Oh okay, then its a cultic religion by definition & test.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orme-Johnson [mailto:davi...@...]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 3:40 PM
> To: David Orme-Johnson
> Subject: Attorney's Letter re TM & Religion
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
>
>
> I have just posted on wwwTruthAboutTM.com a profound letter by a
>leading
> attorney on the question of whether the TM program is a religion. He
> considers the issue from the perspective of the legal definition of
> "religion", and concludes that >
> Page 3
>
>
> It has been asserted that the TM program was previously declared a
> religious practice in federal court. This, however, is demonstrably
>not
> so. In a Third Circuit case from 1979,
the Court found that an elective
course on the Science of Creative Intelligence was a religious
activity.
> Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197 (3d Cir. 1979). To be sure, the
elective
course included the use of the TM technique, but the Court's focus was
> on the Science of Creative Intelligence. Judge Adams explained, in
his
> separate opinion, that the belief in Creative Intelligence was a
> comprehensive system for looking at issues of ultimate concern-
answering
> affirmatively the first two questions later delineated in Africa.
> Malnak, 592 F.2d at 213 (Adams, J. concurring). The Court certainly
did
> not decide whether TM by itself was a religious activity. Id.
("[TM] by
> itself might be defended ... as primarily a relaxation or
concentration
> technique with no 'ultimate' significance").
>
> Some have suggested that the religious nature of the TM program is
> revealed in the single ceremony called "the Puja". Prior to a
> practitioner engaging in the TM technique for the first time, the
> practitioner witnesses the Puja. After the ceremony each individual
> being instructed is given a mantra to use-a word, to which no
meaning is
> ascribed, to silently repeat during the TM technique. The Puja is
not a
> religious activity, though it may have the "look" of a religious
> ceremony. Because it is performed entirely in Sanskrit, no student
and
> maybe not even the teacher who leads the Puja, know what the foreign
> words mean in English. See id. at 203. Simply put, the Puja does not
> have religious significance (it does not address "ultimate
questions")
> and is merely a ceremonial method by which mantras are assigned. In
> addition, it is practiced only once for each student.
>
> TRANSCENDENTAL MEDITATION AS PART OF A QUIET
> TIME PROGRAM IS CONSTITUTIONAL
>
> Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious
> practice, its use in the context
> of a "Quiet Time" program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled
> that a school policy, which
> provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem
> fit, is unlawful or
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
----
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>
> April 9, 2007
>
> Page 4
>
> unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could
engage
> in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally
implemented
> period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First
> Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree,
confirmed
> the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the
> classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State
> legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which
> impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: "The legislative
> intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite
> different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in
> voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the
> school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right,
> containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in
voluntary
> prayer during a silent minute of meditation." 472 U.S. at 58.
Moment of
> silence or quiet time laws or policies are constitutional when they
> demonstrate neutrality to religion, have a "clearly secular
purpose,"
> and do not entangle schools in religious issues. Id. at 56; see
Brown v.
> Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 (4th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 996
(2001)
> (upholding neutral quiet time law with clearly secular purpose
against
> Establishment Clause challenge); Brown v. Gwinnett County Sch.
Dist.,
> 112 F.3d 1464 (11th Cir. 1997) (same).
>
> The "Quiet Time" program, as it is currently instituted in public
> schools, does not raise an issue under the Establishment Clause.
First,
> it maintains the school's complete neutrality to religion.
The "Quiet
> Time" program allows students to engage in any quiet activity that
they
> choose. The school does not favor one practice over another. Second,
> even if the TM technique were a religious activity, the "Quiet Time"
> program has a clearly secular purpose: it allows students a quiet
period
> during which preparation for the activities of the day can occur.
Like
> the quiet time law upheld by the 9th Circuit in Brown v. Gilmore,
the
> "Quiet Time" program in question has a clearly secular purpose
because,
> among other things, it is "a good classroom management tool"
and "works
> as a good transition, enabling students to pause, settle down,
compose
> themselves and focus on the day ahead." 258 F.3d at 277. Finally,
even
> if the TM program were a religious practice, the school is not
entangled
> in the actual practice. Teachers, if they choose, may take part in
TM,
> however, their role is merely to begin and end the quiet time
period. No
> court has ever stood in the way of a school administrator's
> well-informed decision to enact neutral school programs that
improve the
> learning environment of the classroom.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> Because the TM Program is not religious activity, its
implementation in
> the public school system is not a violation of the Establishment
Clause.
>
