--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > They shouldn't be allowed to teach religious concepts at school > > as though they were facts. This is what worries me about the > > TMO, I heard one kid telling me he was doing well at jyotish at > > school. WTF? What possible excuse is there for taking a young > > mind and filling it full of garbage? > > Here's a relevant article. Bill Maher comments on Mitt > Romney giving the commencement address at Liberty Uni- > versity in Virginia. This is a "university" that teaches > "creation science," and that the Earth was created 5000 > years ago. As Maher puts it so well, "This is a school > you flunk out of when you get the answers right." > > Bill Maher: Liberty University Is Not A Real School: > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/19/bill-maher-new-rule-liberty-university_n_1530400.html > > I think his argument extends equally to MUM. It's not > real school. Real schools don't teach students to believe > in astrology and that chanting to gods and goddesses and > waving candles and rice at them (yagyas) are "scientific." > Real schools don't ban students from one of its supposedly > most important functions for going to see a teacher from > another school (of thought, if not of academia).
This is what I learned about that from Fred Travis: apparently the provide you with a "current" model and the model can of course change (provided they listen to their students good points, since I had a few. Essentially I said It's not proven[but that doesn't mean we should lie and say it's not true as it works; plus considering it came from Maharishi it could be true]. Also I showed them potatoes are not slow digesting as the glycemic index says they are moderate to fast digesting. Also I said Lactose intolerance doesn't come from a misuse of lactose, it inherent[they could be kind of right though as I never did the research fully] as 99% of Native Americans are lactose intolerant and only 1% of [I think] Sweden is lactose intolerant). The model is important however as it shows us we can never be certain, but according to science it's the best thing we have is a current model of how we look at things. So prove it wrong if you want and HOPEFULLY they will change it. > > It's a shame because in > > other ways they clearly benefit a lot from being in a school > > like this, a positive atmosphere, stress free (compared to the > > state equivalent). > > I would agree if the "positive atmosphere" were 1) based > on reality instead of fantasy, and 2) actually present. > It's not, after all, as if MIU/MUM hasn't had almost > exactly the same percentage of suicides and crimes over > the years as other schools its size. If the ME hasn't > demonstrated its effectiveness in one podunk town in > Iowa, it certainly isn't going to demonstrate it on > a grander scale. I have no idea the research on this however I heard from Craig Pearson that Fairfield's crime rate is dramatically lower. Also I heard from (I think) the governor of Fairfield that the businesses are blooming very well. So maybe we see it maybe we don't. > > If only they would stick to teaching what is known > > or at least speculated to be true rather than dogma. > > I see *no problem* with them teaching fantasies about what > they believe *as long as they present them that way*. I > similarly have no problem with Liberty University teaching > "creation science" as long as they present it not only as > what it is (a belief based on a book of dubious authority), > and that this belief conflicts strongly with what science > tells us. Presenting it as truth is...uh...a lie. > > > I propose all religious teachings be included in a lesson > > called: History of Human beliefs, that way you could keep > > it seperate and kids would learn how to think objectively > > and accept that mankind has gone through many strange belief > > systems and that there are unknowns and perhaps even > > unknowables and be happy with that but keen to find out > > for sure. The only problem I have with teaching people's religions are not absolute truth is it may go against their hearts and of course, being me, I think the heart is highest communicator of truth. > Exactly. > > > Telling people something is done and dusted does them no > > favours. We need the will to find out not the wish to believe! > > Exactly. Emphasis on the "we." > > You and I are driven by the wish to find out. We (I'm > assuming here, based on many of the things you've written) > dive into mysteries not seeking "pat answers" to them, > but well aware that they may expand into ever-deepening > mysteries. That's just NOT A PROBLEM. It may, in > fact, be a plus. How BORING it would be to feel as if > one had "all the answers." > > For others, however, their fear of mystery and their need to > "know the truth," even if that "truth" is just a bunch of > dogma spouted at them by someone *claiming* it's "truth," is > so strong that they glom onto the pat answers given to them > as if now that they've heard them they can relax, and stop > thinking. It's as if you can hear them sighing mentally > and saying "Whew! I'm sure glad all that uncertainty is gone > and I 'know' How Things Really Work now." > > For such people, it's probably a good thing that "schools" > such as Liberty University and MUM exist. It gives these > people a place to hide from uncertainty, among peers who > share their desire to hide. >
