NationStates Jolt Archive

found this.
and was wondering what you all thought about it.

North Carolina Christians allege elementary school promoted New Age beliefs
The Associated Press
Last Updated 10:53 am PDT Thursday, October 6, 2005
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - Called2Action, an activist Christian group, says stress-reduction classes at a Raleigh elementary school promote "New Age" beliefs, providing school-sponsored religious activity barred by the Constitution.

But Emily Diane Gunter of the Rites of Passage Youth Empowerment Foundation says she merely enhances students' learning practices and "I don't do anybody's religion."

Called2Action said children at Partnership Elementary School were asked to do breathing exercises, chant and use their "life forces," The News & Observer reported.

The Christian group wrote Wake County Schools Superintendent Bill McNeal and school board members asking them to bar such a "spiritual and religious program." School attorneys are reviewing the request.

Christian parents are concerned that "they're teaching things opposite to your faith," said Called2Action chairman Steve Noble, and that violates the First Amendment's ban on public "establishment of religion."

A Web site says Gunter's foundation seeks peace through "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth." It notes Gunter's spiritual pilgrimage to Tibet and Nepal, where she wrote "A Rite of Passage to Spiritual Enlightenment: Living with Compassion."



My first thought was that it was hilarious. I mean so many people accuse Christians of trying to abolish the separation of church and state, and here we have Christians trying to keep what they see as a class that is promoting a religion out of school.


My second thought was that, this group probably wouldn't be doing anything if it was a class that taught what they believe. and that is sad. :(


so anyway. Separation of Church and State.

should anything spiritual at all be banned from schools? (ie teachers can't lead students to do it, not that there can't be prayer like on recess or something if the student is doing it on his/her own)

or do we really have to define what is a religion and what isn't, just because it makes some uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be stopped?

Damn You And Your Subscription Services!!!!

Damn You And Your Subscription Services!!!!
subscription? I am not subscribed hold on I will quote it.

subscription? I am not subscribed hold on I will quote it.
Thankys :D

Thankys :D
Oh no, thank you for pointing it out. I felt so dumb. ;)

As long as it's just breathing and concentration exercises I think it's ok. If they start to introduce a philosophy or an ideology, then I'd say that's where it should stop.

And, yes, it's hilarious.

How boring. If they really wanted to reduce the student's stress, they'd give them a playstation or let them listen to music for an hour, rather than doing that meditation crap.

I had a Christian teacher when i was back in high school that was formerly a nun (or something...whatever the anglican version is) and she pushed that stuff on the class. Beat that, a new age Christian!

Anyway. I have nothing against slacking off, but please make it fun. Meditation? pfft. Might as well go to sleep for an hour.

If you allow one religious class (and New Age beliefs are a form of religion), then all religions should be free to have classes. And people should be free to opt out of them.

That would be the most fair thing.

But if you're not going to allow a Christian class, then no other religious class should be allowed either.

We have that problem around here - school districts making allowances for Muslim observances, but eliminating all references to Christian observances.

Personally, I think everyone should be allowed to do their thing, and have their optional class.

As long as it's just breathing and concentration exercises I think it's ok. If they start to introduce a philosophy or an ideology, then I'd say that's where it should stop.

And, yes, it's hilarious.
yeah I think they are upset about the whole "using your lifeforces" thing. I don't have much information because the article is soo short, but I get the idea that they are doing more than breathing exercises.

Breathing and chanting? Sounds like phys. ed. to me. Yes, pretty funny. I say let them keep doing it, as long as they are not promoting religion...any type of religion.

I fail to see anything religious in meditation. It's basically an autogenic exercise of mind, a technique of concentration and relaxation. It's not affiliated to religion in my eyes.

On the other hand, that article says to little about what precisely was taught in those classes, so it's hard to say if the teacher crossed the line from mind exercise and spirituality into religion. If she did, I would advise her to alter her classes to exclude that.

