GrateSwan, you've correctly identified the two clauses re religion in the
Constitution, the "establishment" clause ("Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion,. . .") and the "free exercise" clause
(". . . or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.")
Both clauses are binding on the individual states through the 14th amendment.
The scope of the Establishment clause does more than forbid a state religion,
and it does not forbid every action that may result in a benefit to a religion,
but its goal is a "benevolent neutrality" in respect to religion. As a general
matter, the Establishment clause bars government sponsorship of religion,
government financial support of religion, and active involvement of government
in religious activities.
There is a 3-pronged test utilized by the Courts in analyzing whether or not
there is a violation of the Establishment clause. To be valid under the
Establishment clause, a statute or other governmental action must:
1. have a secular purpose;
2. have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; and
3. not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.
The last prong is important because the decisions that have come from all the
different cases that have come before the Courts show that the test "is
inescapably one of degree." (Walz v. Tax Commission, (1970) 397 U.S. 664.)
So if you look at TM in the schools (not the DLF initiative, but programs that
use public school facilities or staff to facilitate TM), you can easily satisfy
the first prong (better grades, improved behavior, etc.) but you start to run
into difficulties on the second prong, and you entirely miss the mark on the
third, because even a cursory examination of the TMO history (and present
structure) demonstrates that it is replete with religious imagery, religious
language, religious beliefs, and a religious and philosophical mission. The
state cannot become entangled with it because it would violate the
Establishment clause.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, same for me. Good discussion.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Marek,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback on this and related posts. They have helped me
> > > further my thinking.
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavismarek@> wrote:
>
> My interest in this is not about TM, but whether any consciousness-based
> education could be taught in public schools. And if not, why the first
> amendment would prohibit such a thing.
>
> The intent of the first amendment on religion is, as I understand, to clarify
> that congress will not establish a religion -- and that everybody should be
> free to worship or not worship in any way they please. It is elegantly and
> concisely stated.
>
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
>
> And while I know that there is a rich history to this clause, it appears to
> me that currently, there is a hyper sensitivity, almost a prissy cleanliness
> -- and a parental protectiveness to the whole thing not warranted by the
> above clause -- as may be the case with other clauses in the Bill of Rights.
> At times it seems that the Constitution has become a religion -- that is, it
> is treated as golden tablets from the mouth of God. I don't think that's what
> was intended. Jefferson as I recall was hopeful the thing would last 20 years
> -- before another revolution or redrafting of the thing.
>
> Regardless of the reverence of the Constitution as gospel, if one views these
> first amendment clauses in their own words, simply, without prejudice, the
> application of the clause would be far simpler and on the mark than where we
> find ourselves today.
>
> The primary question is "Is congress establishing a state religion by passing
> this law". That leaves a huge latitude for policy -- e.g. , first it doesn't
> prevent the president for using executive powers to create a state religion,
> nor the states, nor counties. and, second it doesn't preclude funding a
> multitude of religions in that this is not "establishing" and its not a
> single region, but many. For the sake of focusing the argument, I will focus
> on the broader (and perhaps not contained in the first amendment) idea that
> government - at all levels -- is prohibited in establishing a religion.
>
> However, even with that lenient -- and perhaps too far stretched
> interpretation -- if an action is evaluated as to whether the gov't is
> establishing a religion, yes or no, the whole matter is seen in a whole new
> light. I think a mythos has created itself about the first amendment. Some
> makes strong statements that the constitution forbids this or that act --
> when if you read the words -- it clearly does not.
>
> That view -- which I am only examining not advocating -- would I assume be a
> fundamentalist reading of the Constitution. "Literal interpretation" ---
> another hot button -- "of course that is neanderthalic" is the knee jerk
> response. I would agree that literal reading of ancient religions texts that
> lean heavily on metaphor, poetic images, and multiple levels of meaning is
> neanderthalic but still recognize the freedom for people to get all jazzzed
> by doing that literal reading. However, a literal reading of the
> constitution, which is a concise legal document -- not based on metaphor or
> poetic images -- seems at a minimum, a reasonable thing to do.
>
> I don't see how sitting in silence for 15 minutes in school regardless of the
> practice used, in any way establishes a single governmental-based religion.
> And prohibiting such may be in conflict with the next clause "prohibiting the
> free exercise thereof;". This clause celebrates multiculturalism. It seems
> that it could support unrestricted religious activities in schools, as long
> as the government is not advocating any single one. If muslim students want
> to pray and kneel 5 times a day, if a hindu wants to chant something, i a
> catholic wants to use a rosary, if a buddhist wants to meditate -- an
> particularly if these activities make the mind more absorbant of knowledge,
> then why should they be banned from schools? Such allowance does not
> establish a state religion. And such would culture a more multi-cultural
> understanding among the student body -- which is perhaps one of the more
> profound things they will acquire with their degree.
>
> Perhaps the issue gets down to student choice -- your argument yesterday that
> students are required to attend a particular high school so extra care is
> called for. Perhaps its that requirement that is broken -- and overly
> restrictive of free choice.
>
