Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm Merlyn

Should Allow All Women In Sabarimala Temple, Kerala Tells Supreme Court

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Stradlater said:

Bhai I have been observing their behavior since childhood. While some of them might be pious, majority comprises of gunday, mawalis for whom this becomes an excuse to take part in hooliganism.

You will find most pious ones walking alone or in small groups.

The gundas are the ones in big groups , usually being followed by their vehicles with large music systems and hockey sticks in them .These scumbags have taken over and made life of the real bhakts difficult.

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, beetle said:

It is one month of socially approved hooliganism.

 

This year UP govt is using helicopters to shower petals on them from above ....they should be showering bombs on some of them.

 

Last three days the news is about how they beat up people, break cars in mob fury because apparently only they have right to roads and about indulging in violence even against police.

 

It is a month long picnic for a lot of socially devient gundas.

 

 

Beetle ji , a couple of days ago I myself witnessed these thugs in Delhi filled like cattle in a pickup trying to pass loose comments on the passersbys most of whom were women.

Not to mention the traffic they disrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, beetle said:

You will find most pious ones walking alone or in small groups.

The gundas are the ones in big groups , usually being followed by their vehicles with large music systems and hockey sticks in them .These scumbags have taken over and made life of the real bhakts difficult.

Most of them are either from UP or Bihar.

Fkin low class b@stards.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Most of them are either from UP or Bihar.

Fkin low class b@stards.

 

Delhi and haryana too.

 

About a decade back...kawariya yatra looked far different than what it is now.

 

About two decades back...dad was posted in meerut and we never heard of any kawariya related problems.

We stayed near a shiv temple which was a big temple these kawaryias used to visit but never heard of any problems . Now it is a tamasha taken over by gundas and gangs.

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, beetle said:

Delhi and haryana too.

 

About a decade back...kawariya yatra looked far different than what it is now.

 

About two decades back...dad was posted in meerut and we never heard of any kawariya related problems.

We stayed near a shiv temple which was a big temple these kawaryias used to visit but never heard of any problems . Now it is a tamasha taken over by gundas and gangs.

Yeah Haryanvi Jats too .

Sorry @Jatboy brah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Yeah Haryanvi Jats too .

Sorry @Jatboy brah

It is not a jat problem....everyone is the same.

Guys who use the mob to take out their frustrations. Guys who think they are doing something big by going on this yatra...like it is something that needs him to be treated like a hero and given respect by all.People should make way for them, offer them free food and generally make them feel superior.

Instead of being a personal bhakti...it has become show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The concept of Sabarimala may sound regressive and insulting to women..Its just that ovulating women are being denied the visit since the murthy is a brahmchari..It sounds stupidity to ultra modern thinking society...But this is one temple of all entire temples..Why such hue and cry for a non Issue...I mean there is a festival called...''Attukal pongala'' reserved only for women...Men are not allowed to do the rituall..Can we call that against Men...No its not...Its just custom or a belief..So talking too much about Sabarimala as huge discrimination against women is just that you are not getting into a simple belief...If we argue against it...You can argue that '''why there is a religion in the first place ''? ,so  should we go back to that claim.

 

This particular custom is not a dangerous one...aqnd not hindering women any freedom,if u could gasp a simple belief system...its simple..Sometimes,feminists take things way too far to establish and go off track..I appreciate their stand on many things,but not on this particular issue...

Edited by riya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

^^
Nonsense. Exclusion, by definition, is discrimination.

Not if it's based on Religion/Faith as per Indian constitution. Not in a Western hypocritical liberal way of mentality. In Indian constitution even the Deity is living and has rights. His house, his rules. If you override, then everything has to be overridden, even virgin birth of Mary. If you fight that entry of women even though the Deity believes she is not allowed, she doesn't become a devotee and hence has no rights for entry. Just like a Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah being the only true god and says all gods are same, automatically is considered a heretic and a non-entity in Islamic world.

