posted October 19, 2004 12:28 PM              

Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice

You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees.
An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.
A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul.

Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and
done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Democracy and violence can ill go together.
Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.

What kind of victory is it when someone is left defeated?

However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an
uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of
causes.

Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the
other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more
effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.

Nonviolence and cowardice are contradictory terms. Nonviolence is the
greatest virtue, cowardice the greatest vice. Nonviolence springs from
love, cowardice from hate. Nonviolence always suffers, cowardice would
always inflict suffering. Perfect nonviolence is the highest bravery.
Nonviolent conduct is never demoralizing, cowardice always is.

Destruction is not the law of humans. Man lives freely only by his
readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him.
Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity.

It is the law of love that rules mankind. Had violence, i.e. hate, ruled us
we should have become extinct long ago. And yet, the tragedy of it is that
the so-called civilized men and nations conduct themselves as if the basis
of society was violence.

posted October 19, 2004 12:31 PM              

However much I may sympathize with and admire worthy motives, I am an
uncompromising opponent of violent methods even to serve the noblest of
causes.

posted October 19, 2004 12:39 PM              

quote:

---

Destruction is not the law of humans. Man lives freely only by his
readiness to die, if need be, at the hands of his brother, never by killing him.
Every murder or other injury, no matter for what cause, committed or inflicted on
another is a crime against humanity.

---

posted October 19, 2004 12:49 PM            

How easy it is to spout pacifist drivel when you're dealing with an inherently decent and civilized nation, like Great Britain.

Happily LS, I'm entirely willing for you to put your health and safety where your and Gandhi's mouth are.

I hereby appoint you "special envoy" to take you message of peace, friendship, love and non violence to Osama bin Laden, the Baathists in Iraq who are killing their own people to stave off free elections and of course, the other terrorists in Iran, Iraq and Syria.

posted October 19, 2004 09:03 PM              

The Bush Regime has stooped to the same low level as Saddam and Osama, IMO.

posted October 20, 2004 12:47 AM              

Jwhop, Tell our founding fathers how civilized Great Britain is to those it occupies. Tell it to the Catholics in Northern Ireland. Tell it to the Native Americans. And many more throughout history.

This is one of my favorite Ghandi quotes and ain't it the truth?!!

posted October 20, 2004 02:28 PM            

quote:

---

How nice that Gandhi said those things but Gandhi never met Adolph Hitler, never met Joseph Stalin, never met Mao, never met Kim Sung Ill, never met Ho Chi Minh, never met Saddam Hussein or a host of other dictators who would have stood him against the wall and blown his head off.
How easy it is to spout pacifist drivel when you're dealing with an inherently decent and civilized nation, like Great Britain.

Happily LS, I'm entirely willing for you to put your health and safety where your and Gandhi's mouth are.

I hereby appoint you "special envoy" to take you message of peace, friendship, love and non violence to Osama bin Laden, the Baathists in Iraq who are killing their own people to stave off free elections and of course, the other terrorists in Iran, Iraq and Syria.

I'm sure they will see your point without further attacks or bloodshed.

---

posted October 20, 2004 05:01 PM            

That was bloody rediculous, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Where, in any of the words posted by LS, does she ever say ''we should be this way in dealing with terrorists.'' ? ? ????? Yeah, she doesn't. So keep your ''let's turn this whole thread into a liberal/peaceful-minded-person-bashing rant'' to yourself, FOR ONCE.

And I completly agree with Harpyr, the way you chose your words there was not very kind.

Ghani

posted October 20, 2004 05:16 PM            

You are invited to not read what I post, your choice.

You are also invited to not suggest what I should or should not post.

posted October 21, 2004 01:22 AM              

I got the name wrong. My mistake, so sorry.

Randall, the peace keepers are trying to bring about a better world and taking their message to all people.

I am so impressed with and admire so much the work that Hans Kung is doing to bring about a "Global Ethic." It would be so wonderful and beautiful if we as world citizens not only embraced those ethics or standards of living but did our part working together as a human communitiy to spread it all over the world as he is doing.

Hans Kung set forth very simple standards of conduct that if practiced by world leaders, the people of the world, and corporations much of the evil we see in our world today would simply disappear because it would no longer be condoned or just accepted. It would no longer be the "norm."

