Jump to content

Supreme Court banned sale of crackers in Delhi


surajmal

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, someone said:

Again Saudi version. Other than one religion, everything else is restricted and must be kept out of public space. Secular governments actually allow people to practise their beliefs freely without need for secrecy. 

 

You really should go to Saudi if you want your secular version

How is it Saudi version, when no religion gets any public space or time ??

Secular governments remove public support of any religion,except for declaring certain religious days as public holidays. You have full freedom to do what you want with religion in Canada - in your free time, in your home. You cant bring your religious preaching to work,to office, to school, to public domain.

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

How is it Saudi version, when no religion gets any public space or time ??

Secular governments remove public support of any religion,except for declaring certain religious days as public holidays. You have full freedom to do what you want with religion in Canada - in your free time, in your home. You cant bring your religious preaching to work,to office, to school, to public domain.

Secular governments do not give preferential  treatment to any religion, yet they provide support to religions if possible. You need a temple, mosque, church, ask the government they will help.... There are many public celebrations of different festivals and you can freely display your religious identity in every public domain. Secular governments does not mean atheism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, someone said:

Secular governments do not give preferential  treatment to any religion, yet they provide support to religions if possible. You need a temple, mosque, church, ask the government they will help.... There are many public celebrations of different festivals and you can freely display your religious identity in every public domain. Secular governments does not mean atheism.

Bolded part- not in many secular countries. You think you are getting a government loan in Canada to build a temple ?! sorry, not happening. 

Secular government means separation of church and state. Which means no influence of religion on the state process. Ie, no extra consideration given for any religious rituals,process, etc. The only realistic compromise is public holidays. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Bolded part- not in many secular countries. You think you are getting a government loan in Canada to build a temple ?! sorry, not happening. 

Secular government means separation of church and state. Which means no influence of religion on the state process. Ie, no extra consideration given for any religious rituals,process, etc. The only realistic compromise is public holidays. 

 

Now, that's correct and so you were wrong in your earlier definition of secular government. It is separation but if church needs some protection, gov has duty to help it although not at the expense of other religion. It's not atheist governance . So for you to say citizens cannot have religion in public domain is wrong. That is like Saudi version for all the other religions.

 

Next, there is a mechanism out there to help religious institutions in getting lands or loans, but will gov accept everything from them? Of course not, but at least you can approach the secular government for assistance. Also remember there are Christian missionaries there which operate in secular governance.  So preaching is part of it as well.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, someone said:

Now, that's correct and so you were wrong in your earlier definition of secular government. It is separation but if church needs some protection, gov has duty to help it although not at the expense of other religion. It's not atheist governance . So for you to say citizens cannot have religion in public domain is wrong. That is like Saudi version for all the other religions.

1. No, my initial comment is, the government should kick all religions out of public life. Which is consistent with separation of church and state.

2. Protection, is an issue of security. Government is obligated to protect any property/person- whether its the mall or the church, a stripper or a priest, makes no difference. 

3. Citizens in most secular nations cannot have their religion influence the public domain. Ie, you cannot bring your religion into work, into school, etc. nor can you ask for any special dispensation due to religion.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, diga said:

You can find many instances of this hypocrisy from fiberals to Bollywood cricketers enjoying crackers on new year or on July 4 .. 

Such ppl have inferior complex. They are in awe of foreigners and their things. I have seen  people who earned some quick money, and the very same people around them, culture, festivals suddenly become backwards and inferior.

Edited by someone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

1. No, my initial comment is, the government should kick all religions out of public life. Which is consistent with separation of church and state.

2. Protection, is an issue of security. Government is obligated to protect any property/person- whether its the mall or the church, a stripper or a priest, makes no difference. 

3. Citizens in most secular nations cannot have their religion influence the public domain. Ie, you cannot bring your religion into work, into school, etc. nor can you ask for any special dispensation due to religion.

 

I give up. Next time when you see Sikh politicians with their turbans, please argue with them and on how dare they bring their religion.

 

You have allergies with religions and that has no place in secular countries like Canada,  India. You are a hopeless case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, someone said:

I give up. Next time when you see Sikh politicians with their turbans, please argue with them and on how dare they bring their religion.

 

You have allergies with religions and that has no place in secular countries like Canada,  India. You are a hopeless case.

Wearing clothing, is not the same as affecting me with your religion. As i said, open your eyes and see how secularism works outside India- we don't pander to all religions, we cut them off of government interference.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

Wearing clothing, is not the same as affecting me with your religion. As i said, open your eyes and see how secularism works outside India- we don't pander to all religions, we cut them off of government interference.