 

When women / feminazis / liberals respect the sentiments of Hindu temple rituals that bar men for certain rituals (there are women only temples in India), why can't the same be respected here? It's not that women are not allowed at all (like in Haji Ali case), they are allowed if they are not in a certain age because of the beliefs of the deity. This is from scriptures that the Deity is revered. This has to be respected. 

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Not if it's based on Religion/Faith as per Indian constitution.

Irrelevant. Indian comstitution doesn't make it right per se just like saudi constitution doesn[t make it right

 

Quote

Not in a Western hypocritical liberal way of mentality.

there is no hypocrisy, period. Knee-jerk anti-westernism isnt going to save you here.

Quote

In Indian constitution even the Deity is living and has rights. His house, his rules. If you override, then everything has to be overridden, even virgin birth of Mary. If you fight that entry of women even though the Deity believes she is not allowed, she doesn't become a devotee and hence has no rights for entry. Just like a Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah being the only true god and says all gods are same, automatically is considered a heretic and a non-entity in Islamic world.

]

 

Pffft. Indian constitution just got changed last week. This nonsense needs to be removed as well. Dont appeal to authority on the basis of Indian constutution. Its wrong, PERIOD.

Quote

When women / feminazis / liberals respect the sentiments of Hindu temple rituals that bar men for certain rituals (there are women only temples in India), why can't the same be respected here? It's not that women are not allowed at all (like in Haji Ali case), they are allowed if they are not in a certain age because of the beliefs of the deity. This is from scriptures that the Deity is revered. This has to be respected. 

Neither should be the case.

Edited by beetle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Irrelevant. Indian comstitution doesn't make it right per se just like saudi constitution doesn[t make it right

 

there is no hypocrisy, period. Knee-jerk anti-westernism isnt going to save you here.

 

Pffft. Indian constitution just got changed last week. This nonsense needs to be removed as well. Dont appeal to authority on the basis of Indian constutution. Its wrong, PERIOD.

Neither should be the case.

Umm there's something called basic structure doctrine which prohibits even the Parliament to enact a law which alters or try to change basic tenets of our constitution.

So yes he has every right to appeal to the authority of Indian Constitution which has some unchanging, basic features that calls for giving considerable space to religion and curtailing rights of state to intervene in it's affairs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Not if it's based on Religion/Faith as per Indian constitution. Not in a Western hypocritical liberal way of mentality. In Indian constitution even the Deity is living and has rights. His house, his rules. If you override, then everything has to be overridden, even virgin birth of Mary. If you fight that entry of women even though the Deity believes she is not allowed, she doesn't become a devotee and hence has no rights for entry. Just like a Muslim who doesn't believe in Allah being the only true god and says all gods are same, automatically is considered a heretic and a non-entity in Islamic world.

 

When women / feminazis / liberals respect the sentiments of Hindu temple rituals that bar men for certain rituals (there are women only temples in India), why can't the same be respected here? It's not that women are not allowed at all (like in Haji Ali case), they are allowed if they are not in a certain age because of the beliefs of the deity. This is from scriptures that the Deity is revered. This has to be respected. 

agree. if one doesnt believe the beliefs of the deity and the religious place what is the use of going to the place then? It makes that person hypocrite. Either believe in the belief and respect it or don't believe it and don't go there.  Such people want to show how religious they are but refuse to believe or respect the beliefs or legends surrounding such places.

Edited by rkt.india

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stradlater said:

Umm there's something called basic structure doctrine which prohibits even the Parliament to enact a law which alters or try to change basic tenets of our constitution.

So yes he has every right to appeal to the authority of Indian Constitution which has some unchanging, basic features that calls for giving considerable space to religion and curtailing rights of state to intervene in it's affairs.

