Jump to content


Members L2
  • Content Count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    94d 13h 35m 45s

Muloghonto last won the day on September 15 2017

Muloghonto had the most liked content!

About Muloghonto

Recent Profile Visitors

3,894 profile views
  1. 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. Ok. Good for hindus. Too bad India is not a hindu nation. Try your nonsense beleif based laws in Nepal, maybe. 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. 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. 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. Same way any right to innanimate object can be taken away and has been taken away.
  2. You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 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. Doesnt change the fact that the idea of banning half of humanity from a place of worship due to their biology, is discrimination. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. ^^ Nonsense. Exclusion, by definition, is discrimination.
  12. Muloghonto

    Best Historical war/action films

    There was none. .
  13. Muloghonto

    Best Historical war/action films

    Yeah. Though its a topic best left alone for India now - as it can create regionalistic fervor etc in Indians of today, if we start to show the part where the 'prime power' of the Kannauj era, aka Rashtrakutas, actively aided & supported the Sindh-Multan Caliphate rule, by squeezing their 'frontier enemy', the Gurjaras (aka predecessors to the Rajput confederacy).
  14. Muloghonto

    Best Historical war/action films

    Lots of them. Too many to pick, really. A movie on the Kannauj triangle that shows the intricacies of geo-strategic politics, culture, historical interaction, etc. would be a big one. Though there are lots of scope to take artistic liberties or ignore various angles, as its a very 'in-flux moment' of Indian history. Would do a better movie on Chandragupta Maurya.
  15. Muloghonto

    Best Historical war/action films

    Enemy at the gates is a meh-movie IMO. Its a very well shot and acted movie but it did not need a 'certain' plot-line at all

Guest, sign in to access all features.