punjabi_khota Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 you gave me 4 points I countered 3 of them and you laugh' date=' whatever dude. and even then it says God (not jesus or allah) agreed it still doesnt take into consideration Atheists etc.[/quote'] First of all, you know which God they are talking about. What did you counter ? The basic point is that rules and regulations mean ****, and the public mindset is what makes all the difference. Can you say US is not racist ? Why is Obama being the president such a big deal ? It is because inspite of racism being abolished in all forms 40-50 years ago, it was prevalent very much in the minds of people, and his selection as a President is a significant milestone on way to its eradication. Similarly is the case with religion. Despite being proclaiming that it is a secular country, US is not so. I don't mind being reminded of God everywhere here in US, because it is the way of life for most people, and is more of cultural thing than anything else. But I do mind the fact that without being a strong Christian, you cannot aspire to be a President. I do mind that Piyush Jindal, from Lousiana converted to Christianity, clearly because there was no way he was going to win in the state of Louisiana. Whereas in India, it is not the case, at least not to the extent as in US. We may have an odd murti here and there, and I absolutely don't think it shoud bother people of other religions. People for most part are secular in their thinking, and celebrate festivals from other relgions. Anyone from any religion can aspire to become the PM/President. The votes of the majority hindu population are usually split between major parties, etc etc.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 First of all' date=' you know which God they are talking about.[/quote'] Please tell me. P.S. look up deism and the SC ruling about ceremonial deism with regards to this statement. It definitely does not refer to the Christian God. What did you counter ? The basic point is that rules and regulations mean ****, and the public mindset is what makes all the difference. Can you say US is not racist ? Why is Obama being the president such a big deal ? It is because inspite of racism being abolished in all forms 40-50 years ago, it was prevalent very much in the minds of people, and his selection as a President is a significant milestone on way to its eradication. Similarly is the case with religion. Despite being proclaiming that it is a secular country, US is not so. I don't mind being reminded of God everywhere here in US, because it is the way of life for most people, and is more of cultural thing than anything else. But I do mind the fact that without being a strong Christian, you cannot aspire to be a President. I do mind that Piyush Jindal, from Lousiana converted to Christianity, clearly because there was no way he was going to win in the state of Louisiana. US is racist, but racism is not the issue here, before this year it was common knowledge here that "a black man cannot be the president in the US", similarly you never know. Whereas in India, it is not the case, at least not to the extent as in US. We may have an odd murti here and there, and I absolutely don't think it shoud bother people of other religions. People for most part are secular in their thinking, and celebrate festivals from other relgions. Anyone from any religion can aspire to become the PM/President. The votes of the majority hindu population are usually split between major parties, etc etc. If iam a tax payer for the Indian government I would have big frickin problems if they take that money and do "bhoomi pooja" or buying pictures for the Government office or whatever else. Same way I have problems with the government funding Hajj pilgrimage. I countered the 4 points you gave me.
