RE: Interference, Prime Directive, Who DecidesonCulture?

[Guest guest]

<GRIN> You are correct:o) I am happy to be in violent agreement with you:o)

 

Renee

 

>>> johnm 09/10/02 04:39PM >>>

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat

: gjlist-

 

 

 

Your use of is subject to