Jump to content

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


Malcolm Merlyn

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

 

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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. 

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...