Dharma, by definition includes doing the right thing for the individual, society and indeed for all kind, not just man kind. Dharma cannot cede primacy to the rights of the individual over others at all times
Ok, Ok, but who is going to determine what the Dharma should be? Is this going to be an individual who sits in a Court of Law? Is this the President? Is this the LS or RS? How does this system work? To what extent are the precepts of dharma going to be subject to the loudest group (not the largest, the loudest) in the Hindu universe? From the foregoing discussion we know that many Hindus are positively economically impacted by cow slaughter, as are many non-Hindus, so this is probably not even going to be resolved by the greatest good argument.
Secondly, does this mean that we are going to have to read up on the Hindu scriptures so that we can be educated enough to rebut the claims made on behalf of dharma by one group or another?
(In a Constitutional system, where individual rights are called out, ultimately, there is a constitution for reference, and a Supreme Court passes judgement on the constitutionality of the law)
I do not think anyone on the forum has suggested that Dharma replaces the consitution, individual rights or laws of the state.
and then instantly contradict yourself by saying:
The argument is for: Laws to be under Dharma
Typically, the laws are "under the Constitution" and thereofre have to be Constitutional for htem to be valid. So, does Dharma override the constitution, or does the constitution override Dharma.
Calvin, religiously there is only one view about beef.
This is not what Valkan asserted.
you should be aware of the rights that exists, respecting religious sentiments of all religions, especially if you are in the minority
I am not sure I understand this. Could you clarify.
If you are an Indian you should be aware of this already
This is a gratuitous insult.
But same members are silent about imposing minority whims on majority and that duplicity can only be linked to cultural anthropomorphic slavery created by failure of education OR failure to rectify education designed for preparing generations of slaves to serve empire.
Is it possible that you and these members have differing views of what constitute whims and what constitute "inalienable individual rights"?
Just in this thread, we have ShauryaT saying:
Dharma cannot cede primacy to the rights of the individual over others at all times.
Therefore, is it fair to say that the individual does have the right to sustain his life, the right to his property, or the right to action as long as it doesn't physically harm another person. From this right is the right to engage in consensual contracts with other such individuals derived? Does this freedom allow, if the contract involves killing of a beast that belonged to the first individual, and selling the meat to the second? Does it allow the first man to sell the beast to the second, so that the second may kill and consume the meat?
These questions are not whims.