That doesn't save broken/outdated parts of the constitution from being struck down by the SC. Even if it gives right to the religion, this makes the said religion discriminatory. If Hindus want to argue that they are exercising their constitutional rights, fine. It doesnt save them from being discriminatory a##holes sticking standing in the way of progress, which i am sure any chest-thumping Hindu is able to identify with, since they spend so much time pointing this aspect out about Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Don't agree with this decision at all if they let women in sabarimala . Religious institutions should have autonomy to decide who can enter and who doesn't. That's not for the government to decide. 

Government has EVERY right. Government overrides religion, as it is a superior entity. Always have, always will. Basic framework of any human society is a form of government. Not a form of religion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

That doesn't save broken/outdated parts of the constitution from being struck down by the SC. Even if it gives right to the religion, this makes the said religion discriminatory. If Hindus want to argue that they are exercising their constitutional rights, fine. It doesnt save them from being discriminatory a##holes sticking standing in the way of progress, which i am sure any chest-thumping Hindu is able to identify with, since they spend so much time pointing this aspect out about Islam.

Okay you win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Government has EVERY right. Government overrides religion, as it is a superior entity. Always have, always will. Basic framework of any human society is a form of government. Not a form of religion

Government overrides religion only when it curbs individuals' liberties or if religious practice harms an individual or society at large . Denying women entry into a temple doesn't constitute that especially when even the majority of practising Hindu women would be opposed to this move. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Irrelevant. Indian comstitution doesn't make it right per se just like saudi constitution doesn[t make it right

Go read up the constitution (Article 25,24, 15) or see the youtube video I posted. It provides the freedom of religious practice based on tradition as long as it doesn't violate any human rights or any other discriminination as per the constitution. Don't argue without facts, upon your prejudices formed by reading western colonial history or viewpoint.

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

there is no hypocrisy, period. Knee-jerk anti-westernism isnt going to save you here.

And your knee-jerk triggering on any right of center view point as a RW/Sanghi one will also not save you here.

 

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

 

Pffft. Indian constitution just got changed last week. This nonsense needs to be removed as well. Dont appeal to authority on the basis of Indian constutution. Its wrong, PERIOD.

Again this is constitutional rights as per the rights given to many deities of all religions. Again, provide some facts instead of intelligent comebacks like Pffft! The only way to fight these jholawalah bleeding heart pinkos is to work within the framework of the constitution. Throw them words like rights, FoE and use the same weapons they have been using to fight tradition.

6 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Neither should be the case.

The constitution doesn't care about what should be the case, there should be freedom of practice as long there is no violation of human rights. The problem is that law/constitution is providing a one-size-fits-all solution for a diverse issues and are curtailing the freedom to believe in scriptures. What next, rakhi is unconstitutional , Karwa chauth is regressive, but hijab is self-expression etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Government has EVERY right. Government overrides religion, as it is a superior entity. Always have, always will. Basic framework of any human society is a form of government. Not a form of religion

Laws that the Government makes should not override religion if there is no constitional rights violated. Government is secular on one hand, but wants to administer Hindu temples only. What an idiotic british system are we following.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, UrmiSinhaRay said:

I would like to count myself as a liberal Progressive Atheist but I support Sabarimala to retain its practices because jahaan ka rules jahaan jahaan.
When I was a kid I used to support the overruling, but now I don't.

Sent from my CPH1609 using Tapatalk
 

At a moral level,living in the 21st century,this could be deemed as wrong.

However, this is a political thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rkt.india said:

agree. if one doesnt believe the beliefs of the deity and the religious place what is the use of going to the place then? It makes that person hypocrite. Either believe in the belief and respect it or don't believe it and don't go there.  Such people want to show how religious they are but refuse to believe or respect the beliefs or legends surrounding such places.

