Jump to content

I have just one question to ask anyone opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act!


SecondSlip

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SecondSlip said:

Do you know that there was a partition? Do you know that it was demanded by Muslims? Do you know that they got two separate countries? Do you know that presently there are two Islamic republics in the subcontinent?

So we are to give up land and resources in 1947 for Muslims, then we also take in illegal Muslim immigrants from these Islamic republics.

What are we? Fools?

Ok sir, as you wish!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What liberals and Islamists opposing CAA are doing is basically called Negationasism. If you deny what happened in history, repeatadly, it will be called a false narrative. So, partition didn't happen, and before that  Islamic invaders didn't destroy temples or practised Iconoclasm, we only have to believe that anything we speak against Islam is Islamophobia and will be branded a bigot and a racist. classic. This is how organized religion won over what is called as paganism by them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

What liberals and Islamists opposing CAA are doing is basically called Negationasism. If you deny what happened in history, repeatadly, it will be called a false narrative. So, partition didn't happen, and before that  Islamic invaders didn't destroy temples or practised Iconoclasm, we only have to believe that anything we speak against Islam is Islamophobia and will be branded a bigot and a racist. classic. This is how organized religion won over what is called as paganism by them.

How can you prove religious persecution? What is the process? Has anything been outlined? Or if you belong to a religious minority and from these countries, you will handed an automatic citizenship? That does not seem fair when India already has too many people. And if persecution is the key, then why limit it to certain religions.

 

Here in US before Trump, you can claim official refugee status on grounds of persecution. Then your case will be heard in immigration courts and you have burden of proof lies on the applicant. You have to have credible story. Otherwise anyone can come and claim citizenship.

 

Finally, I agree some liberals equate criticism of Islam to Islamophobia. But not all. I have criticized Islam. The problem is when start painting with a broad brush and stereotyping. I am not ignorant enough to think Muslim invaders did not come and pillage the country. I read that in history in secondary school. I distinctly remember reading how tyrant Allauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb were with forced conversions and tax on non-Muslims. But some of the invaders stayed back and whether you like it or not, are part of Indian history. India is Hindu majority, but is secular country on principle with division of church and state. Some want to make it a Hindu republic, and that is not  OK with me. That is what we accuse the padosis that they let religion rule their life. However, Muslims are not a monolith. You talk about organized religion winning, Hinduism the way it is preached now in India is not an organized religion? We would far less problems in this world if we did not have organized religion.

 

 

Edited by Audiophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

How can you prove religious persecution? What is the process? Has anything been outlined? Or if you belong to a religious minority and from these countries, you will handed an automatic citizenship? That does not seem fair when India already has too many people. And if persecution is the key, then why limit it to certain religions.

 

Here in US before Trump, you can claim official refugee status on grounds of persecution. Then your case will be heard in immigration courts and you have burden of proof lies on the applicant. You have to have credible story. Otherwise anyone can come and claim citizenship.

 

Finally, I agree some liberals equate criticism of Islam to Islamophobia. But not all. I have criticized Islam. The problem is when start painting with a broad brush and stereotyping. I am not ignorant enough to think Muslim invaders did not come and pillage the country. I read that in history in secondary school. I distinctly remember reading how tyrant Allauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb were with forced conversions and tax on non-Muslims. But some of the invaders stayed back and whether you like it or not, are part of Indian history. India is Hindu majority, but is secular country on principle with division of church and state. Some want to make it a Hindu republic, and that is not  OK with me. That is what we accuse the padosis that they let religion rule their life. However, Muslims are not a monolith. You talk about organized religion winning, Hinduism the way it is preached now in India is not an organized religion? We would far less problems in this world if we did not have organized religion.

 

 

Hindu republic is just a unifier for anti-islam forces - Hindus Sikhs buddhists jains agnostics atheists Christians secular-Muslims parsis Jews etc....a unifier that nothing else can be...

 

Are Secular Muslims anti-islamic - yes they are.

 

is democracy a unifier? No, it made sure that vote-bank divisions remain for ever.

 

My opinion is to make India a democratic Hindu republic..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Hindu republic is just a unifier for anti-islam forces - Hindus Sikhs buddhists jains agnostics atheists Christians secular-Muslims parsis Jews etc....a unifier that nothing else can be...

 

Are Secular Muslims anti-islamic - yes they are.

 

is democracy a unifier? No, it made sure that vote-bank divisions remain for ever.

