Is TM a Religion? - The Truth About TM

Millions of people have learned the Transcendental Meditation program from all religious faiths, including priests, rabbis, and ministers, and they find no conflict between the practice and their religions. Instead, they find that the Transcendental Meditation program enriches the practice of their own religions. In addition, many teachers of the Transcendental Meditation program are ordained clergy in traditional religions and, at the same time, continue to teach the technique.

It should be pointed out that the Federal Government has never declared that the TM program is a religion. In fact, over the last 25 years, numerous government programs involving the TM program have been approved by the Federal and State governments implementing or researching the TM program in health facilities, schools, universities, research facilities, prisons and probation programs. Over approximately 20 million dollars in government grants have been provided for these purposes.

It is true, some 27 years ago, there was one federal court case in New Jersey which deemed that the Federal Department of Education’s funding of the teaching of a particular curriculum in “The Science of Creative Intelligence” to public secondary school students was an unconstitutional entanglement of the government with religion due to the claim that “Creative Intelligence” was somehow used as a religious concept in that particular program. (Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F2d 197, 1979).

However, no court before or since, anywhere in the United States or elsewhere has ever come to such a similar conclusion. What is even more relevant, is that no court anywhere has ever ruled that the practice of the TM program itself is religious. As Judge Adams noted in his opinion in the Malnak case the issue was “not a course in TM alone, but a course in the Science of Creative Intelligence” (Malnak at p. 213).

It was the particular curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence which was found objectionable by this sole court almost three decades ago. That very localized, narrow and anomalous ruling has not been followed by any court since, or apparently been found to be of any legal significance by the numerous government funding agencies which have approved the use of the TM program in their fields.

The fact that the TM program has been derived from an ancient tradition in India and revived by a man revered there with a spiritual title, of course should have no bearing on the validity of the use of the TM program. The TM program is not Hinduism, therefore, any more than Einstein's theory of relativity is Jewish, or Genetic theory, conceived of by Monk Gregor Mendel is considered to be Christian. The practice of the program involves no religious beliefs but is a mechanical and effortless technique for experiencing increasingly refined or restful levels of mental and physiological activity enjoyed by individuals of all religious (and non-religious) backgrounds.

The US Supreme Court has noted on several occasions that the First Amendment’s religion clause should not be used to prevent government from implementing programs of value for the public. As Chief Justice Earl Warren, for example, stated in McGowan v. Maryland , 366 US 420, 445:

"To say that the States cannot prescribe Sunday as a day of rest for these [secular] purposes solely because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in religion would give a constitutional interpretation of hostility to the public welfare rather than one of mere separation of church and state."

And in Agostini v Felton, 521 US 203 (1997) where the Supreme Court clearly loosened up these First Amendment restrictions, Justice O’Connor reminded us that to overstate such First Amendment claims when redeeming social benefits can be derived is inappropriate.

To hold the opinion that the Transcendental Meditation program is a religion is to ignore an enormous body of scientific research which demonstrates clearly that it is not a religion. Transcendental Meditation is a scientific technique whose benefits have been validated through more than 600 research studies conducted at 209 independent universities and research institutions in 29 countries and published in leading, peer-reviewed journals. The Transcendental Meditation program participants who were subjects in these research studies represented all religious traditions.

The practice of the Transcendental Meditation program does not involve contemplation about any religious or secular ideas, nor does it involve concentration, which is characteristic of some religious practices. It is a simple, universal technology of consciousness that allows the active mind to settle to its silent self-referral state, a level which has distinctive physiological correlates, such as increased EEG coherence and decreased respiration rate—and a wide range of practical benefits for all areas of life—physiology, psychological, sociological, and ecological.

Much of the research and scientific and public acceptance of the objective benefits of the Transcendental Meditation program has occurred since a federal court in New Jersey held that the instruction of the Transcendental Meditation program in the public schools with public funds had religious overtones that conflicted with the First Amendment’s Establishment clause.

We believe that this isolated ruling was in error, and so do constitutional scholars, most notably Laurence Tribe of Harvard, who strenuously objected to the court’s conclusion. It is also significant to note that in federal litigation by individuals belonging to a group calling itself TM–Ex, their attorney stipulated in 1987 that the Transcendental Meditation program was not a religion (Kropinski v. WPEC. U.S. District court for the District of Columbia, No 85-2848).

e.g., Wallace, R. K. Physiological effects of Transcendental Meditation. Science 167: 1751–1754, 1970.

Wallace, R. K., et al. A wakeful hypometabolic physiologic state. American Journal of Physiology 221: 795–799, 1971.

Wallace, R. K., et al. The physiology of meditation. Scientific American 226: 84–90, 1972.