There are temples in Bangla where meat is served as Prasad/Bhog to the deity and rest of the country there is no such practice. So, one cannot go around fighting the tradition of banning meat in temples in the rest of the country, just because it is practiced in some communities. The same here, women are not restricted in most temples, but some temples have some restriction. It is not a gender issue as the religion has reformed enough so some of the discrimination has been eradicated. Hindus are not opposed to reform as it has been reforming for so many years. But these liberals want to eradicate the traditions and beliefs as well that this has to be stopped. 

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Laws that the Government makes should not override religion if there is no constitional rights violated. Government is secular on one hand, but wants to administer Hindu temples only. What an idiotic british system are we following.

That is nonsense. Government overrides all, as it is government's perogative to come up with laws & implement them.  It is both a current and historical fact that religion is and always will be subordinate to the laws of the land/government and what leeway they have - even the right to survive - is dictated by the government of said land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Go read up the constitution (Article 25,24, 15) or see the youtube video I posted. It provides the freedom of religious practice based on tradition as long as it doesn't violate any human rights or any other discriminination as per the constitution. Don't argue without facts, upon your prejudices formed by reading western colonial history or viewpoint.

Again, stop saying nonsense like western viewpoint or colonial history. This only shows YOUR lack of knowledge about Indian history. 

And yes, the law violates human rights of women by discriminating against them. Period. Perhaps its time to ask the Supreme Court for corrective action on said article. 

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

And your knee-jerk triggering on any right of center view point as a RW/Sanghi one will also not save you here.

No knee-jerk, i have demonstrated how it is RW/Sanghi nonsense. The same idiots who deride muslims/islam for islamic practices, wants special exemption clause for Hindus. Thats classic RW/Sanghi behaviour. 

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Again this is constitutional rights as per the rights given to many deities of all religions. Again, provide some facts instead of intelligent comebacks like Pffft! The only way to fight these jholawalah bleeding heart pinkos is to work within the framework of the constitution. Throw them words like rights, FoE and use the same weapons they have been using to fight tradition.

Doesnt change the fact that the idea of banning half of humanity from a place of worship due to their biology, is discrimination.

5 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

The constitution doesn't care about what should be the case, there should be freedom of practice as long there is no violation of human rights. The problem is that law/constitution is providing a one-size-fits-all solution for a diverse issues and are curtailing the freedom to believe in scriptures. What next, rakhi is unconstitutional , Karwa chauth is regressive, but hijab is self-expression etc.

 

The constitution has a moral obligation to care what should be the case. This is why 'unnatural sex act' was struck down from the contitution. 

You can pretend all you want that the constitution is the end-all, be-all, but just the last few weeks have shown to everyone that the Indian constitution can and WILL be changed by the SC if its deemed to discriminate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nikhil_cric said:

Government overrides religion only when it curbs individuals' liberties or if religious practice harms an individual or society at large . Denying women entry into a temple doesn't constitute that especially when even the majority of practising Hindu women would be opposed to this move. 

No. Government has always superceeded religion and still does. Power lies with the government - whether its the 11th century king/sultan with an army, 18th century privateers with charters or modern military.  And when government chooses to - it dictates what religions can/cannot thrive, what kind of power religion will have etc. The goverernment has always been a superior body of power to religion. This is a historically attested fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

That is nonsense. Government overrides all, as it is government's perogative to come up with laws & implement them.  It is both a current and historical fact that religion is and always will be subordinate to the laws of the land/government and what leeway they have - even the right to survive - is dictated by the government of said land.

Goverent has a say over individual rights...but has No control whatsoover on the faith and belief system of a  religion or tradition. The government has no say in what a person should believe or not believe. It is the fundamental right of a person They cant ban a belief of a sect that believes in virgin birth altho scientifically it is impossible. The deity and his followers believe in the type of brahmacharya followed by the deity where women of a certain age is not allowed to interact. If the devotee doesn't believe she stops being a devotee and hence has no rights.

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

No. Government has always superceeded religion and still does. Power lies with the government - whether its the 11th century king/sultan with an army, 18th century privateers with charters or modern military.  And when government chooses to - it dictates what religions can/cannot thrive, what kind of power religion will have etc. The goverernment has always been a superior body of power to religion. This is a historically attested fact.