 

My opinion is to make India a democratic Hindu republic..

A secular democratic Hindu republic is an oxymoron. You think the Christians in India do not proselytize? Go and see outside Tirupati temple.

 

Organized religion can never be a unifier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

A secular democratic Hindu republic is an oxymoron. You think the Christians in India do not proselytize? Go and see outside Tirupati temple.

 

Organized religion can never be a unifier.

In defense from an evil, it is the only unifier...

 

And shouldn't think about it as enforcing Hindu rituals etc. It is about everyone fighting under 1 flag...

 

India was a 100% Hindu country when it allowed Parsis (Zoroastrian),  Jews etc. To flourish without persecution...the problem is not with Hinduism, but with the other religion in question...so, I am sorry to say that your bookish knowledge isn't applicable here.

Edited by randomGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

In defense from an evil, it is the only unifier...

 

And shouldn't think about it as enforcing Hindu rituals etc. It is about everyone fighting under 1 flag...

 

India was a 100% Hindu country when it allowed Parsis (Zoroastrian),  Jews etc. To flourish without persecution...the problem is not with Hinduism, but with the other religion in question...so, I am sorry to say that your bookish knowledge isn't applicable here.

OK whatever ... as you say!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

OK whatever ... as you say!

I may have come across as if I don't respect your viewpoint...I respect it, making India a Hindu republic will come with complications and consequences and govt. should be very very careful about it , think thru each and every aspect before implementing , if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

I may have come across as if I don't respect your viewpoint...I respect it, making India a Hindu republic will come with complications and consequences and govt. should be very very careful about it , think thru each and every aspect before implementing , if at all.

Anytime you base your country on a certain demographic or religion, you are on a slippery slope. Now you despise Muslims, next it will be Sikhs, etc. A country like India cannot be a Hindu republic and still maintain its secular ideals. Countries where the population is very homogenous in terms of race or religion like Japan, it may be possible. But not India. There is too much diversity. Unity through diversity can only be exercised through secular means. Does that mean you coddle and pander to the Muslim minority like many political parties do? No, I do not agree with that either. Religion is between you and your god and that is how it should be. The laws of the country will come from secular principles as laid out in the consitution. This is not bookish knowledge. The founding Fathers of USA realized this more than two centuries back because they or their predecessors were fleeing from religious persecution in Europe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anytime you base your country on a certain demographic or religion, you are on a slippery slope. Now you despise Muslims, next it will be Sikhs, etc. A country like India cannot be a Hindu republic and still maintain its secular ideals. Countries where the population is very homogenous in terms of race or religion like Japan, it may be possible. But not India. There is too much diversity. Unity through diversity can only be exercised through secular means. Does that mean you coddle and pander to the Muslim minority like many political parties do? No, I do not agree with that either. Religion is between you and your god and that is how it should be. The laws of the country will come from secular principles as laid out in the consitution. This is not bookish knowledge. The founding Fathers of USA realized this more than two centuries back because they or their predecessors were fleeing from religious persecution in Europe.
Yes that's why my car plate says " in God we trust"....

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Audiophile said:

Anytime you base your country on a certain demographic or religion, you are on a slippery slope. Now you despise Muslims, next it will be Sikhs, etc. A country like India cannot be a Hindu republic and still maintain its secular ideals. Countries where the population is very homogenous in terms of race or religion like Japan, it may be possible. But not India. There is too much diversity. Unity through diversity can only be exercised through secular means. Does that mean you coddle and pander to the Muslim minority like many political parties do? No, I do not agree with that either. Religion is between you and your god and that is how it should be. The laws of the country will come from secular principles as laid out in the consitution. This is not bookish knowledge. The founding Fathers of USA realized this more than two centuries back because they or their predecessors were fleeing from religious persecution in Europe.

I just gave you examples of when India was unofficially a Hindu country as all the inhabitants were Hindu, that time also parsi (Zoroastrian) and Jews found peace here...

 

I don't hate muslims. I think when such accusations (of hating Muslims) comes without proof, mostly the accusing person has a superiority complex and just using the accusation to take the debate to a different direction...but I won't tell you that you are doing any of that.

 

USA situation is different. If canada, Mexico were muslim countries and even Pacific ocean was a continent inhabited by just Muslims, you could have compared today's India's situation with that of USA-foundingfathers'.

