Secular Spirituality in Public Schools

[chimp3]

Meeting of the Addled Minds discuss the need for "Secular Spirituality" in public schools:

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/01/...-education

This is fucking bullshit. If it was secular, why embellish it with the word "spirituality"? Why not call attentiveness and consciousness what they are : brain states? Why label awe, wonder, mystery, purpose other than human emotions and needs? This is a foot in the door for religious bullshit and sets a precedent for further incursions of religion into the public sector. Spirituality is milquetoast religion.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Smoke and mirrors.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The article defines it thus:

 is a “deep way of being, through which we feel connected to all life, with awe and reverence for the mystery of being,” Miller says.

Sounds a little on the woo side, but not particularly insidious.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jesus started with twelve Jews.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are plenty of secular religions, and it's a mistake to assume that just because the dominant religions in a country or time are rife with superstitious drivel, that religion requires it.

As it happens, the question you asked was answered in the article you linked. They -do- describe the sense of awe, wonder, mystery and purpose -spirituality- as human emotions and needs. It's because of this fact that spirituality is capable of effecting people, and people are capable of effecting children through it. There's no reason that it has to effect them for the worse.

[brewer]

Lisa Miller spends a lot of time talking about what I consider magic.

http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia17.html

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Jesus started with twelve Jews.

And a centuries-old culture of disaffected people actively looking for a messiah.  The cases aren't really parallel.

Boru

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Jesus started with twelve Jews.

And a centuries-old culture of disaffected people actively looking for a messiah.  The cases aren't really parallel.

Boru

If you say so.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I think people have a tendency to equate spirituality with religion.  While this certainly can be true, it isn't necessarily true.

There's a very real sense in which 'spiritual' can refer to being in a state of awe regarding the natural world (Einstein and Sagan were both proponents of this).  It can also refer to a sense of being, or belonging, or an awareness of the inner Self.  It's really one of those nebulous terms that can mean whatever a particular proponent needs it to mean. 

That being said, the term has also become a buzzword among segments of the non-religious population who reject it in toto.  As described in the article, I really don't think there's anything to get in a twist over.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

"Jesus" started with 7 million romans and two million dead bodies - or so the story goes.

Anywho, I know I pimp this book alot - but consider something like crosby's religion of nature.

nature itself as the focus of religion, conceived without God, gods, or animating spirits of any kind, and argues that nature is metaphysically ultimate. He explores the concept of nature, the place of humans in nature, the responsibilities of humans to one another and to their natural environments, and offers a religious vision that grants to nature the kind of reverence, awe, love, and devotion formerly reserved for God.

It's not exactly difficult to see how this sort of religion, while fulfilling a very real emotional need in human beings, could generate positive consequences in our world.