught as an academic topic (this is what christianity is, this is what hindu is, etc etc.)
Usually when we think about this we think about christianity and other western religions and religious practices, but I saw the following article on FARK recently and it really challenged me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/u...s-religious-protest-from-christians.html?_r=4&
Yoga has roots in Hinduism, and "true" practitioners understand it is about a lot more than just physical health, even if Americans have secularized it so heavily. But on the other hand this isn't the same kind of directly religious practice as the Eucharist or something. In eastern religions there is usually a large tent under which a large amount of practices and philosophies fall, as opposed to western religions which are more centralized and dogmatic.
So anyways, this is really interesting to me. Is this acceptable? If so, then how do you differentiate this from a "Christmas" celebration that focuses on the current secularized version of it most americans appreciate? Or, if not, where do you draw the line? Can you teach Tai Chi? Or even many martial arts, which have ties to Buddhism?
Usually when we think about this we think about christianity and other western religions and religious practices, but I saw the following article on FARK recently and it really challenged me:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/u...s-religious-protest-from-christians.html?_r=4&
Yoga has roots in Hinduism, and "true" practitioners understand it is about a lot more than just physical health, even if Americans have secularized it so heavily. But on the other hand this isn't the same kind of directly religious practice as the Eucharist or something. In eastern religions there is usually a large tent under which a large amount of practices and philosophies fall, as opposed to western religions which are more centralized and dogmatic.
So anyways, this is really interesting to me. Is this acceptable? If so, then how do you differentiate this from a "Christmas" celebration that focuses on the current secularized version of it most americans appreciate? Or, if not, where do you draw the line? Can you teach Tai Chi? Or even many martial arts, which have ties to Buddhism?
#2
bhamv3
bhamv3
I don't think it'd be appropriate to reject something based simply on its religious roots, otherwise we'll have to stop calling this year 2012, since it's based on Jesus Christ's year of birth. Look at the current contents of what's being taught and/or discussed, and make a decision based on that.
#3
strawman
strawman
The problem is that it's subjective. There are many Christian principles and ideas that are widely taught in our society and as part of our curriculum that we don't even associate with Christianity, but due to our country's history have become part of our society.
Our entire educational system is a direct descendant of the religious educational systems that were started when our country was founded.
Meditation is a good thing to teach children generally, but there are so many different forms of meditation, and it's hard to separate any meditative practice from its source - how to meditate and why is explained very often by philosophical or religious principles that can't easily be considered secular.
Yoga is more than mere meditation, though, and it does have a very rich religious history explaining how to use it. If you remove that and sterilize it, does it truly remain yoga, or is it even useful?
The Christians have a long history of taking their beliefs and applying them in simple ways to the beliefs people already hold, as a method to bring more people closer to their teachings. Christmas and Easter are not strictly Christian holidays - they are amalgamations of various cultural and religious beliefs intended to indoctrinate people.
So do we take funding from a possibly religious nonprofit group to start a yoga class, mandate that all students have to attend unless they opt out, an then claim that it's not religious?
If so then where do we draw the line at allowing possibly religious nonprofits to give our schools money to mandate attendance to a class which seems secular enough, but has very strong roots in a specific religion?
You can remove christian principles and teachings from Christmas, and have a decorated tree, a gift exchange, and a party with food without ever touching on Christian teachings and principles. But you're still celebrating a religious event. Where do you draw the line?
Our entire educational system is a direct descendant of the religious educational systems that were started when our country was founded.
Meditation is a good thing to teach children generally, but there are so many different forms of meditation, and it's hard to separate any meditative practice from its source - how to meditate and why is explained very often by philosophical or religious principles that can't easily be considered secular.
Yoga is more than mere meditation, though, and it does have a very rich religious history explaining how to use it. If you remove that and sterilize it, does it truly remain yoga, or is it even useful?
The Christians have a long history of taking their beliefs and applying them in simple ways to the beliefs people already hold, as a method to bring more people closer to their teachings. Christmas and Easter are not strictly Christian holidays - they are amalgamations of various cultural and religious beliefs intended to indoctrinate people.
So do we take funding from a possibly religious nonprofit group to start a yoga class, mandate that all students have to attend unless they opt out, an then claim that it's not religious?
