B.C. voters open to meditation, Christian prayer — but not indigenous ceremonies in public schools: poll

[blackbird]

This article on National Post shows people are divided over what religious practices public schools in B.C. should.  The think the School Act says public schools should be secular but some school boards have been negligent in following that law to the letter.

Quote 

Quote

 

Many British Columbians are open to allowing both mindfulness meditation and Christian prayer in public schools, according to a poll conducted for Postmedia News.

There is little enthusiasm, though, for First Nations prayers or “smudging” ceremonies, with more opposed than favouring the practices, which have recently been the subject of legal action in B.C.

(...snip...)

 

Instead of allowing religious practices in schools, a strong majority of British Columbians — three in four — told Mainstreet Research they “believe public school students should take courses about the major world religions.”

 

   Unquote

 I am opposed to native smudging ceremonies being permitted in public schools.  Also oppose so-called "meditation" being allowed.  Mediation is supported by the Dalaii Lama group, which is Budhist.   Meditation is Budhist or Hindu.  I disagree with those that claim it is benign.   It is a religious exercise the can I believe move students to forms of budhism or hinduism which is rampant in America.  I believe there is a connection between radical environmentalism and eastern religions.  There is also a connection between radical environmentalism and smudging ceremonies because native religion has historically been animism.  That is a belief that there is spirit or god(s) in all of nature and the material world, animals, bird, fish, plants, and all of creation.  This false belief means mother earth must be worshipped and it is elevated above everything else.  So I don't want to see religious practices in schools that would somehow lend itself to these beliefs that would harm our political-social structure and place undue emphasis on things at the expense of the growth of the economy and a normal society.

 

Edited April 16, 2017 by kimmy
trimmed excessive quote

[Michael Hardner]

There are about 50 things wrong with this information.

What does "in school" mean specifically?

What is "normal" society?

If you are going to direct the conversation about public education, you need to be able to be objective and to compromise.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

There are about 50 things wrong with this information.

What does "in school" mean specifically?

What is "normal" society?

If you are going to direct the conversation about public education, you need to be able to be objective and to compromise.

The only real takeaway from the above is the widening gulf between the political classes and their devotion to Islam, and the people, whose suspicion of and distrust is profound and growing.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

My questions, though.

[Rue]

Actually Blackbird meditation is not just Buddhist or Hindu. Meditation is used in ALL religions. Also Buddhism is not a religion. Like Taoism its a philosophy. There's no reference to a Diety and worshipping the diety.

You should be aware Christian monks meditate. Nuns meditate. Christian clergy meditate.

Meditation is not in itself a religious doctrine. Its a breathing exercise. Its non denominational. Its simply an exercise in learning to lower blood pressure and controlling breathing to relieve stress. The so called emptying of the mind is just a way to calm down in layman terms. Its been proven by Western medicine to have valuable applications for people with chronic pain or stress, anxiety, heart disease, cancer, etc.

Now on the topic. I have always argued,  there is no such thing as being a little pregnant in a public school.. The moment you allow one faith belief in a public school, you can't stop there. You have to allow all or you become unfair.

Now me I believe there should be a theology class taught to students in public schools comparing all religions and teaching the basics of all religions to promote tolerance.

However I believe religious practices should not be part of a public curriculum or school it should remain neutral to all.

If you are religious then send your child to a private school. If you want you child to have religious traditional upbringing you can send him to public school and then a church or religious school AFTER school.

That said, the Smudging ceremony again is non denominational. Its not really about imposing any belief. Its a ceremony to cleanse that applies to anyone.

I personally in old buildings where people have died and been tortured and hurt etc., believe smudging ceremonies are important.  Again call me strange but I have seen old buildings with bad deaths that have happened in them and the smudging ceremonies or other equivalent religious ceremonies seem to have some positive effect on paranormal activity. Is that mind over matter? Is that all the mind projecting things? I leave that to spiritualists and scientists to deal with but I have as a hobby spent a lot of time in haunted homes or buildings with dark events such as old schools and jails, and cleansing the buildings with such ceremonies-well something is going on to calm things that is all I will say. I believe there is a lot of energy out there on many levels that can impact on us positively or negatively.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, blackbird said:

This article on National Post shows people are divided over what religious practices public schools in B.C. should.  The think the School Act says public schools should be secular but some school boards have been negligent in following that law to the letter.

Quote 

   Unquote

 I am opposed to native smudging ceremonies being permitted in public schools.  Also oppose so-called "meditation" being allowed.  Mediation is supported by the Dalaii Lama group, which is Budhist.   Meditation is Budhist or Hindu.  I disagree with those that claim it is benign.   It is a religious exercise the can I believe move students to forms of budhism or hinduism which is rampant in America.  I believe there is a connection between radical environmentalism and eastern religions.  There is also a connection between radical environmentalism and smudging ceremonies because native religion has historically been animism.  That is a belief that there is spirit or god(s) in all of nature and the material world, animals, bird, fish, plants, and all of creation.  This false belief means mother earth must be worshipped and it is elevated above everything else.  So I don't want to see religious practices in schools that would somehow lend itself to these beliefs that would harm our political-social structure and place undue emphasis on things at the expense of the growth of the economy and a normal society.

