--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > I just think the whole objection is vastly overblown > > > and highly artificial and largely motivated by > > > resentment, not concern for the students. > > > > I don't think reducing the points I have made in this > > discussion as being somehow motivated by some negitive > > emotion does justice to the points made. > > I'm saying it seems to me the points are way too > weak to support such determined opposition.
I only interested in discussing it, I am not going to spend a second opposing it. I am much more concerned with Creation "Science" getting into the schools system. But for those willing to invest time in this, I don't see any reason to see their motives as less sincere than your own. > > > I am not objecting for emotional reasons. I have > > given you the intellectual reasons why I believe TM > > is religious and I'm sure I don't have to make a > > case with you why religion shouldn't be promoted in > > schools do I? > > No. But just because *you* think it's religious isn't > enough to make me nervous about it. Of course not. I would be disappointed if you did switch your POV. > > > 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. > > > 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. It is the question of teaching religious practices in schools not whether or not you can ignore it. 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. You have not addressed my most important point that the only participation in a Hindu puja is what the student does in TM instruction. > > > 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. There was a LOT of repetition in the SCi course. So the concept of pure TM without SCI is bogus. It just means they miss some details of how TM is the fulfillment of "whatever." Lynch is a TB, I don't know what you think he will be watching for. As far as your comparative level of concern goes, I may share that. Parents and teachers should do their due diligence to learn about TM before it gets into their schools. It is up to them. I am much more concerned about kids being exposed to the dying art of acoustic blues while in school. We each pick our battles. >