If so then where do we draw the line at allowing possibly religious nonprofits to give our schools money to mandate attendance to a class which seems secular enough, but has very strong roots in a specific religion?
You can remove christian principles and teachings from Christmas, and have a decorated tree, a gift exchange, and a party with food without ever touching on Christian teachings and principles. But you're still celebrating a religious event. Where do you draw the line?
#4
GasBandit
GasBandit
So very tempted to repost Yogi Okeydokey from the videos thread.
#5
Krisken
Krisken
Maybe I'm celebrating the pagan part of the holiday? Or perhaps I don't care that some feel it's a religious day, but I love getting together with family and eating food?
#6
drawn_inward
drawn_inward
Teaching true Yoga is a religious (or at the very least, a spiritual) act. We were taught Yoga poses in my HS track class. They didn't call it Yoga, but that's what it was.
What Steiny mentioned is valid. If you cut the spiritualism out of Yoga, can you still call it Yoga? Should it just be called "Stationary Pilates"?
What Steiny mentioned is valid. If you cut the spiritualism out of Yoga, can you still call it Yoga? Should it just be called "Stationary Pilates"?
#7
Tress
Tress
This part of the article irritated me. From the main parent complaining in the article:
Oh, fuck! Teaching children how to think and make decisions! Noooooooo!
I firmly believe this controversy has roots in the pathetic, stupid mentality people have that schools are just day-care centers designed to fill kids' heads with facts.
Idiots.
(bold emphasis mine)“They’re not just teaching physical poses, they’re teaching children how to think and how to make decisions,” Ms. Eady said.
Oh, fuck! Teaching children how to think and make decisions! Noooooooo!
I firmly believe this controversy has roots in the pathetic, stupid mentality people have that schools are just day-care centers designed to fill kids' heads with facts.
Idiots.
#8
Necronic
Necronic
A lot of responses I have heard from this article have focused on the evangelicals, and in particular that quote. But really they have nothing to do with this. This issue could just as easily have come from the ACLU imho.
#9
Tress
Tress
No, their mentality has everything to do with this. They think nothing should be taught in schools except straight facts (and even then, only facts they personally approve). They think children shouldn't be exposed to anything. And that's a big part of their problem with the yoga class.But really they have nothing to do with this. This issue could just as easily have come from the ACLU imho.
#10
Necronic
Necronic
Ok, dunno where you're getting the idea that evangelicals only want straight facts being taught.
#11
Tress
Tress
I don't know where you got the idea I'm only talking about evangelicals. And if you don't know where I got the idea that people only want straight facts being taught, spend some time as a teacher and listen to parent complaints.Ok, dunno where you're getting the idea that evangelicals only want straight facts being taught.
#12
Eriol
1. Teaching people to think at all, versus blind acceptance of "authority" (pick your authority)
2. Teaching a particular way of thinking and analysis, versus another one. Deductive versus inductive reasoning. Or whatever. "Teaching how to think" can be good, or very 1984-ish. If she had said "they're teaching them the islamic/christian/Buddhist/atheistic/socialist/capitalist/(pick any more) way of thinking" it would be more obvious that this is the interpretation.
Which did she mean? Who knows. I'm not going to defend this, but I think it's just intellectually honest to see that the quote has more than one easy meaning.
Eriol
To be fair (and giving way too much credit I'm sure) there's two meanings of that phrase.This part of the article irritated me. From the main parent complaining in the article:
(bold emphasis mine)“They’re not just teaching physical poses, they’re teaching children how to think and how to make decisions,” Ms. Eady said.
Oh, fuck! Teaching children how to think and make decisions! Noooooooo!
I firmly believe this controversy has roots in the pathetic, stupid mentality people have that schools are just day-care centers designed to fill kids' heads with facts.
Idiots.
1. Teaching people to think at all, versus blind acceptance of "authority" (pick your authority)
2. Teaching a particular way of thinking and analysis, versus another one. Deductive versus inductive reasoning. Or whatever. "Teaching how to think" can be good, or very 1984-ish. If she had said "they're teaching them the islamic/christian/Buddhist/atheistic/socialist/capitalist/(pick any more) way of thinking" it would be more obvious that this is the interpretation.
Which did she mean? Who knows. I'm not going to defend this, but I think it's just intellectually honest to see that the quote has more than one easy meaning.