 

As the old saying goes "we all send our children to school to learn how to read, write and do arithmetic", and maybe a couple of real more important studies. But religion should never be one of them. Religion should be left up to the parents to decide if they want their children to practice some religion or not, not the schools. And since they pretty much kicked out the Christian religion from pretty much all public schools, then there should be no religion of any kind taught in any public school at all. And especially multiculturalism and diversity teaching should never be allowed in public schools at all. If some parents want their children to learn about other cultures then send them somewhere where they can do this. School should not be a place for brainwashing kids that are too young to know what is going on or why. Works for me. 

[Michael Hardner]

So no private Christian clubs allowed then ?

[Moonlight Graham]

There shouldn't be any religion practiced in public schools & classrooms on school .  Religious clubs outside of the classroom led by and based on voluntary involvement of students during their own spare time I think is ok.

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

There shouldn't be any religion practiced in public schools & classrooms on school .  Religious clubs outside of the classroom led by and based on voluntary involvement of students during their own spare time I think is ok.

Thanks for answering the question.  There are two others on the thread who haven't answered whether private Christian clubs should be allowed in the school system.

[eyeball]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

This false belief means mother earth must be worshipped and it is elevated above everything else.

Whatever else it means I think elevating our planet above everything else is a perfectly sane and rational thing to want to do.  Buddhism is as much a form of psychology as anything.  

I think Christianity suicidally diminishes the importance of our planet with the ridiculous belief that it just doesn't matter to us because God has made us a new one in Heaven. It's insane.

[Rue]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thanks for answering the question.  There are two others on the thread who haven't answered whether private Christian clubs should be allowed in the school system.

Man you changed that a bit. See if its not imposed by the school itself, but is a private club where no one is forced to join and its done after school hours not during school hours I am hesitant to give a blanket no. A lof of religious organizations rent public schools on the weekend or after school to teach religious classes and ethnic groups do cultural and language classes. Its a money maker for the schools. I don't think anyone has an issue with that.  I would think that is o.k. I mean I don't think that  detracts from keeping he school and its public curriculum neutral. Tell you where I am uncomfortable. With due respect to Muslims because I genuinely mean no insult, but when they ask for a prayer room mid day or five times a day or to use public washrooms as cleansing ritual sites, it sets a precedent that other people of other religions should also use the school during school hours for denominational and exclusive reasons as well so no  I am not comfortable with that for any religion.

You use a school during school hours for one religious ceremony then  you have to do it with all.

If you are saying private religious clubs after hours Michael, no issue-during school hours, yes. Interestingly a lot of Catholic schools will rent out their class rooms after hours to many religious and ethnic groups for use. Hey if it helps generate revenue why not? They hold elections in schools, why not that as well?

Edited April 17, 2017 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Rue said:

1) Man you changed that a bit. See if its not imposed by the school itself, but is a private club where no one is forced to join and its done after school hours not during school hours I am hesitant to give a blanket no.  

2) If you are saying private religious clubs after hours Michael, no issue-during school hours, yes. 

1) I asked this first: "What does "in school" mean specifically?"

Then when taxme refused to clarify, for his own reasons, i asked specifically about private clubs.

2) Spares and lunch hour is fine with me.

[Argus]

On 2017-04-17 at 10:35 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Thanks for answering the question.  There are two others on the thread who haven't answered whether private Christian clubs should be allowed in the school system.

Here's my instinctive reaction. I don't have a problem with Christian clubs because I consider them, while not for me, to simply be interests that others might have, like chess or the science club. My instinctive reaction to Muslim religious organizations is that these are middle east based beliefs, values and ideas, and that those who engage in them are not a part of my community, are in fact, setting themselves apart on purpose, as not a part of the community, but as people with entirely different values  and an entirely different culture - 'the other' in our midst, as it were, rejecting our own values and beliefs.

This is an instinctive reaction and I recognize it is not intellectually sustainable. However, it arises from decades of exposure to the religious brutality and religious violence of this particular group, to decades of seeing so many members of this group commit violent outrages, largely against helpless civilians, across the world, and reading and seeing of their opinions on values which are extraordinarily hostile to my own, and the kind of values I want members of my community to hold. And while it is incorrect to reject all Muslims on that basis it is also incorrect to suggest a lot of them don't hold those views very tightly.

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Here's my instinctive reaction. I don't have a problem with Christian clubs because I consider them, while not for me, to simply be interests that others might have, like chess or the science club. My instinctive reaction to Muslim religious organizations is that these are middle east based beliefs, values and ideas, and that those who engage in them are not a part of my community, are in fact, setting themselves apart on purpose, as not a part of the community, but as people with entirely different values  and an entirely different culture - 'the other' in our midst, as it were, rejecting our own values and beliefs.

This is an instinctive reaction and I recognize it is not intellectually sustainable. However, it arises from decades of exposure to the religious brutality and religious violence of this particular group, to decades of seeing so many members of this group commit violent outrages, largely against helpless civilians, across the world, and reading and seeing of their opinions on values which are extraordinarily hostile to my own, and the kind of values I want members of my community to hold. And while it is incorrect to reject all Muslims on that basis it is also incorrect to suggest a lot of them don't hold those views very tightly.

Ok, then.what is your intellectually sustainable answer ?  I appreciate your nuanced answer especially the last sentence.

[Argus]

50 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, then.what is your intellectually sustainable answer ?  I appreciate your nuanced answer especially the last sentence.

Specifically on the question of Muslim's having rooms in schools to pray there really is no question out here. It's required by law. So <shrug>.

But I would be more comfortable with saying "no religion at schools". Schools should be a communal thing, and are especially import today as a place where so many people from so many cultures and religions mix freely. I don't think anything is served by having them all go off to their private religious observances together as they will wind up making friends with each other, hanging out together, and inevitably forming religious based cliques. For the same reason, I don't believe there ought to be any racial/ethnic based clubs at public schools either, right up through university.

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Specifically on the question of Muslim's having rooms in schools to pray there really is no question out here. It's required by law. So <shrug>.

2) But I would be more comfortable with saying "no religion at schools". Schools should be a communal thing, and are especially import today as a place where so many people from so many cultures and religions mix freely. I don't think anything is served by having them all go off to their private religious observances together as they will wind up making friends with each other, hanging out together, and inevitably forming religious based cliques. For the same reason, I don't believe there ought to be any racial/ethnic based clubs at public schools either, right up through university.

1) Why shrug ?  Do you think that Canada should have a state religion ?  It could be done - do you want that or not ?

2) You should ask a teacher if there are religious cliques.  I have no idea but I suspect not.  I am ok with an Irish club.  Why not celebrate diversity ?

[Argus]

.oN

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) You should ask a teacher if there are religious cliques.  I have no idea but I suspect not.

No and no.

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I am ok with an Irish club.  Why not celebrate diversity ?

Because diversity destroys nations. There has never been a diverse nation state which survived without civil war. Most don't survive at all unless one group can successfully suppress the other group(s). Even in Europe, the most civilized place in the world, the only states which had major groupings of ethnic minorities and did not fully integrate them wound up engaged in terrorism and guerrilla warfare almost up to this day. Hell, you can see this even where the groups aren't particularly distinctive, such as the Scots and Irish who want out of the UK. You also see violent separatists and a history of guerrilla and terrorist warfare in France, Spain and other parts of Europe. The Czechs and Slovaks couldn't stay together, and Belgium is an absolute, nearly ungovernable mess.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

 There has never been a diverse nation state which survived without civil war 

That's pretty meaningless.  And "without civil war" seems to be tagged on to specifically make the United States look like a failure.   

[Argus]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's pretty meaningless.  And "without civil war" seems to be tagged on to specifically make the United States look like a failure.   

Maybe you'd like to show me the long list of multi ethnic nations which have survived through the centuries. I can't think of any offhand. I can think of plenty who dissolved into civil war, or at least, had long, bitter struggles between the different religious and ethnic communities. People are instinctively tribal. If you give them an 'other' within their community with significantly different values and beliefs you are asking for trouble.

As for the US, they continue to this day to struggle with the multi-ethnic makeup of their country, with a growing divide between them.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

It's meaningless, as countries tend to align along cultural lines, and any country that has been around at least a century has had some kind of civil war.

America was built on pluralism and diversity and it is the strongest and most successful country in history.

[hot enough]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And "without civil war" seems to be tagged on to specifically make the United States look like a failure.   

What the hell? The USA has been mentioned nowhere on this whole thread until you said it, Michael, right out of the blue.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's meaningless, as countries tend to align along cultural lines, and any country that has been around at least a century has had some kind of civil war.

America was built on pluralism and diversity and it is the strongest and most successful country in history.

America was born on the grounds of the melting pot, where a wide variety of white Christian Europeans would arrive, 'learn the language' and assimilate. Everything it accomplished has been with that as a process. Blacks were mostly not even allowed to vote until after Kennedy was dead. As they have successfully agitated for more representation and power and as the number of Hispanics, Muslims and others entering the US has continued you've seen communities becoming more and more divided against themselves. Donald Trump would never have come to power in the 1960s. He was the last desperate hail mary pass of the blue collar white community before they get politically outnumbered by minorities. And as they've sensed this coming you've seen them forming into militias and the like - which again, is something that just wouldn't have been imagined in the 1960s. I'm sure I'm not alone in seeing major internal violence in their future.

Edited April 19, 2017 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What the hell? The USA has been mentioned nowhere on this whole thread until you said it, Michael, right out of the blue.

Without that, the sentence has a glaring error in that it has missed one example: the USA.

 

[Michael Hardner]

I am drifting the thread again.  This is about the BC issue.  I'll post my reply elsewhere.

[hot enough]

17 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Without that, the sentence has a glaring error in that it has missed one example: the USA.

 

One example of what, another failure of the type that Argus was pointing out?