sandeep Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 1 minute ago, coffee_rules said: Go read about Sati, it was not a Hindu wide ritual, for the British to make it out to be something they had to ban. . Everything doesn't need to be compared to Sati. They didn't ban all women, in fact true women devotees themselves don't go to Sabarimala if they believe in the diety. And it was never about menstruation as well (in Sabarimala). Nice dodge to the question. I will repeat it. If a temple and its 'believers' attempt a human sacrifice, what will your stand be on the Supreme court and police intervening? Will you still stick to your logic of 'its for believers to self-regulate'? The point is, bottomline, there are certain minimum standards of the law of the land that have to be followed, regardless of religion. Whether its stupid triple talaq for muslims, or discriminatory practices by temples. beetle 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 46 minutes ago, sandeep said: Bullshit. Law of the land provides equality for all citizens. And a temple should not bar access based on gender. And apparently this is not a traditional ban on women, it was only put in place a few decades ago. Big drama over nothing. I think you start off from reading the court judgement. It has nothing to do with access or law of the land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandeep Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, ravishingravi said: I think you start off from reading the court judgement. It has nothing to do with access or law of the land. Court Judgements in India are often written in a flowery literary style. Do you have an actual argument to make on the subject of balancing what's legally required vs the rights of private organizations to make up their own rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 40 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: Temple is not a public place like a mall or a building or a tourist place. It is for believers who go to pray and take solace. If they have rules like dress-code etc. devotees have to follow. It is not their house to do whatever they feel like. Sabarimala runs on it's funds, there is no state fund. It was a traditional ban, while in the 90s, they put the 10-50 bar. THese feminazi activists (Fatima!) wants to go there and offer sanitary pads. I would mob that event with all the powers that might be. It's not a f'in joke. Nice post UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 4 hours ago, sandeep said: Nice dodge to the question. I will repeat it. If a temple and its 'believers' attempt a human sacrifice, what will your stand be on the Supreme court and police intervening? Will you still stick to your logic of 'its for believers to self-regulate'? The point is, bottomline, there are certain minimum standards of the law of the land that have to be followed, regardless of religion. Whether its stupid triple talaq for muslims, or discriminatory practices by temples. As long as basic human rights are not violated, there should be right to practice religion. Court has no business to force how to pray or practice religion. There was no human rights violated. Those woman devotees opted to wait till they reach 50. court is forcing them to go. It is fashional for activists to create drama and desecrate places of worship. Quote UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 4 hours ago, sandeep said: Where do you draw the line on public places and temples for believers? Tomorrow, if some believers start doing human sacrifice in temples, will you support that? What about Sati? Nobody is supporting sati / human sacrifice... If there was a peaceful gathering of devotees, things could have been different.May be the police could have enforced the SC decision. Unfortunately these feminazis exacerbated the situation by not being "a devotee" and planning on offering sanitary pads. That will enrage the protesters even more coffee_rules, DHONI_FANN and UrmiSinhaRay 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 How do you support these filthy attention seekers in the garb of feminism/discrimination of women in temples. GTFO. Spoiler UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 A temple is an institution that can have its own policies .... for e.g. we have schools too which could be for boys / girls only Earlier, many ppl acted like animals in the name of religion. Now many act like animals in the name of freedom, equality and science dial_100, Stradlater, coffee_rules and 3 others 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 (edited) Quick question: who owns the land Sabarimala sits on ? Is it a private or public real estate ? If its Public, then Sandeep is right - law of land is what rules in public property. If its private property, the sanghis are right. Pretty straightforward, really. Edited October 19, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted October 19, 2018 Share Posted October 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Quick question: who owns the land Sabarimala sits on ? Is it a private or public real estate ? If its Public, then Sandeep is right - law of land is what rules in public property. If its private property, the sanghis are right. Pretty straightforward, really. No govt owns lands that have historic records. Who owns Ram Janmabhoomi - The dispute is between Sunni Wakf board, Shiromani Akhada and Ram Janmabhoomu claimed by VHP Similarly, The Sabarimala land is owned by the trust, temple was built by a 7th century king, and it is trusted to a private temple trust. It is not owned by the govt. In fact govt charges tax (jiziya sort of) to maintain roads to the temple etc which the temple pays every year (no church or mosque does it). It is not a public ground. Even a mall/hotel is owned by private body and they reserve the right to entry. The Dark Horse, zen, UrmiSinhaRay and 2 others 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zen Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: