--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My question is more fundamental -- do you *really* think > > > it's a good idea to present meditation as something that > > > people are SENTENCED TO? > > > > > > I mean really...think this through... > > > > As part of a parole or equivalent agreement? Sure, as long > > as it is voluntary and there is a compliance component of > > some kind. If the sentence is mandatory, then its silly. > > You can't prove that someone is meditating anyway, unless > > you hook them up to machines constantly. > > Would you consider making it mandatory if there *was* > a simple way to prove whether they were meditating > or not, and thus force compliance? >
Gack... As opposed to what? Shooting them? Keeping them on pharmaceuticals via IV, strapped to a bed? I suppose there COULD be extreme cases where "mandatory TM" might be justifiable, but for the most part, no.
