|
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
 
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Check this out...the outcome of this could be quite interesting. From a legal perspective, the outcome could change the future of Yoga. Discuss?? 
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/05/yoga.lawsuit.lee/index.html
|
|
| |
|
| Cyndi,
Very interesting. I think that most yoga related organizations that are cult-like give yoga, which is an individual, personal practice, a bad name. The government should not be involved in what people do or believe within the law, but they do need to regulate organizations that prey on people like Scientology and possibly Dahn Yoga. I believe in separation of Church and State. I also believe that the government should not let criminal activity happen just because people say that their organization is a religion, even though it functions like a scam. In these cases, if you simply follow the flow of the dollars, you can usually see whether an organization is honest or not. (This includes the televangelists too!)
Jim
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 5098
Location: Somewhere in the Mountains of Western NC | Oh yeah, I totally agree Jim. It's just being able to weed through what's authentic and what is not. So hard in today's world. It eventually becomes a personal karmic thing and sometimes its fatal....kinda like that recent guy out in Arizona that did the sweat lodge that killed 3-4?? people...geez,    |
|
| |
|
| There are a lot of people out there selling a lot of things. As the Romans said many years ago: "Caveat emptor" ("Let the buyer beware").
Not much in human nature has changed has it? (Although owning slaves and raping women have become politically incorrect in some places.)
|
|
| |
|
| I wish I didn't have to make a living so I could study cults--those creating them as well as those participating in them--to understand fully the dynamics. One positive aspect is that it groups all the loonies so it's easier to keep track of them. |
|
| |
|
| interesting what you wrote, Jim.
i was having a really great pot-stirring expression with an acquaintance of mine. she's a christian fundamentalist with a faux jewish flare.
she's really worked up about the WHO looking into recommending or beginning to focus on male infant circumcision as a human rights violation.
she said that God commands it for his followers, anyone who doesn't follow (what she follows, or whom she believes to be the only God), doesn't have to do it (circumcise their sons).
i pointed out that humans are fallible and often record what they believe to be god's commands in texts that are then chosen by umans to be in a canon that is then translated and intepreted by humans. LOTS of room for error.
on this question of government and religion/belief. . .i used to stand on the idea of the right to believe and act thus, btu seeing my son and going "wow, you know, that's a violent act on an infant's genitals, isn't it?" i am more inclined so that that male infants should be protected by law.
hmm. we had a good debate about it overall. i did point out that, afterall, animal sacrifice is illegal due to public health concerns, so why shouldn't this due to human rights violations?
and in the case of cults, other criminal activities such as they may be (extortion?).
anyway, stirring the pot is always a good time. |
|
| |
|
| zoebird,
When one is older and decides to follow a particular faith, by all means have yourself circumcised if you want, but an infant is NOT a follower of any faith. Female clitoral circumcision without consent (consent requires majority) is illegal in the US and many other countries. If this woman believes that God commands male circumcision of his followers, as soon as her son is old enough to be a follower he can decide for himself. (This God that commands circumcision should probably be talking with someone about this unnatural fixation.)
jimg |
|
| |
|
| i totally said that too.
she still disagrees. i stir her pot. LOL |
|
| |
Dahn Yoga Lawsuit in Arizona
