--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While he's often right on, I think Jody (Guruphiliac) missed 
> the boat on this one. While the lawyer in question may be
> Christian, what he's saying in his lawsuit is *correct*:
> it's fuckin' inappropriate for *any* judge *anywhere* 
> to be able to compel *anyone* to practice *any* form of 
> meditation or spiritual practice for *any* reason. Period.
> Maharishi never got this, IMO because he's a control 
> freak who *already* believes that he should be able to 
> run the lives of his teachers the way *he* feels they 
> should be run.  It's a short hop from believing that to
> believing that he has the right to mandate the lifestyle 
> of everyone else in society.  And he's on record as 
> believing that he *does* have that right, and that TM 
> *should* be mandated by governments.  
> Talk about missing the point.  Personally, I don't see
> that much difference between Maharishi's stance on this
> subject and that of the Ayatollahs in Iran or Afghanistan 
> who wish to "enforce" Islam, or that of religious fanatics 
> in every society and in every time who have felt they had
> the right to impose their beliefs on others.
> The real issue is freedom of choice with regard to one's
> spiritual or meditational practices.  In my opinion, anyone 
> who is willing to take that freedom away from someone, while 
> claiming it's "for their own good," is on the same level as
> the despot or dictator who would take away their physical 
> freedom.

I thought that the defendents were usually given a choice of 2
sentences, one with meditation, and one without that has more
'traditional' punishment. Does anyone know for sure?


To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to