No , not in a democratic goverment has no say in the religion's core tenets or beiefs. Otherwise they are called fascists or communists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

Goverent has a say over individual rights...but has No control whatsoover on the faith and belief system of a  religion or tradition.

False. Governemnts have banned religions, persecuted religions, even today they can (and do, for eg, China) tell EXACTLY what a religion can or cannot do. 

I am not talking about your or my belief system, i am pointing out the SIMPLE FACT that government has, does and always will have the power and authority to do whatever it wishes, to any religion. Religion is subservient to governments, it lives due to what the government allows it to live as. 

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

The government has no say in what a person should believe or not believe. It is the fundamental right of a person They cant ban a belief of a sect that believes in virgin birth altho scientifically it is impossible. The deity and his followers believe in the type of brahmacharya followed by the deity where women of a certain age is not allowed to interact. If the devotee doesn't believe she stops being a devotee and hence has no rights.

You can believe whatever you wish. But banning access to certain sections of society is not just hocus pocus nonsense belief in your head, it is an actual action that affects people. 


PS: Virgin birth, atleast as far as entire kingdom animalia is concerned, is EXCEEDINGLY rare, not impossible. Get your facts correct, kindly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

No , not in a democratic goverment has no say in the religion's core tenets or beiefs. Otherwise they are called fascists or communists.

The word you are looking for, is not fascist or communist, its called authoritarian.

And yes, democratic governments too have the ability to have a say in the religion's core tenets or beliefs, by the ability to simply modify the constitution and do what it wishes. Simple. 
 

Anyways, we are digressing - my point is, religion is inferior to government in power and practice - this i can demonstrate historically and even currently. Religion exists, simply because governments ALLOW religion to exist. thats the bottomline. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, stop saying nonsense like western viewpoint or colonial history. This only shows YOUR lack of knowledge about Indian history. 

This shows your lack of swadeshi or indigenous history and blind faith in your wesyern colonial masters' version.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

And yes, the law violates human rights of women by discriminating against them. Period. Perhaps its time to ask the Supreme Court for corrective action on said article. 

No, it does not. If they are allowed, the deity's right to beief is violated.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

No knee-jerk, i have demonstrated how it is RW/Sanghi nonsense. The same idiots who deride muslims/islam for islamic practices, wants special exemption clause for Hindus. Thats classic RW/Sanghi behaviour. 

Why not? Isn't that what a secular goverent should do, treat all religions equally?

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Doesnt change the fact that the idea of banning half of humanity from a place of worship due to their biology, is discrimination.

It is not man made, it is in scriptures and puranas. Lets see if bible can be changed by gender equality police.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

The constitution has a moral obligation to care what should be the case. This is why 'unnatural sex act' was struck down from the contitution. 

Unnatural sex act had made it criminal , only it has been decriminalized, It is far from recognizing gay rights for property, children etc.as it is in the west.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You can pretend all you want that the constitution is the end-all, be-all, but just the last few weeks have shown to everyone that the Indian constitution can and WILL be changed by the SC if its deemed to discriminate. 

If constitution says right to freedom of religion, it can do Ghanta for belief system, otherwise they have to change the basic fundamental right and let's see what chimps of FOE will do then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

This shows your lack of swadeshi or indigenous history and blind faith in your wesyern colonial masters' version.

You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

No, it does not. If they are allowed, the deity's right to beief is violated.

Deity has no rights per se. It only gets rights because some humans demand it gets rights. Rights rest with humans- what we create.  Innanimate objects with no declared potential for will have no fundamental rights. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Why not? Isn't that what a secular goverent should do, treat all religions equally?

Yep they should. Which is why i am in favor of striking down these restrictions in hinduism, islam, christianity etc.. Not pick my own like a RW nut from a particular religion and decry all the rest. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is not man made, it is in scriptures and puranas. Lets see if bible can be changed by gender equality police.

