RE: Interference, Prime Directive, Who Decides onCulture?

September 10, 2002

I attended a question and answer meeting at Self Realization Fellowship

(Paramhansa Yogananda) last year during which members could put forth questions

to the organization.

One of the questions that was put forth was 'does SRF believe in Capital

Punishment?' The brother or priest in charge of this session stated that there

is universal law, moral law and man's law. They try to align themselves with

universal law and if man strives to align himself with universal principles

which are natural for ALL....that there would be no conflict between all three

levels of law. Man's law can conflict with what some may consider obvious

universal and humane treatment of another human being "treat those as you would

have them treat you".

He stated that those who try to fight to educate groups that cannot see the

forest for the trees are working in alignment with universal law in order to

help those who are stuck on man's law....evolve and grow towards principles that

encompass the greater good of the forest rather then the law of one tree (in a

sense) so to NOT interfere by means of education/discussion is as bad as

creating the law that is inhumane.

Renee

>>> johnm 09/10/02 04:00PM >>>

Actually, we don't.

I believe that certain crimes are worthy of a death penalty and certain crimes

are not.

I do not believe that I can dictate to another culture what should and shouldn't

be

done within their country.

We can argue endlessly what should and shouldn't be capital crimes. I, for one,

believe

that single murder should not be a capital crime, but should be punished with a

long incarceration.

Very few single murders ever commit another crime except where there are death

penalties.

But this was not the point I was raising. The matter is immoral because of the

inhumanity of it.

-- John M

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 9/10/02 at 6:33 PM MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT) wrote:

>All, and John,

>

>We part company here...

>

>I agree that (within certain bounds of reasonability) each

>country should make and enforce its own laws. BUT, there IS

>that little question of what is reasonable...

>

>1) I am FOR Capital Punishment. BUT...

>2) The punishment should fit the crime (that is be reasonable

> generally speaking).

>3) The punishment should be humane, regardless.

>

>It is my considered opinion, based on what I know of this case,

>that the crime is not worthy of death; that the punishment itself

>is unreasonable; and that the punishment is brutally cruel.

>

>This clearly is not reasonable...

>

>I urge everyone to join me in signing the letter in Mr. Goravani's

>note.

>

>Best Regards,

>Martin

>

>John Melka [johnm]

>Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:25 PM

>gjlist

>Re: [GJ] Interference, Prime Directive, Who Decides on Culture?

>

>On 9/10/02 at 3:01 PM Das Goravani wrote:

>

>>I'm saying now, the odd thing, which is:

>>

>>Who the hell are we to tell Nigeria how to run it's laws?

>>

>The answer is not whether, but how. If I (the government) told you it

>was against the law, nay a capital offense, to spit on the sidewalk,

>and you did it, you would be guilty of a capital offense.

>

>If you were to be given a lethal injection (although we can debate

>the morality of capital punishment) this would be a humane

>sentence. You would pass out and expire.

>

>If, on the other hand, you were to have your spinal fluid removed so

>that your brain slowly collapsed of its weight in your skull and every

>movement was agony until you finally expired, this would be most

>inhumane.

>

>Again the question is how, now why.

>

>The morality of it can also be debated, as to whether a male should

>suffer the same fate (or would) and whether the fetus should suffer the

>fate of its parent.

>

>As for me, the question of how is sufficient.

>

>-- John M

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

Strange but stupid:

"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero,

they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs"

(Weren't Roman C programs always 500 lines long?)

John F (Jack) Melka

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

: gjlist-

Your use of is subject to

September 10, 2002

We are still not disagreeing.

As I see it, man's law is at conflict with moral law because of the inhumanity

of the act.

I cannot presume to interpret universal law, but will assume that it aligns with

my interpretation

of moral law for argument's sake. Therefore man's law is in opposition of both

moral and universal

law.

If I have misinterpreted moral law, then it is either at odds with universal

law, which does't make

sense, or universal law condones killing and further killing in an inhumane

manner. This statement

is patently false (or a whole lot of people who are vegetarians for religious

and humanitarian reasons

are wrong).

Thus we have, at its lowest level, an inhumane (immoral) law and, at a higher

sense, a violation of

universal law(at least at my level of argument).

I simply do not make judgements farther than I have to. A violation of moral

law is enough for me.

So, as I see it, we are in "violent agreement" with another.

Namaste'

-- John

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 9/10/02 at 4:13 PM Renee Serrano wrote:

>I attended a question and answer meeting at Self Realization Fellowship

>(Paramhansa Yogananda) last year during which members could put forth

>questions to the organization.

>

>One of the questions that was put forth was 'does SRF believe in Capital

>Punishment?' The brother or priest in charge of this session stated that

>there is universal law, moral law and man's law. They try to align

>themselves with universal law and if man strives to align himself with

>universal principles which are natural for ALL....that there would be no

>conflict between all three levels of law. Man's law can conflict with

>what some may consider obvious universal and humane treatment of another

>human being "treat those as you would have them treat you".

>

>He stated that those who try to fight to educate groups that cannot see

>the forest for the trees are working in alignment with universal law in

>order to help those who are stuck on man's law....evolve and grow towards

>principles that encompass the greater good of the forest rather then the

>law of one tree (in a sense) so to NOT interfere by means of

>education/discussion is as bad as creating the law that is inhumane.

>

>Renee

>

>>>> johnm 09/10/02 04:00PM >>>

>Actually, we don't.

>

>I believe that certain crimes are worthy of a death penalty and certain

>crimes are not.

>I do not believe that I can dictate to another culture what should and

>shouldn't be

>done within their country.