No govt owns lands that have historic records. Who owns Ram Janmabhoomi - The dispute is between Sunni Wakf board, Shiromani Akhada and Ram Janmabhoomu claimed by VHP Similarly, The Sabarimala land is owned by the trust, temple was built by a 7th century king, and it is trusted to a private temple trust. It is not owned by the govt. In fact govt charges tax (jiziya sort of) to maintain roads to the temple etc which the temple pays every year (no church or mosque does it). It is not a public ground. Even a mall/hotel is owned by private body and they reserve the right to entry. We need a body to take charge of temple affairs, policies, guidelines, monitor cleanliness standards, safeguard environment (impacted due to high number of pilgrims), provide security, etc Therefore also using religion to improve the communities and conditions for animals, protect environment (spread awareness of dangers of plastic for e.g.), keep our public areas clean, control population, etc Edited October 20, 2018 by zen UrmiSinhaRay and coffee_rules 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, coffee_rules said: No govt owns lands that have historic records. Who owns Ram Janmabhoomi Land is either private or public. There is no such thing as 'unregistered land'. In public sector,it can belong to a city or a state or federal or whatever level of land. In Private its owned by people or corporations. But land is always owned, period, inside a sovereign power. Atleast, this is how it works in the west. Quote - The dispute is between Sunni Wakf board, Shiromani Akhada and Ram Janmabhoomu claimed by VHP They sound like private entities fighting over a land - sure. Whoever has better claim should get it. Simple. Quote Similarly, The Sabarimala land is owned by the trust, temple was built by a 7th century king, and it is trusted to a private temple trust. Is this trust a government controlled or private entity ? If its government controlled, then the entity is public, not private. Quote It is not owned by the govt. In fact govt charges tax (jiziya sort of) to maintain roads to the temple etc which the temple pays every year (no church or mosque does it). It is not a public ground. Even a mall/hotel is owned by private body and they reserve the right to entry. ok. So you are saying the owners of Sabarimala are private entities ? Perhaps they should've gone to the supreme court as private owners setting terms of visitation on their land. Can't see why supreme court will stand against my fundamental right to restrict entry to a property i own. So why so much lafraa ? Edited October 20, 2018 by Muloghonto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 Before visiting sabarimala one should follow some strict veg diet and some set guidelines for 48 days .. These sudden devotees clearly violating that zen, UrmiSinhaRay, Turning_track and 1 other 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 ^ That is why relegion is called a matter of faith ... UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 2 hours ago, coffee_rules said: How do you support these filthy attention seekers in the garb of feminism/discrimination of women in temples. GTFO. Reveal hidden contents Try going to supreme Court without being party to a case or try going in a bikini to a mosque or don't stand when the judge arrives... UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 whatever way the saga unfolds, i don't see the problem with letting women in, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, sandeep said: Court Judgements in India are often written in a flowery literary style. Do you have an actual argument to make on the subject of balancing what's legally required vs the rights of private organizations to make up their own rules? Well I have arguments, but you seem to have not read the judgement. Rather than wasting my time discussing with someone who is not aware of actual grounds on which the SC arrived at the conclusion and the opinion of the dissenting female judge, I would rather just keep mum. https://www.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2006/18956/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf Maybe once you have actually gone through the important bits, we can discuss on my opinions on why SC should have stayed or provided a more over arching judgement. This is dubious call to make that will open pandora's box. Edited October 20, 2018 by ravishingravi zen and UrmiSinhaRay 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravishingravi Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 At the end of the day, winner will be RSS and BJP in this whole saga. I can safely say that by December, which is peak time, the situation will escalate and deepen the religious divides. There are provocateurs trying to create more ruckus. It will only take one casualty and you will see the situation erupt. Interestingly, there were Christian and Muslim female devotees of Ayyapa. Never realized. UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 34 minutes ago, ravishingravi said: At the end of the day, winner will be RSS and BJP in this whole saga. I can safely say that by December, which is peak time, the situation will escalate and deepen the religious divides. There are provocateurs trying to create more ruckus. It will only take one casualty and you will see the situation erupt. Interestingly, there were Christian and Muslim female devotees of Ayyapa. Never realized. Meanwhile atheists be like: Switchblade, velu and beetle 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shunya Posted October 20, 2018 Share Posted October 20, 2018 so this is more like feminazis trying to change faith and belief of religion based on their retarded logic of freedom? And obviously they will target hindus since they have always been punching bag for everyone... this and Ram mandir case in next couple of weeks...things are going to get hyper in coming days... UrmiSinhaRay 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts