In dissenting from Monday’s decision, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority had gone astray by prioritizing the religious rights of a school official over those of his students, who could feel pressure to take part in religious activities.
this is the correct opinion that the court should take because the coach is still a school employee tied to the government. Because of this, he has the expectation of not putting religion into his activities as a school employee
Meyer got basic facts wrong. He concluded that EUSD removed the appearance of religion by renaming poses, giving the example that “the so-called lotus position was renamed criss-cross applesauce.” The term “criss-cross applesauce” does not appear even once in the spring 2013 yoga curriculum; the term “lotus” appears 194 times. The 2013 EUSD promotional video records a teacher instructing: “go into lotus.” Meyer believed testimony that jnanamudra was replaced by “brain highways,” a claim contradicted by defendant declarations and the video. Indeed, Meyer ignored multiple instances where defense witnesses contradicted themselves, each other, and documents they signed.
my opinion would be that the ruling would have been contradictory to the first amendment
Yes. Some refused to participate in activities that felt like prayer to them. Many kids in EUSD classes still chant Om, assume jnanamudra, close their eyes to meditate while sitting in lotus, and use Sanskrit, such as Namaste (“I bow to the god within you”) and shavasana for “resting” pose.
very religious in practice
EUSD teachers displayed posters of an eight-limbed Ashtanga tree and asana sequences taught by the “K. Pattabhi Jois Ashtanga Yoga Institute”; used a textbook, Myths of the Asanas, that explains how poses represent gods and inspire virtue; taught terminology in Sanskrit (a language sacred for Hindus); taught moral character using yamas and niyamas from the Yoga Sutras; used guided meditation and visualization scripts and taught kids to color mandalas (used in visual meditation on deities).
This would definitely violate the first amendment as the program specifically teaches about how each yoga pose represent the gods.
Meyer determined that “yoga,” including “Ashtanga” yoga, “is religious.” Nevertheless, he allowed EUSD’s yoga program to continue, since he did not think children would perceive the program as advancing or inhibiting religion. The judge found the Jois Foundation partnership “troublesome,” but did not rule that it excessively entangled government with religion.
This is a ruling that I can see the reason for but because the original intent of yoga was to create a oneness with God, I feel like allowing it to be established by a school system is suspicious.
The Jois Foundation was founded “in loving dedication” to K. P. Jois, with funding from billionaire Paul Tudor Jones whose wife Sonia is an Ashtanga devotee, to spread Ashtanga, especially to kids.
Foundation's goal was specifically to spread the religion's initial intentions
Ashtanga emphasizes postures and breathing on the premise that these practices will “automatically” lead practitioners to experience the other limbs and “become one with God,” in the words of Jois, “whether they want it or not.”
The original goal of yoga is supposed to have practioners experience a oneness with God.
he Encinitas Union School District (EUSD) accepted a $533,720 grant from the Jois Foundation to establish (to quote the signed grant) an “Ashtanga Yoga” program staffed by Jois “trained” and “certified” instructors who “partner”ed in developing a “comprehensive” yoga curriculum for Jois to export to “other school systems.”
The school district in this case willinging took money to establish a yoga program
yoga was developed by Krishna Pattabhi Jois (1915-2009) from the Yoga Sutras, a sacred text for Hindus.
Yoga appears to have some religious background with Hinduism
This freedom to worship was indispensable in a country whose people came from the four quarters of the earth and brought with them a diversity of religious opinion.
This quote truly exemplifies why the establishment clause exists for the first place, as the religious diversity of America requires a notion of religious freedom if harmony is to be continued
These companion cases present the issues in the context of state action requiring that schools begin each day with readings from the Bible.
This valuable to keep note of because it already establishes that this case pertains to a school mandated religious activity.
"in that it threatens their religious liberty by placing a premium on belief as against non-belief and subjects their freedom of conscience to the rule of the majority;
This is important to note as it highlights how a religious favoritism is established with a mandated bible reading in school settings
children's attendance at Abington Senior High School is compulsory
this reinforces the fact that all children no matter their background would be expected to participate in religious matter even if they were given an option to exempt from it
the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected
This is also something to consider because the fact that students have to out their disapproval publicly could cause issues of isolation from their peers
home-room teacher, 2 who chose the text of the verses and read them herself or had students read them in rotation or by volunteers.
Teachers being involved makes this state mandated
by the students in the various classrooms, who are asked to stand and join in repeating the prayer in unison.
This is also indicative of state mandatory prayer because random students are called up to join in the prayers no matter who they are
broadcast into each room in the school building through an intercommunications system and are conducted under the supervision of a teacher
The fact that state-employed officals are monitoring these bible studies already contradicts the seperation of church and state clause of the first amendment
Any child shall be excused from such Bible reading, or attending such Bible reading, upon the written request of his parent or guardian."
This is an issue that further highlights a first amendment violation in these laws because it insinuates that all kids will be required to partake in Bible reading unless they notify their parents of such activities