It is man-made. your scriptures are man-made. Aasman se tapak nahi ayi. Someone sat down and wrote it. Man-made. Or maybe woman-made. But made by species homo sapiens. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Unnatural sex act had made it criminal , only it has been decriminalized, It is far from recognizing gay rights for property, children etc.as it is in the west.

Sure. My point is, it was part of the constution and struck down. Similarly your deity's rights can be struck down from the constitution by a legally valid democratically sanctioned process. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

If constitution says right to freedom of religion, it can do Ghanta for belief system, otherwise they have to change the basic fundamental right and let's see what chimps of FOE will do then.

No no fundamental rights need to be altered, since fundamental rights of a human being can be seperated from giving rights to books, buildings, statues etc. we can simply state that such objects have no rights and enjoy the same rights as a microwave or a computer. Matter over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. 

No, just pointing to your ignorance, you mandooka are entitled to your koopa.

 

Quote

Deity has no rights per se. It only gets rights because some humans demand it gets rights. Rights rest with humans- what we create.  Innanimate objects with no declared potential for will have no fundamental rights. 

In Hindu belief, once a prana prathishtapana is performed on the idol, it is believed to be living, and hence as a person it is entitled for constitutional rights. It is his abode, his story and his rules. Devotees believe that and follow the rules. This is as per our scriptures and hence constitution allows it because of it as a right to freedom and belief. There are beliefs in quran and bible (scriptures) that cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Quote

Yep they should. Which is why i am in favor of striking down these restrictions in hinduism, islam, christianity etc.. Not pick my own like a RW nut from a particular religion and decry all the rest. 

Asking space for belief and not denigrating or snatching others' beliefs is what thos is about. 

Quote

It is man-made. your scriptures are man-made. Aasman se tapak nahi ayi. Someone sat down and wrote it. Man-made. Or maybe woman-made. But made by species homo sapiens. 

It is in Bhutanatha purana where Ayyapan has taken a vow of naisthika brahmacharya, making him not be anywhere near women who are capable of progeny. This menstruating thing is added by feminazis to denigrate the belief.

Quote

Sure. My point is, it was part of the constution and struck down. Similarly your deity's rights can be struck down from the constitution by a legally valid democratically sanctioned process. 

No no fundamental rights need to be altered, since fundamental rights of a human being can be seperated from giving rights to books, buildings, statues etc. we can simply state that such objects have no rights and enjoy the same rights as a microwave or a computer. Matter over. 

right to freedom of religion is so vast, all beliefs are protected under it. So, go figure out how to quash it.

 

And yes, Matter over

 

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

No, just pointing to your ignorance, you mandooka are entitled to your koopa.

LOL. You clearly do not know then, that the concepts of liberalism, conservatism itself are present in Indian philosophies. I guess i will have to quote some works for you. Your nonsense of 'western ideology' is pure, 100% bakwaas, period. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

In Hindu belief, once a prana prathishtapana is performed on the idol, it is believed to be living, and hence as a person it is entitled for constitutional rights.

Ok. Good for hindus. Too bad India is not a hindu nation. Try your nonsense beleif based laws in Nepal, maybe. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is his abode, his story and his rules. Devotees believe that and follow the rules. This is as per our scriptures and hence constitution allows it because of it as a right to freedom and belief. There are beliefs in quran and bible (scriptures) that cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Sure. Which is why i said it needs to change in the constitution. Maybe corrective action of the SC will one day prevail on this. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Asking space for belief and not denigrating or snatching others' beliefs is what thos is about. 