And yes, it is a pity that the very same group would have shouted "Hosianna" if the class wasn't called Stress Reduction but Power through Prayer ...

I can't read the article, but I can easily imagine Christian fundamentalists objecting to any indirect reference to spirituality lest it be pagan.

I can also imagine pressure on Religious Education classes in future for giving equal time to the major non-Christian religions. "America is a Christian Country" and all that BS. A couple more Republican victories, and I can see that happening somewhere.

I can't read the article, but I can easily imagine Christian fundamentalists objecting to any indirect reference to spirituality lest it be pagan.

I can also imagine pressure on Religious Education classes in future for giving equal time to the major non-Christian religions. "America is a Christian Country" and all that BS. A couple more Republican victories, and I can see that happening somewhere.

Not "lest it be pagan". Lest it be another religion.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, Muslims get their own prayer room, meet five times a day (depending on how long they're in school) and have group prayer aloud.

No one else in the school is allowed to do group prayer, supervised or unsupervised, and no special room is set aside for anyone else's religion.

If you pray over your food at lunch, and someone hears you, they can report you to the school administration - unless you're a Muslim.

Either everyone gets a room, and gets to pray out loud, and in groups, or no one should.

I can live with it either way.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, Muslims get their own prayer room, meet five times a day (depending on how long they're in school) and have group prayer aloud.

No one else in the school is allowed to do group prayer, supervised or unsupervised, and no special room is set aside for anyone else's religion.

If you pray over your food at lunch, and someone hears you, they can report you to the school administration - unless you're a Muslim.

Either everyone gets a room, and gets to pray out loud, and in groups, or no one should.
In my 6th Form College here in the UK (ages 16-18), my maths classroom was used at lunchtimes by both the Christian Union and the Islamic Society for religious activities. They shared the lunch hour, one group being scheduled for the first half, the other for the second. I was with the (amoral atheist) Network Gaming Society playing satanic games next door.

And you know what? The arrangement worked. Damn liberal European school system. :p

Who wants to bet the same day they wrote that letter they had a public meeting about why Christian creationism should be allowed in science class.

found this.
and was wondering what you all thought about it.

My first thought was that it was hilarious. I mean so many people accuse Christians of trying to abolish the separation of church and state, and here we have Christians trying to keep what they see as a class that is promoting a religion out of school.

My second thought was that, this group probably wouldn't be doing anything if it was a class that taught what they believe. and that is sad. :(

so anyway. Separation of Church and State.

should anything spiritual at all be banned from schools? (ie teachers can't lead students to do it, not that there can't be prayer like on recess or something if the student is doing it on his/her own) or do we really have to define what is a religion and what isn't, just because it makes some uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be stopped?
Teaching a particular religion is verboten in public schools. Teaching about religion is not. The activities mentioned in the article seem to be teaching aspects of a particular religion. What the school should consider is a class where various religious bleifes are studied and discussed, but not where aspects of particular religions are taught as components of a course of instruction.

In my 6th Form College here in the UK (ages 16-18), my maths classroom was used at lunchtimes by both the Christian Union and the Islamic Society for religious activities. They shared the lunch hour, one group being scheduled for the first half, the other for the second. I was with the (amoral atheist) Network Gaming Society playing satanic games next door.

And you know what? The arrangement worked. Damn liberal European school system. :p

That is liberalism I can stomach.... Unfortuneatly, in the US, we more often get saddled with some form a "neo-liberalism" whereby "liberal" is defined and controled by whoever is in power. Rather than being "liberal" in the sense you guys see.

While it might be ok to teach breathing/concentration excercises, telling kids to "focus their life force" is merging on the spiritual side. If the teacher made it clear that that's just a metaphor that might be ok, but I doubt that is happening. New Age is just as much a religious platform as the Christian Right, and they often combine (Christian Scientists, anyone?). Both are to a great extent unprovable and to a certain extent disproven, and both posit their actions as having effects on a world beyond mechanistic nature. Both are religious, and both are banned by separation of church and state.