#13
strawman
strawman
Unfortunately the are parents who do not like it when their children ask them difficult questions. Critical thinking skills are not often taught in primary education.
IMHO there are three levels of cognitive ability in any given subject. Knowledge, which is just rote memorization. Analysis which allows one to apply knowledge to understand a thing. Synthesis which allows one to create a new thought or idea which was not already covered by their knowledge.
Schools are really only allowed to teach knowledge and very limited analysis. Looking at a problem and applying a calculation.
Teachers aren't allowed to ask students questions they haven't already given them the answer for. Students feel stupid and parents complain.
This isn't universally true, but my experience with the educational system is that parents give teachers and administrators the job of teaching their children, but not the power and authority to do it well. It's not due to the teachers or government, it's the parents that hate when their children see something, then ask questions they can't answer without questioning their own beliefs.
YMMV.
IMHO there are three levels of cognitive ability in any given subject. Knowledge, which is just rote memorization. Analysis which allows one to apply knowledge to understand a thing. Synthesis which allows one to create a new thought or idea which was not already covered by their knowledge.
Schools are really only allowed to teach knowledge and very limited analysis. Looking at a problem and applying a calculation.
Teachers aren't allowed to ask students questions they haven't already given them the answer for. Students feel stupid and parents complain.
This isn't universally true, but my experience with the educational system is that parents give teachers and administrators the job of teaching their children, but not the power and authority to do it well. It's not due to the teachers or government, it's the parents that hate when their children see something, then ask questions they can't answer without questioning their own beliefs.
YMMV.
#14
Tiger Tsang
Tiger Tsang
Not religion, but related I believe
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
#15
Necronic
They = Evangelicals
Pretty straitforward pronoun/antecedant
Necronic
I don't know where you got the idea I'm only talking about evangelicals. And if you don't know where I got the idea that people only want straight facts being taught, spend some time as a teacher and listen to parent complaints.
Evangelical = AntecedantA lot of responses I have heard from this article have focused on the evangelicals, and in particular that quote. But really they have nothing to do with this.
They = Evangelicals
Their, they = EvangelicalsNo, their mentality has everything to do with this. They think nothing should be taught in schools except straight facts
Pretty straitforward pronoun/antecedant
#16
Tress
Tress
EDIT: Nevermind, it's too early and I'm just being cranky.
Whatever the confusion was, I was just arguing a larger point about people in this country. Sorry if it got mixed up.
Whatever the confusion was, I was just arguing a larger point about people in this country. Sorry if it got mixed up.
#17
Necronic
Necronic
np. I was goading you a bit.
Anyways, you're right about there being a pretty complex argument going on in this country about what should and shouldn't be in schools. I think it's unavoidable really since there is a limited amount of time and a growing amount of knowledge that should be imparted. And different people will always have different goals for their children.
Myself, I go back and forth. Sometimes I think I would rather my kids spend 90% of their time learning science and math, and I would spend my personal time teaching them art, history, and english. Then I think the other way, because I specialize in science and math and could teach them that myself.
But at the end of the day it's up to parents themselves to flesh out the full lesson. My parents were active in getting me involved in music lessons and sports when I was young. I'm glad they did.
But either way, the point here isn't about quality and diversity of content. It's about whether or not something like Yoga can truly be secularized enough to allow it in a school. Eastern religions are so different from western religions in how many things are loosely associated with it. Even a tea ceremony or flower arrangement has religious roots.
Anyways, you're right about there being a pretty complex argument going on in this country about what should and shouldn't be in schools. I think it's unavoidable really since there is a limited amount of time and a growing amount of knowledge that should be imparted. And different people will always have different goals for their children.
Myself, I go back and forth. Sometimes I think I would rather my kids spend 90% of their time learning science and math, and I would spend my personal time teaching them art, history, and english. Then I think the other way, because I specialize in science and math and could teach them that myself.
But at the end of the day it's up to parents themselves to flesh out the full lesson. My parents were active in getting me involved in music lessons and sports when I was young. I'm glad they did.
But either way, the point here isn't about quality and diversity of content. It's about whether or not something like Yoga can truly be secularized enough to allow it in a school. Eastern religions are so different from western religions in how many things are loosely associated with it. Even a tea ceremony or flower arrangement has religious roots.
#18
jwhouk
jwhouk
Good read on the idea would be Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know - and Doesn't.