 

Many things are unthinkable at first ...but when they happen they seem only natural and common-sense. I am not saying declare Hindu rashtra in haste...but think in that direction all aspects etc. as It's a very very big decision in terms of possible complications that I can't emphasize enough..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, randomGuy said:

I just gave you examples of when India was unofficially a Hindu country as all the inhabitants were Hindu, that time also parsi (Zoroastrian) and Jews found peace here...

 

I don't hate muslims. I think when such accusations (of hating Muslims) comes without proof, mostly the accusing person has a superiority complex and just using the accusation to take the debate to a different direction...but I won't tell you that you are doing any of that.

 

USA situation is different. If canada, Mexico were muslim countries and even Pacific ocean was a continent inhabited by just Muslims, you could have compared today's India's situation with that of USA-foundingfathers'.

 

Many things are unthinkable at first ...but when they happen they seem only natural and common-sense. I am not saying declare Hindu rashtra in haste...but think in that direction all aspects etc. as It's a very very big decision in terms of possible complications that I can't emphasize enough..

 

Some good points have been made here which I was thinking not too long ago. 

 

Every Country has its own distinct  history , demographies and  neighbours  so there is no one set of rules which fits all. Offcourse Secularism is the best option for a Wealthy Homogeneous Nation like Finland with no external and internal threats to their way of living but why must the Jews who have been historically persecuted all around the World not establish Israel as a Jewish Protective State?  

 

The Hindu Civilization has been facing an Islamic Onslaught for over a 1000 years and has lost  huge chunks of Land which are now Islamic States while India  still remains home to one of the largest Muslim population in the World, and yet the leftists are following the Ostrich mentality and continue to pretend that all is well and India/Hindus face no threat from Islamists in the future . Infact,  the mythical Saffron Terror and Hindu Taliban are their biggest worries so its not difficult to conclude that their primary motive is to triviliaze and deny the existence of Islamic threat. 

 

Even Nepal was a Hindu Kingdom till 2008 and it was nothing like some Hindu Version of Taliban that the dishonest  leftists would like you to believe. Maybe its very late today but if India was declared a  Dharmic/Hindu Republic in 1947 , it might not have been a bad move. However there is no room for debate with leftists on this issue,  because they are the All Knowing and Most Wise who can do no wrong and only their opinions should matter.  If you dont follow them like herd, then you are going down the path of destruction and genocide. They just employ these shaming tactics to control and get others to do what they want and conform to their way of thinking.  These are the same people who spread paranoia against Modi like how Modi will conduct a Nationwide genocide against innocent angels ( Muslims)  after coming to power or how Trump will do the same to Non-White Minorities hence we must not vote them at any cost. Its no wonder why we are witnessing the rise of Right Wing populists all around the World.

 

Edited by javier26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, USA is Christian in it's character, no two ways about it and there's nothing wrong in that.It was founded in the principles of Quakerism and Puritinism after all.Church bells toll every hour , not any other bells or anything.As a resident, people respect the majoritarion nature.

 

Similarly India is built upon the Dharmic principles of tolerance and acceptance and needs to have Dharmic undertones.End of.

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SecondSlip said:

Sickular @sandeep 

 

Can you please explain what is so funny about my OP and why you reacted with a laughing icon? 
 

The exact same people that didn’t want to live with us are now begging and crying for citizenship to our country! 
 

These idiots already got 2 countries. They should live and die there! 

Because your logic is quite Pakistani.  Partition was inflicted on India based on spurious reasons, the history of Pakistan and Bangladesh gives tons of evidence of the foolishness of religious secessionism and basing nationhood on religion.  And now you are attempting to use those mistakes to justify new ones.

 

India is not Pakistan.  And shouldn't try to become one. 

 

I have nothing against providing asylum, and fast-track asylum for minorities from Pak/BD.  But what the BJP has done, is politically weaponize that legislation, and market it by deploying dog-whistles of prejudice.  And now to pretend that their intent is innocent and that all they are doing is giving fair treatment to refugees is bullsh**.  It is quite clear to anybody with an objective view, that their goal isn't just to give refugees a path to citizenship - its to stir up social polarization.  And just like I have zero tolerance for those who commit violence, vandalism in the name of protest, I have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense in the name of politics or social justice.  Whether its of the commie left-wing flavor, or the Bhakt right-wing flavor.  Both are stupid, both are expensive and harmful to the  country.  

 

Besides, there is just so much wrong with your topical post, so many dumb-ass inaccurate assumptions that I can only laugh at them.

 

Edited by sandeep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...