--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > This is was profound post for me.
Thanks for this, Curtis. I figured that you'd be one of the folks who would "get" the intent behind these questions. Given the polarity we see around us behind the duality of secular vs. not-so-secular, I see this question being important in our collective futures. If the not-so-secular crowd "wins," will techniques that clearly have their roots in religion be rendered unavailable except to those who are already lost souls, and not within the fold of the way-ready-for-the-rapture pre-saved? Will classes offered in the public sector be allowed to include those based in religion, or not? And if the answer is Not, what will the replacement classes be? The people named in my original post -- teachers, doctors, therapists, and other care-givers -- still want to "give care." They DO care. And many of them are open enough to believe that there are valuable techniques hiding within the less-valuable fluff of traditional religions or spiritual traditions? Will they be able to use them? If not, what will take their place? I think these are viable questions. > I believe Sam Harris has taken your questions pretty > seriously and has written about possible answers. I'll look into this. > The comparison between TM and proprietary software is > right on. I think so. Then again, I've worked in the software industry for 35+ years now, so I tend to see things that way. "Open Source" is a very different thing from proprietary software, and opens up new possibilities. > Getting TM into schools will always be saddled with the same > problems as an other religious education. But instead of > being slipped by willing Christians as has creationism, it > will stand out as scary foreign Hinduism. I suspect that this is true.
