--- In [email protected], grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > It is a very important topic unless you don't care > > > > > if schools end up with "creation science" sharing > > > > > the classroom with evolutionary theory. > > I am not going to limit my choices to this or that. Schools should teach > scientific method and inquiry. Give students the tools. Then let them look at > evolutionary theory and creation science.
Not is science class. It is a misuse of the method to include mythology as if it is on the same epistemological level as science's theories. This is the most critical aspect of the method. Creation "science" is not put in the form of falsifiable theory so it has no place in a science class. If you taught them well on method, they will figure it out. And THAT is always a better teaching method -- letting the student get that AH HA experince. When they get that, the Ah HA -- learning becomes a gas -- and they will never forget the lesson. If you tell them evolutionary theory is the real deal, they will yawn. Do you work with kids? This is an unrealistic expectation. School barely has time to teach the method of science without this confusion. > > > > > > > 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. > > I am not sure I follow. Do you believe Vyasa is really 3/4 Vishnu? Do you > believe there is a personified being named Vishnu who sustains the universe? > If not, then its not a religion to you. Yes it is. I don't have to believe that Jesus died for my sins to know Christianity is a religion and taking communion is a religious act. You may have been naive 20 years ago, but today if you don't believe the Vishnu thing then how does TM have religions roots. It has fairy tale roots. Religion is not defined by it being true in an objective way. > > > > > > So if I can ignore its "religious roots," why can't > > > > the kids? > > > > > > That is not the issue. Some may be able to > > > ignore the religious roots of TM. > > > > They should all be able to ignore it, since it > > wouldn't come to their attention in the absence > > of interference from people like Knapp. There > > just isn't anything *intrinsically* religious > > about the basic TM course from the students' > > perspective. It has to be added on. Don't wrap > > it up in a religious package, and it isn't > > religious. > > For me, I don't care if its added on in with great grandeur. And I don't give > a hoot if John Knapp thinks its a religion. He can practice any fairy tale > (from my perspective) he wants. I will make up my own mid what my religion > is. And what A religion is. And if any other religion affects my religion. > (Diversity is a good thing. Honor diversity I thought that was the deal.) Not a diversity of intellectual mush. The point is that we are trying to keep any religious teaching out of schools and especially out of science classes. > > > > It is the question of teaching religious > > > practices in schools not whether or not you can > > > ignore it. > > Teach the kids how to think for themselves. You can't protect them from > religious nuts out side of school. They are going come across such. Help them > figure out for themselves whats a fairy tale and what is real. If OUR schools > had done that, and we were thinking young adults, and not naive and gullable, > we would have moved on a lot faster. I am all for teaching critical thinking skills. > > > > It isn't taught as a religious practice. We're > > going around in circles. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > No it isn't. As a teacher I understand exactly > > > what I am getting an initiate to participate in. > > What? You are getting them involved in something you think is a fairy tale? > So what. Do you share the value of keeping religious teaching out of schools? I think you are missing the point. You can teach about religions in religion class but not try to indoctrinate kids into a specific teaching. Fairy tales should be taught but not as facts. > > > That's in *your* mind, not the student's mind. > > > > > You have not addressed my most important point > > > that the only participation in a Hindu puja is > > > what the student does in TM instruction. > > > > Boy, I'd hate to think that was really your most > > important point. It's meaningless (except with > > regard to Hindu students). As far as the students > > are concerned, they're paying for instruction in > > a secular technique and bringing fruit, flowers, > > and hankie as a traditional offering of gratitude > > to the person who is about to teach them. > > Like my mango analogy. i will buy choice mangos from hindus, jews, > buddhists, muslims and aetheists. What they think and do is not my concern. > As long as the mango they are providing is good, its a clean deal, in my view. Objects like food are a bad analogy for ideas. > > > > > > > > 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. > > Give kids the tools to think rationally and analytically and they will laugh > at such attempts to make fairy tales into science. You are giving them to much credit and responsibility. I think it is up to parents and teachers to keep this line and not put the responsibility on the people with the least information about the issues. >
