On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:53 PM, WillyTex wrote: > > > > "Ruling in Malnak v. Yogi, the federal appeals > > court declared that TM is grounded in Hinduism..." > > > This is another lie - the court ruled on the teaching > of 'SCI' in public schools, not on teaching the TM > technique. > > The court has not ruled that a "relaxation technique" > cannot be taught in schools. It said that based on the > constitution that certain aspects of TM, such as the > puja, or school prayer, were deemed to be religious > in nature, in view of the US constitution, and cannot > be supported.
The elective course in question included Transcendental Meditation, but the course case's emphasis was on SCI. TM and it's attendant philosophies are clearly a form of religious Neo-vedism, esp. since instruction in TM requires that one endure performance of the 16-fold reception of deity practice, common in modern Hinduism, but disguised in a language the vast majority of people would not recognize (Sanskrit). >From "Exploring Constitutional Conflicts" >(http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm) What is a Religion? If it is unconstitutional to establish a religion, then it might sometimes be important to determine whether something is a "religion" for Establishment Clause purposes. For example, Malnak v Yogi (3rd Cir.) considered whether SCI/TM (scientific creative intelligence/transcendental meditation), offered as an elective course in New Jersey public schools, was a religion. If so, offering such a course--even on an elective basis--might be unconstitutional. Those challenging the course produced evidence that instructors told students that "creative intelligence is the basis of all growth" and that getting in touch with this intelligence through mantras is the way to "oneness with the underlying reality of the universe." They also pointed out that students received personal mantras in puja ceremonies that include chanting and ritual. On the other hand, supporters of the course showed that SCI/TM put forward no absolute moral code, had no organized clergy or observed holidays, and had no ceremonies for passages such as marriage and funerals. Is SCI/TM a religion? Judge Adams of the Third Circuit applied these three criteria before answering the question in the affirmative: 1. A religion deals with issues of ultimate concern; with what makes life worth living; with basic attitudes toward fundamental problems of human existence. 2. A religion presents a comprehensive set of ideas--usually as "truth," not just theory. 3. A religion generally has surface signs (such as clergy, observed holidays, and ritual) that can be analogized to well-recognized religions. In 2001, a federal appeals court ruled against Fundamentalist parents who had contended that a public school had established the religion of "Earth worship," citing such practices as having the students give "gifts" to the planet during an Earth Day program. Does this sound like a religion to you?
