--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "boo_lives" <boo_lives@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Barry's talking about the entirely logical case > > > > Lawson made for requiring TM teachers not to be > > > > seen consorting with the competition, something > > > > that is pretty standard in any large organization. > > > > Barry, of course, cannot address that argument. > > > > > > > > but that's really the > > > > > stance they're taking. They're *defending* the > > > > > people who think they have the right to control > > > > > other people's lives. > > > > > > > > Organizations have the right to require that their > > > > official representatives not behave publicly in a > > > > manner that the organization feels puts the > > > > organization in a bad light, yes indeed. > > > > > > > First, the policy applies to everyone - active teachers, non > > > active teachers, sidhas, anyone who wants to be in the dome or > > > generally not on the tmo's black list. > > > > Right. Did I suggest otherwise? > > > > You actually think someone who became a tm > > > teacher 30 yrs ago, hasn't taught in 20 yrs and never will > > > represent tmo again must follow tmorules as to what they can > > > read, who can go see lecture or receive darshan from? > > > > I do believe the phrase I used was "official > > representatives" (see the last paragraph you > > quote above). Did you miss that? > > > > Don't know why this is so all-fired hard to > > understand; it isn't rocket science. Lawson and > > I are NOT DEFENDING these policies as applied to > > anybody but OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE TMO. > > > It seems to me that since the policy is not specific to official > representatives of the TMO, then you would condemn it, and at such > time that they change the policy to your position then you would > support it. > > It's as if Bush bombs the entire middle east and you respond by > saying, well I support the action taken to the extent that there > were legitimate terrorists somewhere in the mountains of pakistan > who deserved it. Instead I would condemn the action taken and > acknowledge that since the action wasn't specifically directed at > those terrorists, the actual motivation for the bombing was > probably something different and not use anti-terrorism as a > legitimizing factor for a basically misguided action.
Gee, do you think you could you load that analogy just a little bit more? We aren't talking about killing and injuring masses of people and widespread destruction of property here. Here's a more reasonable analogy: It's like requiring the entire baseball team to take a drug test because a few players might actually be using drugs. Granted, that's not quite right because taking drugs is not only bad for the team's reputation, drugs are known to be harmful to the individuals taking them. Also, all the members of a team are, in effect, official representatives thereof. So we may have to do without an analogy. Let's remember how this started: Doug quoted an email claiming that Hagelin had said blackballing wasn't MMY's idea but that of the MUM administration. Barry responded claiming that it *was* MMY's idea because MMY had laid down the law about seeing other teachers etc. at his TTC. Lawson pointed out, quite correctly, that this was an instruction specific to TM teachers and was a separate issue from banning siddhas from the domes. Barry attacked Lawson forthwith, saying he had no character or integrity if he could defend "tyranny." Lawson responded noting, again quite correctly, that this was total bullsh*t. TM teachers are expected to tout TM as the best available meditation product-- that's why they're becoming TM teachers, after all-- and if they're seen with other teachers, that makes them, in effect, liars, and the public's not going to trust them. Obviously none of this applies in the case of banning siddhas from the domes. Two different policies, created for different reasons, applied to two different groups of people. The *effect* may be the same, but that wasn't the point. It makes no sense to me to condemn a reasonable policy (actually to condemn its perpetrators) because a different policy with similar effects applied to a different group of people isn't reasonable. That's apples and kiwi fruit, as far as I'm concerned.
