”  We the people, in order to from a more perfect union ……. ” , For those of you who don’t know – and I suspect you are myriad – these are the opening words to the Preamble of our Constitution. I fear most have not actually read this revered document and I likewise fear, that the many who have – particularly lawyers  with an agenda –  have sufficiently twisted its meaning to suit their own causes that its true  force of meaning has been diluted almost beyond repair. There are a number of provisions, aka Amendments, which are fairly straight forward. The Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery ;  the Sixteenth provides for collecting income tax ; the  Nineteenth Amendment was about Suffrage and the right to vote regardless of gender ; the Twenty-sixth Amendment grants the right to vote to those eighteen years of age. Pretty clear in their content. On the other hand, the Second Amendment has been debated to death for decades regarding what it does and does not allow and in spite of several Supreme Court rulings, the debate continues. The Fourth Amendment was a guarantee against unlawful search and seizure, demanding probable cause and requiring warrants.  Between Joe McCarthy and his paranoia and George Bush’s lunacy and total disregard for the rights of citizens, this Amendment has pretty much gone to hell. There is ongoing debate, discussion and the usual gross misapplication of some of these provisions and this will continue, for sure. But, in my opinion, one of the most hotly debated and commensurately misinterpreted Amendment is the First Amendment and specifically, the so called “Establishment Clause” regarding the federal government and religion. Case in point.

Recently, in Encinitas, California, a group of parents have brought a law suit against the EUSD contending that the District  is “..clearly in violation of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state ..”. Their contention is that classes in Ashtanga Yoga is violating their religious freedom ! Yes, folks, Yoga !!! One family holds that  Yoga “.. moves the mind, taking it on a religious journey. If prayer in schools is unconstitutional, yoga should be too..”.  Another parent wanted his children to be removed from the classes rather than allow them “… to be indoctrinated by this Hindu religious program..”. The suit is being brought on behalf of these parents – described by a staff writer for the U T San Diego News as probably not knowing the difference between yoga and yogurt – by the National Center for Law and Policy, a far right, ultra conservative policy law group headed by Dean Broyles. A word here, if I may. Dean Broyles is a graduate of the Regent University School of  Law – a fourth tier law school founded by televangelist Pat Robertson with a clearly stated agenda to teach law in biblical context. Two of its biggest promoters are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Just making the point. So, back to Encinitas. The whole thrust of this pathetic attempt at constitutional manipulation is based on the premise that yoga is a religion. OK, one MIGHT debate that but it really is a  philosophy based on a combination of many eastern philosophies. By the way, an on line petition to end the classes was signed by 250 parents. Likewise, an on line petition to maintain the classes was signed by 2,700 parents But there is another side to this. In several studies, including a  2003 study by Cal State Los Angeles, children who participated in yoga programs improved in health, behavior and academic performance. This improvement was also noted in children with special needs. Researchers also found that over 75% of children in these programs stated they wished to continue the practice after  they graduated.

So, what’s the problem. The allegation is that yoga  somehow violates the First Amendment provision for religious freedom. REALLY ????  The plaintiff’s “expert witness” is one Candy Gunther Brown, a religion professor at Indiana University.  Her position is that one cannot, in  the context of yoga, separate bodily practices from spiritual purposes. In effect, striking a yoga pose is the same as reciting the Lord’s Prayer.  And there you have it – that whole church and state debate rising again. How curious indeed that the plaintiffs in this case have gone to these lengths to keep their children from advancing physically and mentally. One has to ask the question whether or not these same parents would have the same objections to a martial arts program. Martial arts – that broad based set of skills designed to promote self defense AND self confidence along with mental discipline –   is similar to the tenets of  many of the world’s religions. You cannot get away from the basic truth that  the principles of religion and philosophy are linked and in turn, are linked to social mores and codes of conduct.  Even Dean Broyles must agree on that point. So does this all come down to that usual misinterpretation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause ?  Vincent Phillip Munoz, in an extensive article in the University of Pennsylvania Law Journal, discusses in detail what he terms fatal misconceptions  of the thrust of the Establishment Clause and seems to favor the “Virginia Way”, though I  confess the article will take several readings to digest. What  the debate does bring to the forefront is the difference between establishment and separation. The famous letters of Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists pastors of Danbury appear to form the basis for arguing the “separation” doctrine. Accepting that Mr Jefferson did hold to that, I still contend that there is, in the strict sense, nothing in the wording of the Amendment which requires this separation. It, if taken literally, which lawyers never do, states that the federal government cannot force the establishment of a state religion on the people. However, there might be, again, another side to this coin. As we talking about church versus state or politics versus religion. Kenneth Cauthen, professor emeritus at Colgate Rochester Divinity School, makes this very valid distinction. In his article, he argues that  unless one makes this distinction, one is doomed to perpetual frustration. Church and State is a rather easy argument. Government does not appoint bishops and churches do not appoint governors. The State is neutral and permits citizens to engage or not engage  as they see fit and appropriate.   Religion and politics, well that’s a whole other Pandora’s box as we have seen time and time again and this will continue pretty much forever. And I contend this mess in Encinitas is more the latter, regardless of the stance taken by Dean Broyles and his group of parents.It is now become almost fashionable for individuals, usually self proclaimed atheists, or groups, usually parent groups, to engage the services of one of these so called policy centers to bring what can only be described as a frivolous law suit against organizations such as school districts for, in my opinion, trivial matters. Now in the account of this action, I found no mention of these classes being mandatory. SO, parents, take your children out of them but DO NOT deny other children the access to  a well respected form of exercise – physical and mental.  After an half hour class, one eight year old said he felt energized. Better than fries and a coke, yes ? Superintendent Tim Baird says this program is but one element of an overall agenda of the EUSD to improve the health of its students. There is also a nutrition program and a life skills program where children learn perseverance and responsibility. All a far far cry from infringing upon one’s religious freedoms, let alone a violation of the so called separation of church and state. It teaches the children to be thankful for the sun and its warmth. Violation of religious freedom ! Please ! I gather that, in spite of the facts and the evidence, these parents would rather see their children be denied what is truly beneficial on many levels just so they can spout their less than informed religious freedom nonsense. That’s  not religious freedom and that’s not an issue of Church versus State. It is simply egotism brought to the absurd at the expense of kids. Healthy choices for the kids or lame grandstanding for the parents. You choose. I choose the kids !