Who wants to bet the same day they wrote that letter they had a public meeting about why Christian creationism should be allowed in science class.
XDDD!!! I bet you are right!!! A lot of them seem to think that things are only right if you agree with them...

Teaching a particular religion is verboten in public schools. Teaching about religion is not. The activities mentioned in the article seem to be teaching aspects of a particular religion. What the school should consider is a class where various religious bleifes are studied and discussed, but not where aspects of particular religions are taught as components of a course of instruction.
ah but isn't leading the children in chanting to thier spirit people (or whatever) just the same as leading them in prayer. ( I don't know if that is happening here, I am just using it for the sake of the arguement)

teaching about a religion should take place out of a text book not in participation exercises, besides they are not learning about this, they are doing it. If the school wanted to have a religion class where all major religions would be covered without bias, then I don't think there would be a problem. the problem comes in when teachers are leading students in an activity that some find religious.

Either everyone gets a room, and gets to pray out loud, and in groups, or no one should.

I can live with it either way.
Yup. To allow one group to practice their religion while restricting others is just plain wrong.

ah but isn't leading the children in chanting to thier spirit people (or whatever) just the same as leading them in prayer. ( I don't know if that is happening here, I am just using it for the sake of the arguement)

teaching about a religion should take place out of a text book not in participation exercises, besides they are not learning about this, they are doing it. If the school wanted to have a religion class where all major religions would be covered without bias, then I don't think there would be a problem. the problem comes in when teachers are leading students in an activity that some find religious.

I think if most religions were accurately represented and kids could opt out then including demonstrations of relevant practices would be fine. The problem comes when only one belief/observance is being taught or when it is taught as being right, both of which seem to be happening there.

I think if most religions were accurately represented and kids could opt out then including demonstrations of relevant practices would be fine. The problem comes when only one belief/observance is being taught or when it is taught as being right, both of which seem to be happening there.
I agree.

I can't help wondering... are there any Christian stress-relief practices?

I can't help wondering... are there any Christian stress-relief practices?

Why do you think they pray? Most don't actually think they'll get something out of it.

I can't help wondering... are there any Christian stress-relief practices?
sure there is, prayer.

ah but isn't leading the children in chanting to thier spirit people (or whatever) just the same as leading them in prayer. ( I don't know if that is happening here, I am just using it for the sake of the arguement)

teaching about a religion should take place out of a text book not in participation exercises, besides they are not learning about this, they are doing it. If the school wanted to have a religion class where all major religions would be covered without bias, then I don't think there would be a problem. the problem comes in when teachers are leading students in an activity that some find religious.

I don't know if this counts as participation exercises but in our R.E class we have acted out various rituals from different religions. And they did help you learn the facts far better. It was all voluntary of course. In another class the next year we learnt from a textbook, everyone hated it and did far worse. It isn't leading anyone in prayer (though we do have that as well and I'm strongly against it) or actually practicing a religion; it's just a better way of learning by being involved.

This isn't the same as the situation in the original post at all and isn't necessarily what you were talking about but just thought I'd say that you can do similar things without it being biased or actually forcing someone into a religious ritual.

I think if most religions were accurately represented and kids could opt out then including demonstrations of relevant practices would be fine. The problem comes when only one belief/observance is being taught or when it is taught as being right, both of which seem to be happening there.

The only thing I disagree with is being able to opt out. They can opt out of being involved in any demonstrations but I think learning about other religions is vital in education.

I don't know if this counts as participation exercises but in our R.E class we have acted out various rituals from different religions. And they did help you learn the facts far better. It was all voluntary of course. In another class the next year we learnt from a textbook, everyone hated it and did far worse. It isn't leading anyone in prayer (though we do have that as well and I'm strongly against it) or actually practicing a religion; it's just a better way of learning by being involved.

