--- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > I just think the whole objection is vastly overblown > > and highly artificial and largely motivated by > > resentment, not concern for the students. > > I don't think reducing the points I have made in this > discussion as being somehow motivated by some negitive > emotion does justice to the points made.
I'm saying it seems to me the points are way too weak to support such determined opposition. > I am not objecting for emotional reasons. I have > given you the intellectual reasons why I believe TM > is religious and I'm sure I don't have to make a > case with you why religion shouldn't be promoted in > schools do I? No. But just because *you* think it's religious isn't enough to make me nervous about it. > It is a very important topic unless you don't care > if schools end up with "creation science" sharing > the classroom with evolutionary theory. Allowing TM plus SCI, as in the New Jersey case, could be a dangerous precedent in that regard (even though I don't agree that SCI is really religious in nature). But I don't think it's nearly so likely with just TM, especially with Lynch in charge. > I disagree with your assessment of the religious nature > of TM, but am not inclined to sum up your POV as the > result of some negitive emotional state. We just > disagree on the religious nature of TM instruction. > This doesn't surprise me because you didn't spend many > weeks bowing down to the floor to a picture of Maharishi's > dead guru after invoking divine and semi divine Gods in > the Hindu religion.(Vyasa is 3/4 Vishnu don't ya know.) > It is easier for you to ignore its religious roots. So if I can ignore its "religious roots," why can't the kids? Curtis, your experiences as a TM teacher are a big fat red herring here. TMers don't have to do any of that unless they decide to become teachers. > My concern is for the principle of separating religious > teaching from publicly funded schools because of the > aggressive nature of evangelical groups trying to pass > off their religious beliefs as science. I share that concern, as I've said many times. That's why I support the New Jersey decision. But again, that was TM *plus SCI*, which is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, it seems to me. Just-plain-TM--with Lynch keeping a watchful eye--simply doesn't rise to that level of concern, IMHO.