punjabi_khota Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Please tell me. P.S. look up deism and the SC ruling about ceremonial deism with regards to this statement. It definitely does not refer to the Christian God. US is racist, but racism is not the issue here, before this year it was common knowledge here that "a black man cannot be the president in the US", similarly you never know. If iam a tax payer for the Indian government I would have big frickin problems if they take that money and do "bhoomi pooja" or buying pictures for the Government office or whatever else. Same way I have problems with the government funding Hajj pilgrimage. I countered the 4 points you gave me. You are talking technicalities, and don't want to understand that rules and regulations matter ****, and the real secularism has to come from people. Also, you have double standards as evidenced by your comment on the quote on the coins. Have a good night.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 You are talking technicalities' date=' and don't want to understand that rules and regulations matter ****, and the real secularism has to come from people. Also, you have double standards as evidenced by your comment on the quote on the coins. Have a good night.[/quote'] what is the real issue?? if I wanted to talk abt people, my thread wud have been "Are Indians secular" and all your points would have been valid there, but it is abt the government that we are talking about here. Double standards hahaha, nice try, if I dont accept what you say is it double standards . . What comment on the coins, Deism is not christianity and it opposes christianity quite vehemently. and "In God we trust" came from deism, the SC ruled that it does not compromise the 1st amendment and it is more ceremonial than anything else. Good night to you too
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 what Iam saying is that you have two different standards to judge two nations on the Universal concept of secularism . You subject your own to a very harsh set of standards usually to the detriment of the society that you claim to be a part of but when it comes to judging other nations you are more than eager to set the bar very low and turn a blind eye to things which you wouldnt had they been applicable in India - The USA Prez = Christian ONLY is one such thing. No matter what sort of verbal gymnastics you do there is no way you can call that system as secular. I dont care who becomes the PM & Prez of India. In fact I secretly hope that the next 3 PMs are some of the strict adherents of Sikh Khalsa. :winky: (unlike the current one ) Again BB, Iam not debating whether Indians are more secular than Americans or vice versa, that is another debate and we can have it if you wish. I am debating the Indian government is not really secular, I was not even comparing the Indian govt with the American one, but even when we compare American govt and its constitution is more secular than the Indian one.
Guest dada_rocks Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 Spot on. But anyhow the idiot writer of that article completes ignores things like Haj subsidy , article 370 (which is essentially nothing but acknowledges that Muslims are a endangered species in that state ) , the Millions of dollars that are pumped into Kashmir - a state that is openly anti-Hindu. Then there is this situation of 1000s pf Madrassa & Catholic schools as opposed to literally non-existant "Hindu Schools". And as far as Babri is considered Janab Shahabudding himself said that if its proven that it was constructed by bringing down a temple ( in peace time ) then he would have no problems in demolishing the mosque .. mind you this was before the Kar sevaks actually brought it down ... and since the ASI archeological evidence came about ... denial has set in. Inconvenient facts and all that ... :winky: That moron is fine with marauders coming with their army razing down temples.. What he doesn't approve is that once when these maruaers establish their rule then they should not raze temples down.. some twisted fella
coffee_rules Posted February 3, 2009 Posted February 3, 2009 The first and foremost thing about any article from outlook is: FXNews:republicans::Outlook:Congress (anti-NDA)
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Just to clarify, I do not support most of the authors claims in that article.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 once again ... how is America's Christian Prez only setup "Secular" ? Does the american constitution or anything else say tha president has to be christian? you are confusing the issue here, the people elect only christians does not mean the american govt or the constitution is not secular.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 No it doesnt . but are you saying there is even a remote chances of a non-xtian becomming a president in reality ? The system in theory might be secular but kindly look at the practicality also. That is why I said, I am not talking about the people, I am talking about the system. Now if we want to talk about if Indians are more secular than americans, well yes that is a different discussion.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Good. so shouldnt that be the main thing to worry about instead of nitpickng on theoretical stuff ? No, you can look at it both ways, fix it bottoms up or top down. If the constitution is amended top down, there is lesser scope for some politicians to play the odds. Agree/disagree? Are you okay with the government spending tax payers money to do poojas like bhoomi pooja? Now million dollar question .. who is the main imediment in us going to the next level ( UCC and what not ) Muslims or Hindus ? UCC, it would obviously be muslims, but UCC is just one of the steps to be completely secular, although a big one.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 Yes but the constitution doesnt say do Bhoomi pooja or any pooja ... Iam sure the J&K state govt indulges in Islamic practices (correct me if wrong). But this happens in USA too if Iam not wrong. The Constitution should say, govt money should not be used for religious ceremonies or rituals, be it Hindu or muslim. No, I dont think it happens in the US, the federal govt can be sued if they do indulge in these type of activities. which is the best political party to do this ? for UCC BJP is probably the best bet, since it has been in their manifesto for a while now, but will they also do the other things to be truly secular? including amending the constitution to ban any involvement between state and religion? I dont know, I doubt it though.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 It can be sued but it does happen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29742-2004Dec2.html As I already said, there is an effective framework starting from the constitution where these types of activities can be challenged and even rolled back, thats what I am looking for in our constitution. Good. Yes they will if you give them half the time that was given to Congress. (Unrelated question) But why does the self styled secular media and most posters here who get bent out of shape at the mention of BJP ? A passing fashion for the kids ? I will again repeat UCC they(BJP) will do it most probably. I cant speak for others, but from my perspective, BJP portrays itself as a "Hindu" party more than a secular party. You can open a thread titled "What do you hate about BJP" and get the valid points.
