|
ASSUME for a moment the existence of a country where the
possession of marijuana is not a crime but smoking the stuff is. Now
consider former US president Bill Clinton's statement where he said, "I
tried marijuana once. I did not inhale." Would the laws of such a country
find the ex-prez culpable ? It's difficult to tell because it depends on
whether the definition of smoking means inhaling the smoke into the lungs or
not. If it does then he wouldn't have broken a law; if it doesn't, he
could be behind bars. But it's still not that easy since cigars and pipes,
for instance, are definitely "smoked" by people even though the majority of
them don't inhale.
Or take another earlier president, Jimmy Carter, who in a celebrated
Playboy interview famously admitted that he had "lusted in (his) heart"
after other women. Now the Seventh Commandment quite clearly says,
"You shall not commit adultery," and lust itself features as first and
foremost in importance among the Seven Deadly Sins in the Christian
classification of cardinal vices. Yet, Carter didn't actually "commit" the
sin; rather it lay notional within himself and in his thoughts. Thus if the
Commandment is to be interpreted in terms of action, then obviously he could
have escaped retribution by a hair.
The same goes for blasphemy, which is defined as a profane act, utterance
or writing with regard to something sacrosanct. So when the Bamyan Buddhas
were destroyed by some Talibans in 2001, Buddhists quite naturally
considered it blasphemous. But surely, the thought had also crossed many
other destructive minds who didn't take part in the demolition. In which
case, could those private premeditations also be considered blasphemous ?
The desire to do something considered wrong, but thereafter not actually
doing it, is somehow considered socially acceptable. ("Okay, so maybe he
wanted to kill his wife, but he didn't in fact murder her, did he ?")
Perhaps, there's a societal or even penal justification for this. But what
justification is there for a Clinton, Carter or thousands of Buddhists
themselves for accepting discreetly undone deeds ? What happened to the much
vaunted "spirit" as opposed to the "letter" of the law ? the problem is,
human-made laws swing into action only when there's perceived harm done to
other people or artefacts. Spiritual laws are more to do with the
individual. But individuals conveniently apply the former instead of the
latter in order to make peace with themselves. |