Affecting you? You are insignificant and have no permission on decide one's religion identity in public. One can celebrate religious festivals publicly, chant Hare Krishna in public or even join Christian missionaries. Secular government allows it and that's good enough for me. One can wear, chant, pray, preach freely on the streets in secular countries. You are allergic to religions, and it's you who needs to open your eyes and check ground reality,

 

And it's Indian secularism which has demented. Some governments think minorities have first right over resources. That's preferential treatment and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, someone said:

Affecting you? You are insignificant and have no permission on decide one's religion identity in public. One can celebrate religious festivals publicly, chant Hare Krishna in public or even join Christian missionaries. Secular government allows it and that's good enough for me. One can wear, chant, pray, preach freely on the streets in secular countries. You are allergic to religions, and it's you who needs to open your eyes and check ground reality,

 

And it's Indian secularism which has demented. Some governments think minorities have first right over resources. That's preferential treatment and wrong.

But none of that, is affecting me in public life. By affecting, i mean rights to religious time, religious meddling in workplace practices, etc etc. A secular government should be separating itself from religion. Ie, religion wields zero influence in state policy that directly affects citizens.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Muloghonto said:

But none of that, is affecting me in public life. By affecting, i mean rights to religious time, religious meddling in workplace practices, etc etc. A secular government should be separating itself from religion. Ie, religion wields zero influence in state policy that directly affects citizens.

 

Obviously, if you keep coming with new meanings and flip-flopping, nothing will affect you. You started the day by ranting how you don't want to see any religious identity in public and have ended with this. It's a welcome change and I agree with the rest. Guess this 3 words, waste of time can be a summary of any discussion with you of every poster here.

 

Now the question is namely secular parties in India,  which continue to differentiate among Muslim and Hindu victims or even rewards distribution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, someone said:

Obviously, if you keep coming with new meanings and flip-flopping, nothing will affect you. You started the day by ranting how you don't want to see any religious identity in public and have ended with this. It's a welcome change and I agree with the rest. Guess this 3 words, waste of time can be a summary of any discussion with you of every poster here.

 

Now the question is namely secular parties in India,  which continue to differentiate among Muslim and Hindu victims or even rewards distribution.

That is because secularism, according to Indian constitution, is equal pandering to all religion, not removal of religion from government workings.

hence the meddling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gattaca said:

@Muloghonto propagating communism in the shadow of democracy. WB might be still communist. India isn't.

The whole of the educated world is trending towards irreligion. 

You know why ?

Because the whole world is realizing, that those inferior men who wrote your religious books, were less educated than a grade 7 child, not fit to instruct us. 

 

 

Oh and saying keep your religion out of government, as in no laws should reflect religion, is not communism. Saying you cannot practice religion behind your closed doors, is Leninism-marxism. 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The whole of the educated world is trending towards irreligion. 

You know why ?

Because the whole world is realizing, that those inferior men who wrote your religious books, were less educated than a grade 7 child, not fit to instruct us. 

 

 

Oh and saying keep your religion out of government, as in no laws should reflect religion, is not communism. Saying you cannot practice religion behind your closed doors, is Leninism-marxism. 

And banning fire crackers which represent main part of Diwali is not curbing freedom of religion ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gattaca said:

And banning fire crackers which represent main part of Diwali is not curbing freedom of religion ?

Yep. 
But then again, whenever religion conflicts with the state, religion should lose. 

I have no problems banning firecrackers from religion because its a health-hazard. Same with i have no problem banning animal slaughter for religion or calling religious people who show up and occupy their own holy sites with guns, terrorists. 


Secularism means each and every-time religion clashes with the common good of the state, religion loses. As any unsubstantiated dogma should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Gollum said:

No it will not. Diwali or vehicles aren't the reason for Delhi's air pollution this time of the year. I have highlighted the real issue in a previous post in this thread-'paddy stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana'. Kejri's odd-even formula though admirable had no effect on air pollution. This cracker ban too won't have any effect. 

Sure. I know that it might be a fraction of pollution for 3-4 days and there are lots of other things which are extremely dangerous are being carried out for decades now. But let's be magnanimous and contribute our bit by reducing the excessive use of fireworks. Not in Delhi alone but everywhere. Imagine sick people suffering because of pollution. Sound pollution. 

 

Having said that it really touched me when Chetan Bharat asked on a tv show who allowed Delhi to get so polluted where one can't even burst few firecrackers. I hope these liberals do equal chest thumping when other things get banned. But we already what will happen then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, someone said:

Thats Saudi Arabia. Other than one religion, everything else is inferior and should never be in public life, only can practice in very private space. Such thing is not possible in secular India.

Not even in private. A yoga event was raided and people were arrested for spreading religion. There is no place as liberal as India. There is India and then a light year and then the next country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dial_100 said:

Not even in private. A yoga event was raided and people were arrested for spreading religion. There is no place as liberal as India. There is India and then a light year and then the next country.

Err, how is India more liberal than western Europe/Japan/Canada/S.Korea etc ?!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...