Space for belief does not give believers right to discriminate against people, period. I do not share your belief in belief based-access for ANY religion. Period. You do your thing by yourself. How YOU act, believe, pray, whatever is not affected by another person being there or not being there. If it is, then its YOUR problem and excuse yourself, not ask the other person to leave. Thats my stance on the issue. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is in Bhutanatha purana where Ayyapan has taken a vow of naisthika brahmacharya, making him not be anywhere near women who are capable of progeny. This menstruating thing is added by feminazis to denigrate the belief.

Well, that guy is dead. If HE was alive, he is fully entitled to not be anywhere near women himself, but its not him anymore. Its a statue in his name, controlled by other people, that are impinging on other people's right to be there. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

right to freedom of religion is so vast, all beliefs are protected under it. So, go figure out how to quash it.

 

And yes, Matter over

 

Same way any right to innanimate object can be taken away and has been taken away. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why go where someone is not welcome. 

Besides in Hinduism, no one can exclusively claim to be a medium between diety and devotee. PERIOD. So what is the need to go to temple even. If I am restricted from entering somewhere, I will build my own temple and worship there. If I understand spirituality correctly, if I am sincere and real devotee then god is more likely to bless me in my own temple than from some weird place where administrators and priests think that they own the god.

 

They dont have spirituality in them, no humility, no real powers and no siddhis. 

 

No disrespect intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

They cant ban a belief of a sect that believes in virgin birth altho scientifically it is impossible

Science cannot prove many things, like the origin of the universe. What is Dark Matter/Energy, What existed before big bang? what caused the big bang? So may be science doesnt know if virgin birth can be possible or not. 

Science knows that traveling with the speed of light is impossible for man but they believe otherwise. Same way virgin birth may sound impossible to science but it might not be. Who knows.

 

Just an argument for the sake of argument. (Your argument questions my belief, my most 2 fav dieties whom I worship)

 

Eitherway I dont have issues with your overall post. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dial_100 said:

why go where someone is not welcome. 

Besides in Hinduism, no one can exclusively claim to be a medium between diety and devotee. PERIOD. So what is the need to go to temple even. If I am restricted from entering somewhere, I will build my own temple and worship there. If I understand spirituality correctly, if I am sincere and real devotee then god is more likely to bless me in my own temple than from some weird place where administrators and priests think that they own the god.

 

They dont have spirituality in them, no humility, no real powers and no siddhis. 

 

No disrespect intended.

Hinduism believes in Ishtadevta, it is respected and celbrated as well. The argument is how libs are turning this into gender issue while it is not. 

 

Ayyappan is not a vedic god, but a tantric one. It is about a spiritual energy in a sthala and the energy of belief in a sthala mahime. It is a private place, where a public place discrimination laws don't apply. Feminists and libs have a single dolution for all diverse issues such as these and want to kill tradition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Hinduism believes in Ishtadevta, it is respected and celbrated as well. The argument is how libs are turning this into gender issue while it is not. 

 

Ayyappan is not a vedic god, but a tantric one. It is about a spiritual energy in a sthala and the energy of belief in a sthala mahime. It is a private place, where a public place discrimination laws don't apply. Feminists and libs have a single dolution for all diverse issues such as these and want to kill tradition.

Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.

 

Who is to decide that? An authoritarian liberal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dial_100 said:

Science cannot prove many things, like the origin of the universe. What is Dark Matter/Energy, What existed before big bang? what caused the big bang? So may be science doesnt know if virgin birth can be possible or not. 

Science knows that traveling with the speed of light is impossible for man but they believe otherwise. Same way virgin birth may sound impossible to science but it might not be. Who knows.

 

Just an argument for the sake of argument. (Your argument questions my belief, my most 2 fav dieties whom I worship)

 

Eitherway I dont have issues with your overall post. 

I was commenting on the Christian core belief of a Virgin birth of Jesus. If it was not for birth from a Virgin mother, Jesus would not be born out of sin like all of us and hence he can't deliver us out of our born sin. This is the core belief. Scientifically, the only way a mother can give birth and still be a virgin is if Mary was a hermaphrodite. Forcing such beliefs would be blasphemous as well as unconstitutional.