Badawi, K.; Wallace, R. K.; Orme-Johnson, D.; and Rouzeré, A.-M. Electrophysiologic characteristics of respiratory suspension periods occurring during the practice of the Transcendental Meditation program. Psychosomatic Medicine 46(3): 267–276, 1984.

Farrow, J. T., and, Hebert J. R. Breath suspension during the Transcendental Meditation technique. Psychosomatic Medicine 44(2):133–153, 1982.

Carter Phillips Letter Re the Constitutionality of the TM Program in Public Schools.

Carter Phillips is a top appellate lawyer in one of the largest law firm in America, Sidley Austin, LLP. His letter reproduced below addresses the question of whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion. He concludes that it is not a religion, supporting his view by citing legal precedents and constitutional law.

April 9, 2007

Re:Transcendental Meditation Program in Public Schools Constitutional

To Whom It May Concern:

We have been asked to respond to concerns that the Transcendental Meditation ("TM") Program, implemented in public schools, may violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause generally forecloses school sanctioned religious activity. Because the TM program is not a religious activity, the Establishment Clause does not preclude its use in public schools. Even if the TM program were deemed to be a religious activity, as long as it is implemented as part of a "Quiet Time" program, its practice in the public schools still would not violate the First Amendment.

BACKGROUND

The TM Program in public schools voluntarily instructs students in the beneficial Transcendental Meditation technique that they can practice for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day during a school's Quiet Time program The program has been implemented successfully in public schools and other institutions around the country and offers many benefits to those who practice the technique. The TM Program is a simple and mechanical meditation technique that does not require or involve a specific belief system and consequently is not religious in tone or practice. Because the Program is not religious, it is an acceptable activity in public schools and the public school program does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.

ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ONLY APPLIES
TO RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY

The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." U.S. Const. amend. I. The basic principle of the Establishment Clause in the public schools is that "the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way which establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) (quotation marks and alteration omitted). If no religion or religious practice is implicated, there is no Establishment Clause concern.

Page 2

In the sphere of public schools, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit religious instruction or religiously motivated curriculum decisions.¹ For example, in public schools, the Establishment Clause prohibits officially authorized prayers, Engel v. Vital, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), see also Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), officially authorized Bible readings, School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963), and exclusion of scientific teachings from the classroom if the exclusion is motivated by the view that the teachings conflict with religion, Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968).

When neither religious belief nor religious practice is implicated, the Establishment Clause does not interfere with the curricular and extracurricular judgments that school administrators are best suited to make. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated, in at least one context, that religions or religious beliefs are those that "are based upon a power or being, or upon a faith, to which all else is subordinate or upon which all else is ultimately dependent." United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 176 (1965); see also Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 339-40 (1970). One commonly accepted re-phrasing of this test breaks it into three questions:

1. Does the practice or belief in question "address[] fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters"?

2. Is the practice or belief in question "comprehensive in nature"? Does it "consist[] of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching"?

3. Does the practice or belief in question have "certain formal and external signs," such as "formal services, ceremonial functions, the existence of clergy, structure and organization, efforts at propagation, observance of holidays and other similar manifestations associated with traditional religion"? Africa v. Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025, 1032, 1035 (3d Cir. 1981).

If the answer to either of the first two questions is no, the practice in question is not a religion. The third question serves as a helpful guidepost, but religions and non-religions alike may answer yes to it. In this way, if a certain belief serves to answer "ultimate questions" dealing with topics such as "life and death, right and wrong, and good and evil," it may be a religion. Id. at 1033. But even if the practice does ask and/or answer those ultimate questions, it must also do so in a comprehensive manner. "A religion is not generally confined to one question or one moral teaching; it has a broader scope. It lays claim to an ultimate and comprehensive 'truth,’" Id. at 1035 (quotation marks omitted). Courts will also look to see whether an organization or practice "looks" like religion: does it have clergy, ceremonies, rites, and holidays. Certain religions may not have this "look" and certain non-religions may have organizational schemes that are similar to traditional religion; thus this question serves merely to give further guidance.

¹ The Fourteenth Amendment applies the force of the First Amendment to the States. See Wallace v. Jafree, 472

U.S. 38, 49-50 (1985).

The TM program is not a belief system. It does not address fundamental or ultimate truths. It serves as a mechanical technique that relaxes the practitioner and may beneficially affect the practitioner's health. It can lead to calmness and increase a person's readiness to learn. If practiced widely enough, it may also decrease violence and aggression. This technique, which leads to beneficial results, simply does not answer questions of ultimate concern. The TM program is not a comprehensive belief system. The technique of TM does not answer or deal with even one ultimate concern much less a comprehensive system of such concerns. It is not intended, nor is it practiced or taught, as a way to answer life's deeper questions. The TM program is not accompanied by the "look" of traditional religion.

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.

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

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