Maybe it's just me (but I hope not)...
According to this link, teaching yoga in schools is a violation of the separation of church and state. In Colorado, parents "argued that yoga's Hindu roots conflicted with Christian teachings and that using it in school might violate the separation of church and state."
Given the fact that I've done no research at all in this matter and never take any article at face value, I don't see how they can prove that yoga in schools has a benefit, but I also don't see how it can somehow influence a bunch of students to become Hindu especially if you change all of the terminology and focus only on breathing and stretching. At that point, would it help to call it something other than yoga? Is it the word that conjures up some sort of image or idea?
Now, the boy believes that yoga shouldn't be taught in school because it's too touchy-feely. It has nothing to do with religion to him. He'd rather be running, but he's a boy (also a boy who hasn't run since high school). Remembering back to high school, we studied Hatha yoga, but it was an elective and a female-only class. I loved it. It was basically a gym class I could actually get an A in. We got extra credit for sleeping because it proved we reached a higher state of relaxation (um, it's called having an 8 o'clock gym class).
On a broader note, if it is an elective, is that the loophole? If you can opt out of taking it, it's somehow permissable - like saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is optional? For another discussion point, the majority of the songs we sang in Choir in high school were religious like the "Hallelujah" Chorus. We performed that every year to a sold-out crowd three days in a row for five shows, and I'd say more than half of the chorus class didn't even believe in Jesus. OK, to clarify, I was in the band, but we accompanied the Choir. I quit Choir the moment I realized I couldn't actually sing. I also imagine there are schools in the country where the "Hallelujah" Chorus isn't allowed to be performed as well. Or take a look at literature. There are plenty of references to God or religion in literature. Hm, literature is always up for discussion though, and it's really (as I'm researching a topic that warrants its own post).
There's just a fine line, or rather a blurry line between the church and state rule. I don't think they can ever be completely separated. Plus, any time religion gets involved in a debate, no one is going to win. Everybody thinks he or she is on the right side. That's why he or she chose that religion/denomination. I try very hard to see everybody's view before I make a decision (this doesn't mean I do, but I try). Personally, I like some objection to my own beliefs and religion because it allows me to learn my own better. On the other hand, the extended inlaws are the type of fundamentalists who use opposition as a way to skew their religion and tell us all we're going to Hell. My belief is that I don't believe I am, and even if I do, it's not their place to judge, but I digress (again).
All I'm trying to say is that I don't see why we have to vote against having a class where students can nap for an A.
Given the fact that I've done no research at all in this matter and never take any article at face value, I don't see how they can prove that yoga in schools has a benefit, but I also don't see how it can somehow influence a bunch of students to become Hindu especially if you change all of the terminology and focus only on breathing and stretching. At that point, would it help to call it something other than yoga? Is it the word that conjures up some sort of image or idea?
Now, the boy believes that yoga shouldn't be taught in school because it's too touchy-feely. It has nothing to do with religion to him. He'd rather be running, but he's a boy (also a boy who hasn't run since high school). Remembering back to high school, we studied Hatha yoga, but it was an elective and a female-only class. I loved it. It was basically a gym class I could actually get an A in. We got extra credit for sleeping because it proved we reached a higher state of relaxation (um, it's called having an 8 o'clock gym class).
On a broader note, if it is an elective, is that the loophole? If you can opt out of taking it, it's somehow permissable - like saying "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is optional? For another discussion point, the majority of the songs we sang in Choir in high school were religious like the "Hallelujah" Chorus. We performed that every year to a sold-out crowd three days in a row for five shows, and I'd say more than half of the chorus class didn't even believe in Jesus. OK, to clarify, I was in the band, but we accompanied the Choir. I quit Choir the moment I realized I couldn't actually sing. I also imagine there are schools in the country where the "Hallelujah" Chorus isn't allowed to be performed as well. Or take a look at literature. There are plenty of references to God or religion in literature. Hm, literature is always up for discussion though, and it's really (as I'm researching a topic that warrants its own post).
There's just a fine line, or rather a blurry line between the church and state rule. I don't think they can ever be completely separated. Plus, any time religion gets involved in a debate, no one is going to win. Everybody thinks he or she is on the right side. That's why he or she chose that religion/denomination. I try very hard to see everybody's view before I make a decision (this doesn't mean I do, but I try). Personally, I like some objection to my own beliefs and religion because it allows me to learn my own better. On the other hand, the extended inlaws are the type of fundamentalists who use opposition as a way to skew their religion and tell us all we're going to Hell. My belief is that I don't believe I am, and even if I do, it's not their place to judge, but I digress (again).
All I'm trying to say is that I don't see why we have to vote against having a class where students can nap for an A.