The old-school view (not just Christian) was that women had less self-control (see Freud) and therefore had to work harder to control themselves. Men, however, were *expected* to be sexual, expected to want and enjoy sex. It was a woman's duty to please her husband, because if he cheated on her, it wasn't his fault — it was the wife's, for failing to appropriately satisfy his needs.

This is also why it was acceptable and natural for a man to sleep with other women (read: prostitutes) before marriage. But a woman could not: she did not have the self-control, and it was better she just hate sex than desire it, because once she liked it, she would be addicted and a succubus.

But meditation is Buddhist, and they don't have a god in Buddhism, only local gods that are leftover from pre-Buddhist times. Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion for the purposes of this thread because this is the "God Matters" thread, no?

And yoga comes from a pre-hindu religion that has mostly been lost in the mists of time and merged with Hinduism. So the religion attached to yoga isn't the original. If it can be used for multiple religions, why can't it be used with no religion?

By the way, if you google 'yoga religion', you come up with Christian websites that tell you that yogis' goal in life is to reach enlightenment through their genitals. lol

Meditation isn't *just* Buddhist, the way prayer isn't just Christian.
So if prayer can be used for multiple religions (let's start with the Big Three: Christianity, Islam, and Judaism), why can't it be used for no religion?

It's a practice to get in touch with God. Whether it's a God you see as an external presence, or as an internal presence, it's still to get in touch with God and (in the case of my class this time) put your body in harmony with the universe.

My teacher is a Sikh. He reminds us at every turn. There are mantras which, translated, mean "God within me, God outside me," etc. There are songs (they use the word "God). Sikhs on yoga

Because prayer is directly related to a concept of God, whereas meditation is about focus, not necessarily focus on god.

Actually, I bet that somewhere out there on the internet, there is 'atheist prayer'.

Mantras are about the sound you make and their physiological effects, and not about their meaning, no?

Why does the website specify Sikh Yoga? Does that imply that it is not the original yoga?

Has anyone ever stopped to consider that we all worship the same invisible dude and that he just goes by different names? Why all this big hoopla about well Christianity does this and Islam does that and Wiccans do this.... ITS ALL THE FRICKING SAME! Examples:

*Prayer- a devout petition to God or an object of worship
*Meditation- devout religious contemplation or spiritual introspection
*Ritual- an established or prescribed procedure for a religious or other rite

*Church- public worship of God or a religious service in such a building
*Mosque- a Muslim temple or place of public worship
*Coven- an assembly of witches, esp. a group of thirteen for religious worship of deities.

And now for the full definitions of God:

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.

So tell me again, why has there always been this huge debate over which religion is correct and which Supreme Being is more powerful?

Can't we just accept the fact that its all the same person(s) its just he/she/they/it go by different names based on the culture they are established in?

It would save me a lot of headaches if it were done this way but apparently no one had truly caught on to this concept yet. So in the mean time I shall sit here, popping Excedrin, and wait until the Age of Enlightenment begins.

/rant

You wanted a religion to go with yoga; that's why the website specifies Sikh yoga.

Mantras are supposedly about the sound you make, but the meaning matters. You can have a mantra about money ('give me money, give me money, give me money...') and if you want something else, you probably won't use the same mantra.

For yoga, not just for Sikh yoga.
Anyway, you alluded to your 'last class' which you suggested was more secular(unless I misunderstood). What about that?

Yeah, but what if its just a sound without any denotative meaning?

How did that happen?

Mantras aren't just a sound, though. Ok, here, mantras from this course. In English they are "just a sound," but they have meanings.

My last class was "mindful hatha yoga" (this is Kundalini; there are many kinds). It's still got religious ties; the only time they were explicit was one class where she was "awakening our chi." That said, it had a prayerful tint to me even then.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but some people feel that their way of worship is threatened by infidels. Just look at the Tamil vs Sri-Lanka conflict. Sounds like both sides fought because of fear.

So atheists can't do yoga?

Atheists can do yoga. Atheists can also pray. Atheists can also sing songs that have a religious background.

Whether or not it is a religious practice has nothing to do with whether or not you can do it... just don't pretend it's not a religious practice (it may not be religious for you to sing "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" but you can't pretend it has no religious significance).

Ah, but if atheists can do yoga, then you are agreeing with what I said about the article.

I also notice that you completely dropped the argument about meditation. Am I to take this as an acknowledgement that meditation can be secular, and thus my opinion about the article as it relates to this matter is right?

No, because, as you quoted: "The yogi, the Christian mystic, the Kabbalist, the Sufi, the poet—all these, she argues, access transcendence through disciplined work, through failure, anxiety, and the redoubling of effort."

The yogi....does yoga.

And no. I just wanted you to know that yoga and meditation are religious practices. But I'm not willing to argue as long as you are.

This just sounds too familiar.

I would argue that atheists can also have discipline, failure, anxiety, and redoubling of effort. Transcending and religion aren't necessary, and as they say, its the effort, the road, that counts, and not the destination.


Um... you do know that in the quote you quoted, it lists the yogi as one of the people who has the disciplined work and all that, right?
(emphasis added of course)

You said nothing to counter my arguments about meditation for as long as this argument was going on. Once again, since the point of meditation is focus and its physiological effects.

Plus, meditation, while not exclusively Buddhist, is found in Buddhism, and Buddhism is an atheistic religion/philosophy, with deities being found only in local variations, and with deities not being necessary for or originally included in Buddhism. So this proves that one can practice meditation for the same good things that religious people meditate for without believing in God. And this is what the article assumes to not be possible for its whole case for the practice of religion and against those who don't practice it (it sounds rather evil to attack atheist in this way; basically its like this: religious practice is good for you, so if you don't do it then you are bad, so you must be religious for your own good. This 'must be religious for your own good' part is very much in there, because otherwise why write the article?).

You are just mad that you ended up agreeing with my original position.

Nope, still don't agree with you.

My point: Yoga has religious aspects. Arguing to do it as a non-religious process would be like going to Catholic mass and just doing the stand-sit-kneel bit.

As an Atheist, I do yoga because it tones my body, it keeps me fit and functioning the way I want it to...

It is an alternative work out for me besides cycling, which I often do when I go around Texas putting 20-40 miles nearly every Saturday morning...

Yoga may have religious aspects, but that is not the intention of my practice. At the start of every practice, I set an intention to do my best and keep up with my breathing, check for areas of my body where the practice is not agreeing with and improve those...

And I went to catholic school as a child... and had to forcibly go to mass... to me, it was the stand-sit-kneel bit...

For one thing it is a stretch to call suicide bombing self-help.
From the other hand traditional religious activities are not even close to self help.
Self help in traditional sense means something that improves you in this life, it is supposed to be a pleasant activity. In most of Europe where Christian religious activities stayed in the framework of the traditional. The churches in Europe are almost empty for a reason. The regular services are attended only by some old woman, most people go to church only a few times a year. There might be exceptional churches, but the inactivity of believers is a real problem over there. The main reason is that the churches over there can not compete with social life. Self-help takes place outside of the church, mostly the priests I know would be horrified if they would have to make allowance for mundane activities in their church the way lots of American churches do.

Which is fine. I'm not arguing about that at all. But zeb had said "Just do yoga..." as an example of a totally nonreligious practice. Again, you can sing a spiritual without doing it because of religion, but you can't pretend the spiritual never had anything to do with religion.