>

>We can argue endlessly what should and shouldn't be capital crimes. I,

>for one, believe

>that single murder should not be a capital crime, but should be punished

>with a long incarceration.

>Very few single murders ever commit another crime except where there are

>death penalties.

>

>But this was not the point I was raising. The matter is immoral because

>of the inhumanity of it.

>

>-- John M

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

September 11, 2002

Good points.

M

Renee Serrano [RSERRANO]

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:13 PM

gjlist

RE: [GJ] Interference, Prime Directive, Who Decides onCulture?

I attended a question and answer meeting at Self Realization Fellowship

(Paramhansa Yogananda) last year during which members could put forth

questions to the organization.

One of the questions that was put forth was 'does SRF believe in Capital

Punishment?' The brother or priest in charge of this session stated that

there is universal law, moral law and man's law. They try to align

themselves with universal law and if man strives to align himself with

universal principles which are natural for ALL....that there would be no

conflict between all three levels of law. Man's law can conflict with what

some may consider obvious universal and humane treatment of another human

being "treat those as you would have them treat you".

He stated that those who try to fight to educate groups that cannot see the

forest for the trees are working in alignment with universal law in order to

help those who are stuck on man's law....evolve and grow towards principles

that encompass the greater good of the forest rather then the law of one

tree (in a sense) so to NOT interfere by means of education/discussion is as

bad as creating the law that is inhumane.

Renee

>>> johnm 09/10/02 04:00PM >>>

Actually, we don't.

I believe that certain crimes are worthy of a death penalty and certain

crimes are not.

I do not believe that I can dictate to another culture what should and

shouldn't be

done within their country.

We can argue endlessly what should and shouldn't be capital crimes. I, for

one, believe

that single murder should not be a capital crime, but should be punished

with a long incarceration.

Very few single murders ever commit another crime except where there are

death penalties.

But this was not the point I was raising. The matter is immoral because of

the inhumanity of it.

-- John M

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 9/10/02 at 6:33 PM MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT) wrote:

>All, and John,

>

>We part company here...

>

>I agree that (within certain bounds of reasonability) each

>country should make and enforce its own laws. BUT, there IS

>that little question of what is reasonable...

>

>1) I am FOR Capital Punishment. BUT...

>2) The punishment should fit the crime (that is be reasonable

> generally speaking).

>3) The punishment should be humane, regardless.

>

>It is my considered opinion, based on what I know of this case,

>that the crime is not worthy of death; that the punishment itself

>is unreasonable; and that the punishment is brutally cruel.

>

>This clearly is not reasonable...

>

>I urge everyone to join me in signing the letter in Mr. Goravani's

>note.

>

>Best Regards,

>Martin

>

>John Melka [johnm]

>Tuesday, September 10, 2002 5:25 PM

>gjlist

>Re: [GJ] Interference, Prime Directive, Who Decides on Culture?

>

>On 9/10/02 at 3:01 PM Das Goravani wrote:

>

>>I'm saying now, the odd thing, which is:

>>

>>Who the hell are we to tell Nigeria how to run it's laws?

>>

>The answer is not whether, but how. If I (the government) told you it

>was against the law, nay a capital offense, to spit on the sidewalk,

>and you did it, you would be guilty of a capital offense.

>

>If you were to be given a lethal injection (although we can debate

>the morality of capital punishment) this would be a humane

>sentence. You would pass out and expire.

>

>If, on the other hand, you were to have your spinal fluid removed so

>that your brain slowly collapsed of its weight in your skull and every

>movement was agony until you finally expired, this would be most

>inhumane.

>

>Again the question is how, now why.

>

>The morality of it can also be debated, as to whether a male should

>suffer the same fate (or would) and whether the fetus should suffer the

>fate of its parent.

>

>As for me, the question of how is sufficient.

>

>-- John M

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

>: gjlist-

>

>Your use of is subject to

Strange but stupid:

"One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking

zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C

programs"

(Weren't Roman C programs always 500 lines long?)

John F (Jack) Melka

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

: gjlist-

Your use of is subject to

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

: gjlist-

Your use of is subject to

September 11, 2002

AHHH! But here's the rub --

You see, I think that EVERY man, woman and child understands Universal

Law innately (i.e. - "Do unto others ..."), even if they don't OBEY it.

But each individuals interpretation of Moral Law is influenced by ones

culture, and so affects ones take on morals. It seems to me as if men

should try first to align Moral Law "universally", THEN make Man's Law

fit, which is sort of what we try to do. So the question is how do we do

that? More importantly - WHO gets to decide what Moral Law IS?

The problem is that while we all recognize "Moral Law", our interpretation

of Moral Law is colored by our culture. And like Universal Law, we all

recognize it's validity (even if some of us ignore it), but we sometimes

confuse Moral Law with Universal Law - or more correctly assume they are

the same.

Perhaps they should be...

Best regards,

Martin

John Melka [johnm]

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 6:39 PM

gjlist

RE: [GJ] Interference, Prime Directive, Who Decides onCulture?

We are still not disagreeing.

As I see it, man's law is at conflict with moral law because of the

inhumanity of the act.

I cannot presume to interpret universal law, but will assume that it aligns

with my interpretation

of moral law for argument's sake. Therefore man's law is in opposition of

both moral and universal

law.

If I have misinterpreted moral law, then it is either at odds with universal

law, which does't make

sense, or universal law condones killing and further killing in an inhumane

manner. This statement

is patently false (or a whole lot of people who are vegetarians for

religious and humanitarian reasons

are wrong).

Thus we have, at its lowest level, an inhumane (immoral) law and, at a

higher sense, a violation of

universal law(at least at my level of argument).

I simply do not make judgements farther than I have to. A violation of

moral law is enough for me.