This isn't the same as the situation in the original post at all and isn't necessarily what you were talking about but just thought I'd say that you can do similar things without it being biased or actually forcing someone into a religious ritual.
okay I could live with having a religious class where you do certain rituals for education purposes only and if you wanted to opt out you could.

like you said that isn't what is happening in the original post though.

Not "lest it be pagan". Lest it be another religion.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, Muslims get their own prayer room, meet five times a day (depending on how long they're in school) and have group prayer aloud.

No one else in the school is allowed to do group prayer, supervised or unsupervised, and no special room is set aside for anyone else's religion.

If you pray over your food at lunch, and someone hears you, they can report you to the school administration - unless you're a Muslim.

Either everyone gets a room, and gets to pray out loud, and in groups, or no one should.

I can live with it either way. Get your kids to pray at lunchtimes. If they're anything like me, they'll do it just to see what happens.

Just based on what is said in the article, I see no religion being taught at all. Breathing exercises, chanting, even the use of the word "lifeforce" are not necessarily reliigous in nature. If they were talking about spirit cyrstals or trying to cast spells, you might say it was religious teaching. If all the chants used are specific to a given religion and they are used as if they are all there is, it might be a problem. If "lifeforce" is taught to be a principle of a specific religion, it might be a problem. From what is described, it's a bit odd, but not religious in nature.

In a class in my elementary school, we would listen to relaxation tapes and practice breathing exercises. There was nothing at all religious or spiritual about it - it was much more about relaxing and being aware of your own physical body.

It wasn't in any way incompatible with any religion.

Meanwhile, the idea that teaching anything that is incompatible with a given religion is a problem under the first amendment was struck down a long time ago, when the court decided that states could not ban the teaching of evolution just because some people found it to be incompatible with their religious beliefs.

Just based on what is said in the article, I see no religion being taught at all. Breathing exercises, chanting, even the use of the word "lifeforce" are not necessarily reliigous in nature. If they were talking about spirit cyrstals or trying to cast spells, you might say it was religious teaching. If all the chants used are specific to a given religion and they are used as if they are all there is, it might be a problem. If "lifeforce" is taught to be a principle of a specific religion, it might be a problem. From what is described, it's a bit odd, but not religious in nature.

In a class in my elementary school, we would listen to relaxation tapes and practice breathing exercises. There was nothing at all religious or spiritual about it - it was much more about relaxing and being aware of your own physical body.

It wasn't in any way incompatible with any religion.

Meanwhile, the idea that teaching anything that is incompatible with a given religion is a problem under the first amendment was struck down a long time ago, when the court decided that states could not ban the teaching of evolution just because some people found it to be incompatible with their religious beliefs.

These breathing techniques, relaxation exercises, and CHANTS are the foundation of various New Age religions. The fact that they use the term "life force" connected with this practice removes any remaining doubt. There is no scientific basis for "focusing your life force", there is only a religious basis. It is obviously wrong, just as wrong as leading kids in prayer, buddhist meditation, or any other religious activity.

These breathing techniques, relaxation exercises, and CHANTS are the foundation of various New Age religions.

Meditation is one of the foundations of many eastern religions. That doesn't make meditation, in and of itself, religious.

The fact that they use the term "life force" connected with this practice removes any remaining doubt.

Not really. It is not a term confined to religion - or to any particular religion. Would you have a problem with a school using the word sacrifice just because it is prevalent in many religions?

There is no scientific basis for "focusing your life force",

There have been studies that suggest meditation and focus to be quite helpful to people.

Meanwhile, the article didn't say that this was being taught in a science class, so the idea of whether or not it is scientific is irrelevant.

It is obviously wrong, just as wrong as leading kids in prayer, buddhist meditation, or any other religious activity.

Leading kids in prayer is inherently religious. Leading kids in a Buddhist-specific meditation would be religious. Leading kids in religion, in chants, or in breathing exercise is not inherently religious. If you try to back it up with religion, that is a problem. If it is simply guided meditation, breathing excercises, and chants - it's really more psychology than anything else.