triam Posted February 3, 2009 Author Posted February 3, 2009 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/06/02/obamas-ex-church-has-won-15m-in-federal-grant-money/ :-D Do you see what the grant is for, Im sure you can distinguish between money for religion and money for social service. Red Cross is a good example, so is Salvation army. Either ways I will read up on this more since I dont know the history and stuff regarding this, will get back to you later http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/15/pope.us/index.html Pope, is not only a religious leader but also a head of the state vatican and a celebrity, and it is normal to have security and other stuff for head of states unless Iam missing something
triam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 Regarding the aid to churches, I did find this informative article about the first amendment and the Supreme court rulings relevant to this, http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/establishment/index.aspx
triam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 So why is he addressing a gathering of cardinals and Bishops ... and adressing the US led war in Iraq and the upcoming U.S. presidential election etc etc ? What am I missing? why cant he address a gathering of cardinals and bishops?
triam Posted February 4, 2009 Author Posted February 4, 2009 you claim he is on Official visit as a head of state .... if so why address clergy that too at whitehouse ? If its not a official visit whats he doing at whitehouse ? He is both, isnt he? so of course he will do both. I dont see the conflict of interest from the government above and beyond what is usually entailed to any other political leader/celebrity n terms of security and other stuff.
triam Posted February 5, 2009 Author Posted February 5, 2009 If he is both why is the Whitehouse entertaining his yesu pravachan and paying for it ? Also can you tell me what were the official businesses that he was upto on that trip like how other world leaders do (not involving Church matters) ? BTW can you find me one single article where it does not refer to his trip to the USA as a "Papal Visit" .. shouldnt it be a President/PM/Ruler of Vatican if you claim it to be a strictly diplomatic visit ? What part of the visit do you think did the White House paid for and how it is different than any other leader/celebrity who visits US? Example of one of the issues that the pope touched is illegal immigration http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/20catholics.html.
triam Posted February 5, 2009 Author Posted February 5, 2009 Some more from that article ... You can clearly see that these guys also see this as a "Pope" telling USA what to do .. not as a world leader. BB I fail to understand which part of secularism this is breaking, do other religious leaders when they visit the US are invited to the white house (eg: Dalai Lama). what exactly is your view here? Pope should not visit the white house? Federal money should not be spent for popes visit? etc that would help me to answer back. And FYI funding came from catholic organizations http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/15/catholics-pony-up-for-visit-from-pope/. Security is given by the government for any celebrity, so please point to what is out of the ordinary for the pope visit as opposed to other religious leaders\celebrities\ head of states etc.
punjabi_khota Posted February 5, 2009 Posted February 5, 2009 BB I fail to understand which part of secularism this is breaking' date=' do other religious leaders when they visit the US are invited to the white house (eg: Dalai Lama). what exactly is your view here? Pope should not visit the white house? Federal money should not be spent for popes visit? etc that would help me to answer back. And FYI funding came from catholic organizations [url']http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/apr/15/catholics-pony-up-for-visit-from-pope/. Security is given by the government for any celebrity, so please point to what is out of the ordinary for the pope visit as opposed to other religious leaderscelebrities head of states etc. Would the head Mullah of Mecca Ltd. be given the same treatment ? Or the head pandit of Tirupathi ? Dalai Lama doesn't count because he is a political figure and a pain in the ass for arch rival China.
Recommended Posts