 

May I know who are the two deities that I offended with virgin birth remark? Ganesha ? 

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

decision by logic, reasoning and by committee ofcourse. 

Democracy works by laws from Legislature from people's reps, Executive from the Government and Judiciary which is supposed to implement and safeguard the laws. This committee is part of what?  Judiciary? With enough people pressure any Judicial committee decisions can be impeached. So, who has authority in a simple democratic process? 

 

This #377 WAS ALLOWED TO BE PASSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGISLATIVE OPPOSITION.  As in the case of Shah Bano, Judicial activism can be thwarted by legislative mandate. 

Edited by coffee_rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Democracy works by laws from Legislature from people's reps, Executive from the Government and Judiciary which is supposed to implement and safeguard the laws. This committee is part of what?  Judiciary? With enough people pressure any Judicial committee decisions can be impeached. So, who has authority in a simple democratic process? 

False. Judicial committee has ultimate authority in legality of laws created. No amount of public pressure is going to get 'unnatural sex act' back in the constitution. 

Also, democracy works with an element of authoritarianism in it - our fundamental human rights for eg, are not democratically elected values, neither are they subject to democratic erasure. Ie, its fundamentally authoritarian imposition - in this case, it is our rights. 

Ie, you can get a 100% super-majority in both the houses to change the Indian constitution, to revoke all human rights from muslims. SC will immediately invalidate that, as fundamental rights are not subject to democratic consensus. This is for every single democratic nation btw.

Quote

 

This #377 WAS ALLOWED TO BE PASSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGISLATIVE OPPOSITION.  As in the case of Shah Bano, Judicial activism can be thwarted by legislative mandate. 

Nope. Judiciary cannot CREATE any laws. But they certainly can and will override any laws created by the legislative, if they deem it unconstitutional/in violation of our rights or heck, even amend the constitution if they find one part conflicts with another (such as with unnatural sex act part).

 

 

You must've skipped basic civics class in school it seems. The legislative has the ultimate mandate in CREATING laws. The executive has the ultimate mandate in IMPLEMENTING said laws. And the Judiciary has the ultimate mandate in determining the VALIDITY of said laws. No amount of 'people pressure' is going to legally force the supreme court to change its decisions on a law.Thats basic civics 101.....

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^I will reply on individual points, but Judiciary given supreme powers will  lead to a banana republic. It is not civics 101. Judiciary is individuals and if it's left to people like you then society will turn to anarchy and artistcratic communities.  There is no idealism in society, there is a practical  balance that results in peace in the region. I think we are digressing, we should debate in DM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

^^I will reply on individual points, but Judiciary given supreme powers will  lead to a banana republic. It is not civics 101. Judiciary is individuals and if it's left to people like you then society will turn to anarchy and artistcratic communities.  There is no idealism in society, there is a practical  balance that results in peace in the region. I think we are digressing, we should debate in DM. 

Judiciary does not have supreme power, since judiciary has no power to MAKE the laws. They have the power to strike down any law if they deem it unsatisfactory. And that is required, because without judiciary having the supreme authority to strike down laws, you WILL have a banana republic, in a region rife with low education, where all you will need, is to have a big majority and you can deem any group - muslims, hindus, sikhs, christians, bengalis or gujjus or whatever- to have no rights or xyz impositions specifically on them.
The best system we can think of, is the system we have currently, where the legislative body only has power to MAKE the law while the judiciary has the power to VETO a law. One without the other, is where abuse of power will come from. 

 

 

Also, i am a statist - not an anarchist. I simply do not share beliefs in old, out-dated systems made thousands of years ago by people who'd be considered ignorant illiterates by grade-10 kids. That does not make me an anarchist, just a modernist. 

Anarchism is anti government/anti-system. That is fundamental anathema to statists like me, who think that under current socio-political systems, the state machinery reigns supreme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×