--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > <snip> > > > > 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 don't know where you get your confidence > > in David Lynch or how much you think any celeb > > gets to be "in charge" of a movement project, > > but I don't share it. > > He's funding it. The whole project was his idea. > If he pulls out, the TMO is left sitting with its > thumb up its nose and another black mark on its > record.
I have a feeling that all glory is going to go to Guru Dev and Maharishi. > > I would be astonished if he permitted the TMO to > fart around in such a way that threatened the > viability of the project, which would surely > happen if it didn't keep a tight clamp on > anything that might make people nervous. So he's going to drop the puja huh? In any case he has no control over the kid's access to checking or further information a few years down the road with a dying organization. He will be no better equipped to deal with physiological problems. He is a TB and will take the sage advice of the Rajas. > > > > > 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? > > > > 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. So if they don't know it is a religious ceremony that is OK? I think you are missing the point. We aren't using the student's perspective on any aspect of keeping religious doctrines from schools. Don't you think they are also fooled about creation "science?" Tying to pin this on John Knapp seems fishy to me. Bringing up this concern is a collective interest of more than John. And the whole idea that it might slip through without scrutiny if people just keep their mouth's shut seems very slippery to me. An open debate is appropriate. My opinion may not be your own, but it is not uninformed. I am making valid concerns whether you agree with them or not. There > just isn't anything *intrinsically* religious > about the basic TM course from the students' > perspective. They don't have an informed perspective, how could they? Again fooling kids is not the criteria for what makes anything religious in schools. I could get them to take communion if I wanted to using substitute words. It has to be added on. Don't wrap > it up in a religious package, and it isn't > religious. You are in serious denial about the puja. I am not wrapping it up in anything. > > > It is the question of teaching religious > > practices in schools not whether or not you can > > ignore it. > > It isn't taught as a religious practice. We're > going around in circles. Like creation "Science", TM tries a marketing angle that doesn't fool informed people. > > > 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. > > That's in *your* mind, not the student's mind. Again, if the kid doesn't know that creation "science" is from the Bible then it is OK to teach it in schools? > > > 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). And creation "science's" connection with the Bible is meaningless to any non Christian student? 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. They are told it is an offering to Guru Dev, it is not to the teacher. It is a traditional Indian Puja with all the beliefs and practices including the student being invited to kneel. I have never been to a puja where people were forced to do more than people do at a TM instruction puja. Often the participation is much less. > > That Hindus, or the TM teacher, understand a puja > ceremony differently is just totally irrelevant. > It doesn't somehow change what's going on in the > students' minds. Again, how is Creation "Science" different if the student doesn't understand it comes from the Bible? > > The only way you can make a case, it seems to me, > is if you yourself are completely convinced that > something magical happens to the student as a > result of witnessing the puja, without their > knowledge or understanding or consent. Somehow I > don't think that's a case you'd want to make. I don't have to believe that the Bible is magical to know that it shouldn't be used as an alternative view in science class. The lack of truth of the religious claims have nothing to do with this issue. > > > > > 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. > > > > SCI is the theoretical basis for the practice. > > You are making an artificial distinction between > > the length of time of study, the 33 lessons of > > the now defunct course and the 3 days of checking. > > But with the 3 day's covering of higher states of > > consciousness it covers a lot of the same ground, > > just abbreviated. > > *Very* abbreviated. And as I recall, it was all > just on the third day, the "vision of possibilities." The theoretical underpinning is present from the into lecture on. > It didn't sound religious to me when I sat through > it. A new student is not the proper judge of its content. I didn't have to draw pictures or repeat > formulas or take a test. Like what religion? Name one that uses that criteria. It pretty much went in one > ear and out the other. Took about an hour. Gotcha, so if the students don't pay attention we can teach the Bible in schools. If we just skim through it real quick like? > > The level of importance accorded to the third day > in comparison to the SCI course makes a huge > difference. Yes, there was a lot of repetition in > the SCI course, but that's part of the difference-- > the principles were drummed in. So how much religion indoctrination in schools is too much? How about just one brief point being made about Christ being our Savior? Especially if the kids are not paying much attention or we do it in Latin so they can't understand? Do you think there would be any doubt about the religious nature of the puja if we sang it in English? > > The SCI course could well be considered indoctrination. > The third day of checking, in contrast, is a brief > summary of what the TM teacher believes, take it or > leave it. And I still say it's not intrinsically > religious--you have to dress it up in religious > clothing to make it so. The basic, naked principles > have to do with the nature and mechanics of > consciousness, which I think of as ontologically > prior to religion. We do not agree on the content of Maharishi's teachings. He is teaching a Hindu POV with different terms so it doesn't upset people who might not believe that his religious views are ontologically prior to their own religious beliefs. > > (And I'd be willing to bet a few bucks that's how > MMY thought of it as well. That he did the full- > blown Hindu thing himself doesn't mean he didn't > understand it as such.) If you hung out with him you might have a different impression about his views. Whenever he let his hair down with us he communicated differently from the stilted marketing language he used for outsiders. It became more explicitly religious. You couldn't hang out with him for long without him presiding over a puja to a Hindu god or goddess. Being ignorant of his full belief system has nothing to do with the religious nature of what he was teaching. Otherwise we could give holy communions in schools as long as the kids didn't understand what was going on. >
