Ras Kanjas, the I should be impartial and judge actions without prejudice, no matter if a person's lyrics inspired the I and no matter what else they have done. People expressed their opinion on the actions of Capleton, and others expressed their own opinion on the matter. In a previous post, I expressed I own thoughts on the matter.
Just because people don't agree with what Capleton did, doesn't mean they are devils or satan. You make another post saying people hate truth regarding your satan accusation. But what you accused them of is not truth.The I can disagree with them and show them why you think their judgment is wrong. That is the way I and I are supposed to Reason, not with ignorant untruthful accusations, but by intelligent Reasoning to show why you agree or disagree. What Capleton did is not a big deal to I, but the people that spoke against it have a point. Do you really think Emmanuel would teach his people such arrogance and vanity, to pay some people to carry them out on a stage in a throne?
When people deal with such prejudice and defend the actions of a man blindly, they will eventually be led astray by one person or another. Look at each action or group of actions and judge them truthfully and without prejudice or bias towards the person who performed the action. That is how I and I will distinguish between Truth and somebody else's misunderstanding.
Selassie I show I and I
It is the worth of the policies themselves, and not their source or sponsor, which determines the position of one who is truly neutral.
Here is more from I and I God
By the word "neutral" We do not, of course, mean that abstention from political activity which has been for so long the hallmark of a Switzerland. We can no more refrain from political activity in the year 1961 than man today can voluntarily refrain from partaking of the radioactive fall-out which will be bestowed upon him should a nuclear holocaust erupt on this globe. Nor does neutrality mean that without taking sides, we content ourselves with urging that the powers most intimately concerned negotiate in good faith to the solution of the issues in dispute between them; we have passed the point where prayerful pleading serves any purpose other than to debase those who thereby abdicate any responsibility or power to influence events.
To be neutral is to be impartial, impartial to judge actions and policies objectively, as we see them either contributing to or detracting from the resolution of the world's problems, the preservation of peace and the improvement of the general level of man's living conditions. Thus, we may find ourselves now opposing, now supporting. now voting with, now voting against, first the East, next the West. It is the worth of the policies themselves, and not their source or sponsor, which determines the position of one who is truly neutral.
This, We maintain, is the essence of non-alignment. Those who would righteously denounce one side on every major problem or issue while reserving nothing but praise for the other cannot claim to be non-aligned, nor can those whose policies are shaped for them elsewhere and who wait patiently to be instructed whether they are to be for or against be called uncommitted.
|
|