Kung's Ethics or Standards of conduct are:

We all have a responsibility for a better global order.

Our involvement for the sake of human rights, freedom, justice, peace, and the preservation of Earth is absolutely necessary.

Our different religious and cultural traditions must not prevent our common involvement in opposing all forms of inhumanity and working for greater humaneness. (I don't think he meant to do that by blowing people up though.)

The principles expressed in this Global Ethic can be affirmed by all persons with ethical convictions, whether religiously grounded or not.

As religious and spiritual persons we base our lives on an Ultimate Reality, and draw spiritual power and hope therefrom, in trust, in prayer or meditation, in word or silence. We have a special responsibility for the welfare of all humanity and care for the planet Earth. We do not consider ourselves better than other women and men, but we trust that the ancient wisdom of our religions can point the way for the future.

Hans Kung has written many books concerning a Global Ethic and he travels all over word teaching and exhorting people to stive for a planet of peace and love.

Question: Define please who "the terrorists" are. Could we not also be considered terrorists to them and other people of the world?

The definition of terror in the Webster dictionary is:
1. a state of intense fear:Fright 2. one that inspires fear

71% of Europeans said they are more afraid of the U.S. than Osama bin Laden. If the definition of a terrorist is one that inspires fear then to 71% of Europeans we are considered terrorists.

Just something to think about.

posted October 21, 2004 01:52 AM            

I was indeed I who said the British were inherently decent and civilized. Of course, those terms are relative and evolve over time.

My point was that Gandhi's peace and non violence policy, which was one of passive resistance would only work with nations like the British or other western nations. They would never have worked with, for instance, Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Jong Ill, Pot Pol or Ho Chi Minh, et.al. Any one of those dictators would have seized Gandhi and executed him without a second thought.

Ummmm, Mirandee, one of the complaints the colonists had against the British Crown was that they used the American Indians against them. Read the Declaration of Independence. That was one of the causes Jefferson said a decent respect for the opinions of mankind compelled the colonies to reveal for their separation from Britain. So, it hardly follows that the British were less than friendly with the Indians.

posted October 21, 2004 02:13 AM              

We, along with our children, have been taught:

1. We can do anything we want and we don't have to answer to anyone for our actions. We are not accountable for our actions.

2. No one has the right to disagree with us. We are always right and never make mistakes.

3. If someone protests our actions and our opionions we must label that person and then dismiss them.

4. If they persist in disagreeing with us we must discredit that person's character in some way. If we can't find anything on the person that is truth it's okay to make something up.

5. By all means we are never to take responsibility for anything that happens. We must find a scapegoat and blame it on them.

6. Never negotiate and attempt to work things out in a peaceful way. Peace and negotiation are for "girly men." If someone does something to us we should just blow them away.

7. There is only one side of the story and that is ours. We must never let the other side be heard. If someone tries to tell the other side we should follow steps 3, 4, and 6

8. Whatever we do is okay. It's not okay if the other person does the same thing. That's playing dirty.

posted October 21, 2004 03:25 AM              

Democracy necessarily means a conflict of will and ideas, involving sometimes a war . . . between different ideas.

The very essence of democracy is that every person represents all the varied interests which compose the nation.

Democracy is a great institution and, therefore, it is liable to be greatly abused.

Democracy is an impossible thing until the power is shared by all, but let not democracy degenerate into mobocracy.

Democracy is not a state in which people act like sheep.

Democracy and violence can ill go together.

Evolution of democracy is not possible if we are not prepared to hear the other side.

Democracy, disciplined and enlightened, is the finest thing in the world.

The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed from without. It has to come from within.

My notion of democracy is that under it the weakest should have the same opportunity as the strongest.

To safeguard democracy the people must have a keen sense of independence, self-respect, and their oneness.

Intolerance, discourtesy, and harshness are taboo in all good society and are surely contrary to the spirit of democracy.

In true democracy every man and women is taught to think for himself or herself.

The spirit of democracy cannot be established in the midst of terrorism, whether governmental or popular.

Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.

posted October 21, 2004 03:46 AM            

definition - Federal Republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

definition - Constitutional Democracy - a form of government in which the sovereign power of the people is spelled out in a governing constitution.

definition - Democracy - a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but which is usually exercised indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed.

definition - Constitutional - a government by or operating under an authoritative document (constitution) that sets forth the system of fundamental laws and principles that determines the nature, functions, and limits of that government.

definition - Democratic Republic - a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

definition - Republic - a representative democracy in which the people's elected deputies (representatives), not the people themselves, vote on legislation.

definition - Federal (Federative) - a form of government in which sovereign power is formally divided - usually by means of a constitution - between a central authority and a number of constituent regions (states, colonies, or provinces) so that each region retains some management of its internal affairs; differs from a confederacy in that the central government exerts influence directly upon both individuals as well as upon the regional units.

***

http://www.chrononhotonthologos.com/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.

The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]

Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.

Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.

COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.

In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.

The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.

The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"

The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.

Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).

There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.

It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,
it expects what never was and never will be."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

***

Just a note to help clarify the terms we use in regards to the form of government of the U.S.

posted October 21, 2004 04:19 AM            

The doctrine of Satyagraha works on the principle that you make the so called enemy see and realize the injustice he is engaged in. It can work only when you believe in God and the goodness of the people to see that they are wrong. As a satyagrahi, I do believe that non-violence is a potent weapon against all evils. I warn you however, that the victory will not come easy- just like it will not come easy with violent methods such as fighting with weaponry.

Q
"Don't your duty in war and belief in peace contradict each other?"
A

While war and non-violence do sound contradictory, they are both conflict resolution vehicles. I have said time and again that Satyagraha (non-violent struggle) is not same as making peace. It is still a fight that has to be fought as bravely as a soldier in a war -- just the weapon is different.

Many people mistake non-violence as compromise or avoidance of conflict. It is not. On the other hand, it is standing up for what is right (truth) and justice. Fighting a violent war is better than accepting injustice. So, really there is no contradiction in fighting a just war, and believing in non-violence. Both are duties to be carried out to preserve justice and truth.

Q
"Why are you against violence? Is it because it was an impractical means for India to go about fighting for their independence? Or were you against violence because you believe that it is not morally justifiable for a people to use violence to fight against an oppressive government?"
A

I am against violence due to my upbringing and my culture. In Gujarat where I grew up, there was a lot of influence of the Jain religion, which was formed solely based on non-violence.
I am not against violence; I am against injustice. In fact, I have done my part in the World Wars, thus being a willing party to the warfare.

Of course, India being the country of the poor and the exploited had no means of fighting the British enterprise. But a handful of army, however powerful, cannot rule millions of citizens who are uncooperative. So as long as we fought against the British (violent or non-violent means) we would have won the freedom.

India could have won freedom about ten years earlier than it did through some violence against the British. But we were not only fighting the British, but also our own causes of poverty, unemployment, and untouchability. A nation becoming free after a violent struggle is bound to capture power in few hands and the suffering of India's large masses would not have changed if we became free by violent means. I wanted people of India to partner with the English people after independence, so a peaceful transfer of power was necessary.

Editor's Note: Gandhi has said that taking up arms is better than accepting injustice. Nelson Mandela's African National Congress, who successfully implemented Gandhi's means of struggle took to arms to speedup up the process in the later years. Read his article "The Sacred Warrior" in TIME

http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/hitler.htm

You can read excerpts from "My Part in the War" by Mohandas K. Gandhi here:
http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/autobio.htm

******

Before someone suggests that I am trying to use Gandhi's words to support the war in Iraq, please understand that is not at all my intent. Gandhi was a very wise man whom I admire deeply. I wanted to share some more information in regards to him and what he has said.
My personal opinion in regards to this war means nothing much to anyone but myself but here it is in case someone is interested; I think Hussein was a terrible dictator and the Iraqi people suffered many horrors under his rule. I think that an intervention of some sort (violent or not) in order for the Iraqi people to be free was necessary. However, I do not think that our government chose the appropriate time for a violent intervention in Iraq seeing as how Iraq did not attack us, no direct links have been established between those who did attack us and Hussein, and it perhaps would have been in the better interest of our people to track down the terrorists who did attack us and deal with them first. I realize that Pres. Bush was acting on misinformation but, in my eyes at least, ignorance is no excuse for a war. While we are focused on this war in Iraq, the people who attacked us are still at large, and regardless of any rhetoric, that does not make me feel safe. I sincerely hope the Iraqi people will be better off after this bloody war is over.