These breathing techniques, relaxation exercises, and CHANTS are the foundation of various New Age religions. The fact that they use the term "life force" connected with this practice removes any remaining doubt. There is no scientific basis for "focusing your life force", there is only a religious basis. It is obviously wrong, just as wrong as leading kids in prayer, buddhist meditation, or any other religious activity.
Well, breathing, the repetition of sounds and other activities of this kind DO help you relax, which in turn help your focus and concentration.

Of course, it has nothing to do with a "lifeforce" or any other such nonsense, but to the simple fact that when you're relaxed, unstressed, and get some blood moving through your brain, you can think more clearly.

I've done meditation type things in school before. It was by an R.E teacher (my form tutor) and in an R.E room but I don't think I ever related it to religion once. It was simply to relax. In this case it may have been religious but meditiation in the simple form of breathing exercises and calming thoughts etc isn't fundamentally religious.

And I'm not religious at all, if that makes a difference.

Not really. It is not a term confined to religion - or to any particular religion. Would you have a problem with a school using the word sacrifice just because it is prevalent in many religions?

but God is a pretty general term too and people are throwing a big fit about the "under God" part of the pledge.

the main reason that I keep hearing is that it makes non-religious students uncomfortable, well doing anything related to thier 'life force' could make many students uncomfortable too, so what is the difference?

"A Web site says Gunter's foundation seeks peace through "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth." It notes Gunter's spiritual pilgrimage to Tibet and Nepal, where she wrote "A Rite of Passage to Spiritual Enlightenment: Living with Compassion." "

this passage made me a little suspicous(sp) about the underlying motives, so just paased off of the quoted article I voted that it would fall under the the juristiction of seperation of church and states.

I would however like to have more info before coming to any solid conclusion.

British schools have done this sort of thing (whether the particular incident was religious or not isn't my point). Four years back in a primary school in Cambridge, the teachers gathered all the children together at playtime to participate in a Buddhist prayer. I assume that's the sort of thing that you all would condemn? Well, if you would not condemn it, at least you might agree that this is a form of endorsing a particular religion in a government-controlled school. But this could be aside from the point, because it was in England...

Meditation is one of the foundations of many eastern religions. That doesn't make meditation, in and of itself, religious.

No, but when you mix it with "life force" mumbo jumbo, its obviously a religious practice.


Not really. It is not a term confined to religion - or to any particular religion. Would you have a problem with a school using the word sacrifice just because it is prevalent in many religions?

When applied to meditation practices, it is the term that turns meditation from a secular/mental practice to a spiritual/religious one. There is nothing wrong with the word sacrifice but when combined with the killing of an animal the killing is transformed from a secular act into a religious one.


There have been studies that suggest meditation and focus to be quite helpful to people.

There are also studies that suggest that prayer and faith can be quite helpful to people. This does not change the fact that it is a religious practice.


Meanwhile, the article didn't say that this was being taught in a science class, so the idea of whether or not it is scientific is irrelevant.


By using the word scientific, I was including the medical and psychiatric community. If there is no secular basis for the existence of life force (ie. there is no medical, psychologic, psychiatric, or scientific basis for its existence) then it is obviously strictly a religious belief.


Leading kids in prayer is inherently religious. Leading kids in a Buddhist-specific meditation would be religious. Leading kids in religion, in chants, or in breathing exercise is not inherently religious. If you try to back it up with religion, that is a problem. If it is simply guided meditation, breathing excercises, and chants - it's really more psychology than anything else.

Saying that leading kids in a religiously neutral meditation is not religious is like saying leading kids in a religiously neutral prayer is not religious. Even if we subscribe to your view, in this case they do back the meditation up with a religious belief, the belief in "life forces" is not a secular belief by any stretch of the imagination and is strictly a religious belief.

but God is a pretty general term too and people are throwing a big fit about the "under God" part of the pledge.

