Religion & American Law

You can find the article here.

Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock sued the Encinitas Union School District after they decided to incorporate yoga into physical education. Stephen and Jennifer believed that this program violated the religious-freedom provisions in California’s constitution. During their court briefs, Stephen and Jennifer said yoga was “a Hindu religious exercise or practice that is simultaneously physical and religious”.

The origins of yoga have been disputed but it is well known that it is closely related to Hinduism since it is one of Hinduism’s major components. The program was funded by the Sri K. Pattabhi Jois’s foundation and the yoga poses taught were adapted from Ashtanga yoga. Ashtanga yoga is built around eight pillars, which include union with the divine. Mr. Jois’s foundation trained the yoga instructors with a mission to eliminate religious connections in the practice.

This yoga program was originally proposed in 2012 and after parents complained of religious overtones the school district removed references to the spiritual or divine and also removed the curriculum description that stated, “yoga brings out the inner spirit of the child”. The poses in the program used kid-friendly names. For example the Lotus pose was called “crisscross applesauce”.

The California Fourth District Court of Appeal said, “It is clear that while yoga may be practiced for religious reasons, it cannot be said to be inherently religious or overtly sectarian. In the absence of evidence that the District’s program advances religion, no religious coercion is present”. This case decided that religious practices could be deemed unreligious depending how they are taught. Since there are distinct ties between yoga and Hinduism, the foundation made their yoga practice in schools non religious by making sure the yoga instructors were teaching the physical exercise portion and not the religious practice involved in Ashtanga yoga. This program was deemed, “devoid of any religious, mystical or spiritual trappings”, and allowed to continue within the nine Encinitas Schools.

I agree with the courts that the yoga program should be allowed to continue because of the effort made to make the yoga practice not related to religious teachings. Since the program was created to non-religious, the religious-freedom provisions of California’s constitution could not have been violated. I believe encouraging children to try many different types of exercise is something extremely important in schools because it can lead to healthy life habits or a love for a specific sport.  Yoga has become extremely popular in the U.S. because it has a lot of mental and physical fitness related benefits and it should definitely be allowed to be taught in a schools physical education program.

Even though I think that this program does not violate the religious-freedom provisions, I do think that this issue could lead the courts down a slippery slope. Mixing religious beliefs and education has always been a highly debated issue in our country and this program is a small religious issue compared to others in our court system today. This court case decided that religious beliefs could be extracted from religious practices to allow the practices to be taught in public schools.