This could be its own topic, basically, women that feel that transwomen are taking away from women's rights. And then yes, there's a pretty relevant size of the LGBTQ+ community that's against Trans people for various reasons. I mean people are complicated. JK Rowling is on the left herself and is left on most issues and I think that's what makes it frustrating to some is she's going to continue making tons of money, Harry Potter is its own thing now that can just roll forward and continue making her money whether people like her or not, every time she's confronted about it, she's just doubled, tripled, quadrupled down. JK is one of these people that's just trans-exclusionary, she's fine making Dumbledore gay and making a point of it and standing behind rights of the LGB(T)Q+ community but only with the caveat that they can't be trans. Then she becomes against it. but people are complicated, she's so far left on so many issues socially and fiscally so when she came out as a TERF it shocked a lot of people. I think that's the thing, if you were conservative and a fan of Potter you probably would have a lot more disagreements with her. But I think she's a great example that people can be far along the left or right but they have that one issue that a lot of their allies might have trouble with or an issue that generally the other side agrees with.
This is why I asked another poster who was arguing about the threat to personal freedom from not publishing some Dr. Suess titles and that copyrights shouldn't be a protection, "Do you even know what you are arguing for?"
Redistribution of wealth or Socialism! Freeing slave and allowing them to participate in the economy on equal terms to white was redistribution of wealth Roosevelt's government programs such as infrastructure and new basic safety net to stabilize the economy was redistribution of wealth Leveling the playing field between employers and employee was/is redistribution of wealth Addressing inequality was/is redistribution of wealth Spoiler: History The US started as wealth and power belonging only to white men. As the trend of our nation's history curve toward sharing wealth and power with other groups, there has been a long history of white men not wanting to. They see other non-white and men entering the economy, owning property, gaining the right to vote, having a voice in employment, having an education, having social safety nets as nothing but redistributing of their wealth to others - "socialism"! To fight that trend for the past nearly 200 years, they cultured the idea of hard-working individual freedom loving white men who wanted to be left alone by the government with no taxes and regulation, which will magically grow the economy and makes everyone happy - Reaganism or voodoo supply-side economic. They courted and partnership with white evangelicals and social conservatives promoting this freedom, small government, individualism, anti-secularization to stop the trend of what they see as their wealth and power being redistributed to all. Socialism is the evil of all things because I hate the idea of sharing my wealth and power with anyone, especially those non-white men. MAGA is a continuation of that trend, let's come back to a period of wealth and power belonging only to white men. How great! But Trump showed us the light of all the lies and dangers. Install characters to destroy the government, insisting on the smallest of small government with Trump and a few of his circle running the show killing 500k+ and accelerating debt to an astronomical level. Massive giveaway (what happen to socialism) to farmers and friends. Violence and a coup attempt when power is lost. Reality no longer works, so alt-reality and alt-fact is a new reality. Socialism is so evil, so bad, but not so if it's for me, said the white men who have been trying to reverse the trend since the civil war and again since 1920 to push wealth back to the top, to more un-level the playing field, to literally use violence to overthrow the government. Alt-reality, the only thing that can keep these men from hating themselves.
If this is for public school children then I really see no problem in removing spiritual elements from yoga exercises. While asking kids to say "namaste" is essentially harmless, I also don't understand what purpose it would serve. It's a respectful way of greeting others in Indian culture. What does it have to do with exercising? Maybe someone who practices yoga can explain it to me.
I'm thinking it's as common as saying aloha or hola. It's a Sanskrit world that literally means "I bow to you"... just a show of respect and is used in secular culture (Yoga exercise regularly ends with the word and is commonly used as 'good morning' in India).
@durvasa the reason Yoga was banned, and the word "Namaste" is banned because of some Christain interpretation and insistence that both have religious overtones. I find it funny that religious right doesn't like "secularizing" public school but here they are trying to "secularize" public schooling (not talking about you).
I don't know. While it might be used in secular culture, my understanding is it assumes the Hindu concept of divinity/soul in each person. People can interpret it in different ways, I guess. In the end, it seems an unnecessary way to begin or end a yoga session for school children in a public school.
If I go back far enough, I can find probably many things with some religious or spiritual meaning. If that's the reason for 'canceling' and not the current application, we might as well cancel each other all days in public education. Gee - exclamation of surprise; euphemistic for Jesus.
In Judo and other martial arts there have been debates for years about requiring to bow during matches. These have even gotten to the level of court cases with people arguing that bowing is an imposition of religion. Those have been defeated. There have also been complaints about things like that being an imposition of Japanese culture into US culture. As a college coach and I've had devout Muslim and Jewish students who couldn't bow because bowing was reserved for God. As a university program we were under the accommodation rules of the university so still allowed them to participate. I've told them to stand at attention while the whole class bows and in tournaments to nod their head so it looks like a quick if sloppy bow.
Depends on the region of India but yes in some regions of India it is a somewhat popular greeting. Namaste (or Namaskar) are both generally considered formal greetings. Its use as a greeting is actually declining as younger generations use it more infrequently than older generations. In other parts of India (especially in areas where Hindi isn't really spoken), you'll rarely hear it outside of religious contexts as people in other regions will use greetings in their local language instead. There's also a lot of caste implications around the use of Namaste or Namaskar. Because of its religious origins, you'll find that people who descend from upper caste families (regardless of regional language) will use Namaste or Namaskar while those who descend from lower cast families (even in Hindi speaking regions) will avoid using it. Honestly everything else about yoga has been appropriated so why not throw in the Namaste? I think its a little odd to draw the line at the namaste. If anything, the use of the namaste greeting still acknowledges the Indian origin of yoga. Yoga itself has lots of very direct ties to Hinduism so the whole thing doesn't make sense to me.
I was thinking of martial arts. There are many other cases as well. I guess it comes down to context. Or do these people really avoid all bowing? Curtain call (bow after performance) Bow head to kiss woman's hand Bow to judge or speaker Bow to each other prior to dancing
