--- In [email protected], hermandan0 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Non sequitur. > > I wasn't considering it a free speech issue because I'm not > questioning the court's decision nor the wisdom of the judges. My > questions were more to do with the relationship between the "rising > coherence in the collective consciousness of an invincible nation > fully supported by natural law, a group of over 400 yogic flyers, > purusha, rajas and retinue, and Maharishi himself" and the *content* > of that freedom of expression and freedom of assembly the judges > upheld.
Well, but which is the sign by which to evaluate the coherence, the content of the party the court ruled on, or the ruling itself? My point in bringing up the free speech issue was that you can interpret it in various different ways. > Presumably freedom of expression and assembly existed in the > Netherlands before the TM movement made it an invincible nation-- > hence the man made laws the judges upheld. Sure, but... > The paedophiles and beastyphiles had the same freedom of expression > and assembly before as they do now. What they did not have was > enough support in the collective consciousness to create a > political party. But the collective consciousness in the Netherlands seems *not* to be supportive of the creation of the political party. It appears to be the consciousness *within that group* that supported the creation of the party. > To me anyhow, it's more of a content of the freedom of expression in > relation to the Maharishi effect issue. I think we need to take a longer view. What's going to happen to this party now that its right to exist has been affirmed by the court, in a country where 80 percent of the population believes it should be banned? What are the consequences of the ruling for those who advocate lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12? (Bear in mind the distinction I made in a later post between sex with prepubertal children, which is the manifestation of a sexual disorder and would remain illegal even if the party got the law changed, and sex with children past puberty, which is "normal" clinically. Only the former is properly called pedophilia, and that doesn't appear to be what the group is advocating.) If the population is as outraged as the polls indicate, it's not impossible the result will be stricter enforcement of the existing age of consent laws. The ruling may raise awareness of the issue and inspire debate about it, and most likely a backlash against it. It's also going to foster debate about the free speech issue and hopefully result in a better understanding of *why* not banning offensive free speech is so important. In other words, the ruling may turn out to have negative consequences for the group and positive consequences for democracy. As we know, MMY isn't thrilled with democracy, so *he* might not see this as a positive development, but that's a different issue. Determining what is support of nature and what is not is fraught with difficulties, both because we can't see into the future to know what the consequences of a particular action may be, and because different people have different ideas of what is evolutionary and what isn't. <snip> > (Please don't get me wrong--the point of my posts is not to > pass moral judgement; hell, anyone might cozy up to a sheep in the > heat of the moment on a cold starlit mountain night The sheep, however, is unlikely to be quite so negatively affected as the child. <snip> > Maybe I should rephrase the question -- how does the formation of > the Dutch paedophile/bestiality party during this period (the 89 > days of Invincible Holland) and its validation in the courts relate > to the Maharishi effect and the creation of heaven on earth and > life fully in accord with natural law as advertsied by the TM > movement. This question *does* require making a moral judgment. To those who believe having sex with children as young as 12 is perfectly moral, the ruling appears to be positive and evolutionary and in accord with natural law. > So far, I don't think that's been addressed in the responses. It's really a very good question, and this issue is an excellent one for discussion purposes. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email design. http://us.click.yahoo.com/XISQkA/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
