To begin with, my apologies for the lengthy post. I really try not to make my posts too long unless necessary.
It seems, from just Wizard's and Mark's comments, I have either not explained fully or I have been misread. Let me comment further. Speaking first to Wizard's remarks: I want to say first that I am pleasantly surprised to hear you would be interested to know more about Tonga and its Christian culture. I honestly wouldn't have expected that. I frankly don't know all I'd like to on this subject either. With that said, I must disagree on your further comments. Wizard writes, "I wouldn't call these programs extra or superfluous, but many of them are fairly basic. To some degree, they fulfill a stated commitment to lifelong learning, another effort to break down barriers to education". I submit respectfully Wizard is simply wrong. If the District is subsidizing Community Education classes, then it is a travesty we have far too many students in MPS not able to read at grade level or do math at grade level at the same time as we are subsidizing these classes. I challenge anyone to find a person who was trapped in poverty or unable to find meaningful and lawful employment to support themselves because they didn't have access to a perfume blending class or never learned how to make a heart wreath (both of which are offered classes in the catalog). I have seen many people trapped in poverty and oppression because they did not obtain the ability to read proficiently, make change for a twenty, or balance a checkbook and budget. Lifelong learning is all well and good, but not at the expense of basics which are pivotal to one obtaining a life free of dependency, welfare, and potentially criminal activity. Speaking to Wizard's comments which, if I understand correctly, insomuch say one is unlikely to learn anything substantial about another religious belief or participate otherwise in the few weeks of this class. I would refer back to my original comments. All too often in our society, the argument is made in order to respect the separation clause, we must have a complete secularization of the public square. I personally do not agree with this argument. However, if such an argument is made, then it's difficult to justify these classes. In the catalog, I quote class titles and instructions: "Yoga: Eastern Exercise and Teachings". It goes on to direct, "Bring a mat and a small notepad". Bringing a mat clearly implies that we are engaging in the practices, not just studying them. Under the Shamata meditation class, there's the instruction, "Retreat is at the KTC Mpls Buddhist Monastery & Meditation Center�includes an organic vegetarian lunch. Wear comfortable clothing". It is not necessary to study Shamata Meditation at the Buddhist Monastery. The theory and academics can be studyed elsewhere. Also, the statement of wearing comfortable clothing and eating an vegetarian lunch speaks to participating in the practice, not simply studying it. Whether I will learn all the ins and outs of Buddhism or Yoga in this class is immaterial to the argument of separation of church and state. For those arguing complete secularization, this begins the "slippery slope" to state sponsored religion. Wizard states, "At the same time there are so many venues to learn about Christianity that it would be hard to imagine anyone signing up for them when they are available at any church for free". This too is immaterial to my core points. But, if one is willing to venture out of the home to learn about Islam or Buddhism, is it really such a stretch to think they can't find a mosque or monastery (which are available in the city) if they wanted to? Wizard states in conclusion, "Is it really controversial? Or are you trying to build a mountain out of a mole hill"? If precious limited resources are being drawn from students who desperately need to learn to read and do other basic life skills so others can take a class on Ebay for beginners, belly dancing, or candle making- and leaving the former in a distinct disadvantage bordering on a form of oppression (yes I used the word oppression), then it should absolutely be controversial. I would think Wizard would clearly see that. Now speaking to Mark's comments (to the extent they aren't already covered): Mark writes, "I think there is some confusion between teaching religious theory and supporting a particular religion. The separation clause forbids state support of a religion. It does not forbid teaching religious theory. Otherwise, how would a school like the University of Minnesota be able to teach courses or offer degrees on religion or theology? Or should that be banned as well"? Without being redundant, I would suggest Mark reread my comments in my original post or the above in this post. I understand the difference between teaching theory and state sponsorship of religion. It is my contention, in practice, these classes potentially cross the line in the eyes of those advocating complete secularization. I remind Mark that I don't agree we must have complete secularization of the public square in order to respect the separation clause. I would probably argue to the contrary. With that said, it is silly to suggest we ban every class on religion at the U of M. Mark writes, "If nothing else, the fact that these courses are listed under the heading of "Academic Enrichment" ought to make it fairly obvious that they're teaching and not preaching". Dismissing that two of the three classes I mentioned are not under the heading of "Academic Enrichment", I again suggest Mark refer to my comments speaking to Wizard's comments. Furthermore, whatever heading MPS felt they needed to put the class under is contradicted by the directions for taking these classes. Mark writes, "I'm sad to see that there would still be an attempt to make an issue of something like this in this day and age. What's next, will people complain that a belly dancing class promotes sexual promiscuity or that a scrying class promotes witchcraft"? What is the unspoken part of that thought, Mark? Clearly, you're trying to paint me in some corner by making me one of "those people who will make an attempt to make an issue of something like this". What is "this"? Are you trying to subtly imply that I'm some sort of racist or am horribly prejudiced? You need to explain this more clearly than trying subtle name-calling. You also need to drop the red herring arguments. I am not complaining about entirely individual opinions on the lines of belly dancing promoting (or not) sexual promiscuity. I'm arguing far more substantial arguments, namely that: 1) it is/would be inappropriate for the District to fund these classes when it is failing to nail the basics of reading and math, and 2) for those arguing strict separation of church and state, these actions cross their line. If were going to "C'mon�" then I say -"C'mon Mark, for whatever disagreements we may have, you're smarter than red herring arguments". Gary Bowman Audubon Park __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