No, it isn't. There is no definition of god that is not tied to a religion. There are definitions of sacrifice and meditation that are not tied to religions.

the main reason that I keep hearing is that it makes non-religious students uncomfortable,

...and it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion, excluding atheists and polytheists.

well doing anything related to thier 'life force' could make many students uncomfortable too, so what is the difference?

In my experience, students are uncomfortable doing anything the teacher asks. If we made that the basis of education, we'd have no schools at all.

No, but when you mix it with "life force" mumbo jumbo, its obviously a religious practice.

That all depends on what you mean by "life force." If you are simply talking about willpower, it is hardly a religious term. If you are talking about some sort of soul, then it would be a religious term. There is no indication of which it was being used as.

When applied to meditation practices, it is the term that turns meditation from a secular/mental practice to a spiritual/religious one.

Or, it could simply describe the will of the person. One could say that you should focus your will - your effort - your entire being into meditation to do it properly. There is nothing inherently religious in that statement, and it very well could be what is meant by "life force."

There is nothing wrong with the word sacrifice but when combined with the killing of an animal the killing is transformed from a secular act into a religious one.

And there is nothing wrong with the word lifeforce as a secular word unless it is used to describe some concept of a soul. Good to see we agree.

By using the word scientific, I was including the medical and psychiatric community. If there is no secular basis for the existence of life force (ie. there is no medical, psychologic, psychiatric, or scientific basis for its existence) then it is obviously strictly a religious belief.

Again, it depends on exactly what is meant by lifeforce. The psychological community would probably dipsute any claim you made that a person cannot do themselves good, outside of religion, through the exertion of willpower, or by focusing their thoughts, or by using relaxation techniques.

Saying that leading kids in a religiously neutral meditation is not religious is like saying leading kids in a religiously neutral prayer is not religious.

Incorrect. Meditation is not, in and of itself, religious. You admitted this above. Are you now recanting?

Even if we subscribe to your view, in this case they do back the meditation up with a religious belief, the belief in "life forces" is not a secular belief by any stretch of the imagination and is strictly a religious belief.

Are you suggesting that you are personally aware of all possible conceptions of the word "lifeforce"? I have heard people use it in a way that is decidedly secular.

That all depends on what you mean by "life force." If you are simply talking about willpower, it is hardly a religious term. If you are talking about some sort of soul, then it would be a religious term. There is no indication of which it was being used as.

Thats true, but if they are refering to willpower, they should use that instead of a term that has other interpatations(sp).

Thats true, but if they are refering to willpower, they should use that instead of a term that has other interpatations(sp).

Every term has implications and interpretations other than those we might use. Language is leaky - which is why we have to be very, very clear what definition of a word we are using if we don't want it to get misinterpreted.

This is retarded. They're not complaining because there's "religion" in the school, they're complaining because there's religion other than theirs in the school.

Worse, right out of the gate, they're too damn stupid and/or ignorant to notice that what they're complaining about has NONE of the qualifying features that would classify it as a relgion.

(whine) but "life force" means soul! they should say "willpower"! (/whine)

No, moron. Life force means "life force". If it meant soul, it'd say "soul". And neither word or phrase has any significant resemblance to the meaning of the word "willpower".



...gah... people.

"A Web site says Gunter's foundation seeks peace through "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth." It notes Gunter's spiritual pilgrimage to Tibet and Nepal, where she wrote "A Rite of Passage to Spiritual Enlightenment: Living with Compassion." "

this passage made me a little suspicous(sp) about the underlying motives, so just paased off of the quoted article I voted that it would fall under the the juristiction of seperation of church and states.

I would however like to have more info before coming to any solid conclusion.

I also note through Gunter's site a reliance on Sacred Symbolism and Holisticism...

-snip-

I would suggest you edit that post...

found this.
and was wondering what you all thought about it.




My first thought was that it was hilarious. I mean so many people accuse Christians of trying to abolish the separation of church and state, and here we have Christians trying to keep what they see as a class that is promoting a religion out of school.


My second thought was that, this group probably wouldn't be doing anything if it was a class that taught what they believe. and that is sad. :(


so anyway. Separation of Church and State.

should anything spiritual at all be banned from schools? (ie teachers can't lead students to do it, not that there can't be prayer like on recess or something if the student is doing it on his/her own)

or do we really have to define what is a religion and what isn't, just because it makes some uncomfortable doesn't mean it should be stopped?

It is a clear violation of the seperation of Church and State. To quote the article; "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth...breathing exercises, chant and use their 'life forces,'" The spiritual and the religious are one and the same. The chanting and "life force" mumbo jumbo serves no physical education purpose.

I do however love the perfect irony of the situation. The top plank gets to see what its like on the bottom. I hope this drums into their heads the need for secularism and seperation.

in my country (portugal) we have a separate class for religion. it is optional and there are versions of it for diferent religions. there is also a Education for Personal Development class wich is less focused on religion. THey are all optional and generally have a two day or three day field trip at the end of the school year.

Every term has implications and interpretations other than those we might use. Language is leaky - which is why we have to be very, very clear what definition of a word we are using if we don't want it to get misinterpreted.
Which is why if they are using life-force to mean willpower, they should use willpower instead, it can't be misconstrued to have a religous meaning.

they can bitch about that but if they had people taking communion and saying the lords prayer they would more than likely be fighting for that to be accepted

No, it isn't. There is no definition of god that is not tied to a religion. There are definitions of sacrifice and meditation that are not tied to religions.


Sure, but this isn't one of them. When you tie some "life force" concept into it, it stops being secular. They even admit that it is "spiritual" in nature on the web site that describes this program.


That all depends on what you mean by "life force." If you are simply talking about willpower, it is hardly a religious term. If you are talking about some sort of soul, then it would be a religious term. There is no indication of which it was being used as.

We know what they mean by life force. If they meant will power they would say will power. But they couldnt possibly mean willpower to begin with because meditation does not involve focusing willpower. At least, secular meditation does not. If there is any doubt about what they mean by life force, it is settled once we examine the website associated with this program which clearly states it "seeks peace through "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth."". We can further infer what this person means by life force by noting their spiritual pilgrimage to Tibet and Nepal, and the title of her book "A Rite of Passage to Spiritual Enlightenment: Living with Compassion." Youd have to be blind or a complete idiot not to realize what this person is doing is obviously religious.



Or, it could simply describe the will of the person. One could say that you should focus your will - your effort - your entire being into meditation to do it properly. There is nothing inherently religious in that statement, and it very well could be what is meant by "life force."


One could, but then it would not be meditation for meditation is the clearing of your mind.


And there is nothing wrong with the word lifeforce as a secular word unless it is used to describe some concept of a soul. Good to see we agree.

The term life force has no secular use other than describing certain religious beliefs.


Again, it depends on exactly what is meant by lifeforce. The psychological community would probably dipsute any claim you made that a person cannot do themselves good, outside of religion, through the exertion of willpower, or by focusing their thoughts, or by using relaxation techniques.

But they would readily admit there is no such thing as "life force"

Are you suggesting that you are personally aware of all possible conceptions of the word "lifeforce"? I have heard people use it in a way that is decidedly secular.

The meaning as applied to meditation is obvious. It takes a bigger twist of logic to view the term life force as secular in the way it is being applied here than to view it as religious. Usually the simpler conclusion is the correct one. We can assume that the person who is teaching this, who admittedly believes in meditation as a religious practice, has journeyed to Tibet and Nepal on a spiritual retreat, has written books on the subject, and has always called the practice spiritual is saying the truth and the practice is, in fact spiritual and of a religious nature. Or we can assume that person lied and it wasnt spiritual at all and had nothing to do with their religion (which we know relies heavily on meditation). Take your pick, I know which one sounds more reasonable to me.

Well, if you go to a private school, then you should expect to learn about religion however, if you attend a public school, I believe you should have the choice to learn about a religion of your choice, but not the meditation and chanting nonsense. And as someone previously said, you might as well go to sleep for half and hour than meditate.

I am a Christian and I think that if you attend a Christian school (like myself) than you should have to have religious classes, but at other schools, I think that should be up to other people to invite them to church outside of school.

ahh, the infinite stupidity of chrisitians. This is not establishing a religion in schools. it is mental and physical exercises. I myself do them for stress relief. I am an athiest. So, in other words, these exercises are simply meditation, and meditation is not necessarily only involved in religion. the teacher is just attempting to help the children with stress, and what happens? Christianity happens, yet again.

I said other. It largely depends on how you define "religous classes."

ahh, the infinite stupidity of chrisitians. This is not establishing a religion in schools. it is mental and physical exercises. I myself do them for stress relief. I am an athiest. So, in other words, these exercises are simply meditation, and meditation is not necessarily only involved in religion. the teacher is just attempting to help the children with stress, and what happens? Christianity happens, yet again.
yes but when one looks at the group sponsering this, they do seem to have some religous overtones in their rhetoric.

Sure, but this isn't one of them. When you tie some "life force" concept into it, it stops being secular.

Again, I have heard that term more than once used in a secular manner.

They even admit that it is "spiritual" in nature on the web site that describes this program.

Another rather leaky term. Some people use "spiritual" to describe a sense of well-being. My flute instructor will often listen to a piece of music and talk about how "spiritual" it is. He isn't associating it with any religion, but with the emotion of the song and the sense of well-being it gives him to listen to it.

We know what they mean by life force.

What exactly do they mean then?

But they couldnt possibly mean willpower to begin with because meditation does not involve focusing willpower. At least, secular meditation does not.

Every guided meditation I have ever been in requires quite a bit of focusing of the will. They ask you to do things like, "Feel the tension coming out of your body. Feel your muscles relaxing. Focus on that from your toes to your head." Something like that really takes quite a bit of focus. Not letting your mind wander is actually rather difficult.

If there is any doubt about what they mean by life force, it is settled once we examine the website associated with this program which clearly states it "seeks peace through "the personal empowerment and spiritual development of the youth."". We can further infer what this person means by life force by noting their spiritual pilgrimage to Tibet and Nepal, and the title of her book "A Rite of Passage to Spiritual Enlightenment: Living with Compassion." Youd have to be blind or a complete idiot not to realize what this person is doing is obviously religious.

You can infer all you want, but unless you can demonstrate it, inference is useless. It's a bit like assuming - you know - the word that makes and ass out of u.

One could, but then it would not be meditation for meditation is the clearing of your mind.

Clearing your mind takes a very strong exercise of will.

The term life force has no secular use other than describing certain religious beliefs.

You keep saying this, and yet I have heard it used in a secular way - which means that it obviously has a secular use.

But they would readily admit there is no such thing as "life force"

Not really. You would have to define what you meant by lifeforce first.

The meaning as applied to meditation is obvious.

Not really. Take a look at the world around you. Everyone looks at a given subject slightly differently. Why on earth should the meaning of a word be obvious when it is unlikely that any two people consider it to mean the exact same thing?

It takes a bigger twist of logic to view the term life force as secular in the way it is being applied here than to view it as religious.

It doesn't take any twist at all. What it requires is a complete description of how the word is being used and explained to the students. Not a snippet of an article - but a complete description.

We can assume

It is rarely a good idea to assume things about people. Most often, you are wrong.

Or we can assume that person lied and it wasnt spiritual at all and had nothing to do with their religion (which we know relies heavily on meditation). Take your pick, I know which one sounds more reasonable to me.

One can teach something because of their religion, but not teach it as a religion.

A Christian teacher might say that following your own conscience is a good thing. She would most likely be thinking that your conscience is the voice of God - of the Holy Spirit - trying to lead you. However, so long as she didn't say that, she is actually teaching a secular position - that one should follow their conscience - something nearly all of society, regardless of religion, would agree with in some sense.