VHP will declare Gujarat a Hindu state by 2015: Pravin Togadia

[Muloghonto]

lol' date=' the fact that you have to fight for it means its not secular and rational like you believe it to be. [/quote'] I never said they were a perfectly secular or rational society. My implication is, they are a far more rational & secular society than India is. We dont stop other people from eating what is a basic human food group for tens of thousands of years, just because some hocus pocus book said so. When you spend 20+ years of your life in the new world, beta, then tell me what America is or is not like. America is a secular nation with a christian majority. India currently is a secular nation with a hindu majority. Unfortunately for both these nations, Christians, Muslims and Hindu nutbars are relentlessly trying to turn these secular nations into their nutbaristan of religious despotism, where legal laws are based out of a book with absolutely zero shred of evidence.

[Muloghonto]

Err .. there is one problem .. you may have not noticed' date=' but India does not have the resources to handle riots in every neighborhood. [/quote'] Nonsense. If India really wanted to, it can enforce martial law over most of its nation- an army that is over a million strong is capable of it. As a government, threat to public safety and disorder cannot be an excuse towards denial of rights. Else you end up with a Mexico or a Columbia, where parallel governments start to exist. If India cannot do something as basic as enforce civic curfew in the streets of its cities and villages, then India has its priorities all wrong- it should stop buying Su-30s and start buying some more batons and good old water hoses. Lack of ability to enforce civic order is not a sufficient reason for pleading legal change. The only credible argument towards practicality of a law, is its enforcability and as such, enforcing a curfew due to civic rioting should not be a reason for an aspiring superpower to collapse into a political power vaccum. I dont think Gandhi/Nehru/Bose were of the era where legal rights of the citizens of India was the entirity of their focus or even a major avenue of exploration. The point about law and order in India is a salient one but i do not think legal system can technically claim 'fear of public riot' as a legally binding cause to determine its outcome. at the very least, we should have a supreme court order that is a de jure decree, lacking de facto enforcement. That has happened in the past too where the abovementioned scenarios of legal freedoms have collided with ability to enforce public order and safety.

[Muloghonto]

^^prevention of cow slaughter is not some strange religious quirk made up out of thin air. Large parts of India is made up of villages' date=' where people live in close proximity with cows and it provides for their daily needs. It is very human not to kill such an animal. [b']India is not made up of mechanized farms like the west. The cows in america live in the 1000s in slaughter houses and mechanized milk farms. Here it is living meat waiting for slaughter, but in India they live in houses like pets.

I see no reason why we cant have both. As i said, there is not really a good argument against why can i not stuff cows by their thousands in a barn & keep churing out enough cows to make tonnes of meat every year. If done industrially, it certainly lowers the per capita cost of producing animal protein and therefore, makes it far more accessible. In a society like India, where chronic malnourishment is a huge issue, i would certainly make an argument towards tossing these unproven claims that call themselves 'religion' over nutritional needs of a human populace.

[Muloghonto]

We are 100 Crore Hindus in India' date=' if we allowed even 10% of our youth to become Atheist or Hindu by just name then get ready to suffer for next 5 decades. So much vulgarity will spread in India like in Pakistan of 60s and 70s.[/quote'] What is and is not vulgar, is not a fixed benchmark through society. There is plenty of archaeological and literary evidence to suggest that our ancestors lead a far more sexually liberated lives, that would be seen as 'vulgar' by your mainstream hindus, who's ideas on sexuality have largely been moulded by the rigid views of Islam,via a cultural contact. Either which way, what is or what is not vulgar, is for the individual to deciede, not society. Also, it is not upto you or any other hindu or any such association to dicate whether they 'allow' individuals to profess their own ethics in life- whether they are based on assumptive religious basis or irreligious basis.

[seedhi]

Nonsense. If India really wanted to, it can enforce martial law over most of its nation- an army that is over a million strong is capable of it. As a government, threat to public safety and disorder cannot be an excuse towards denial of rights. Else you end up with a Mexico or a Columbia, where parallel governments start to exist. If India cannot do something as basic as enforce civic curfew in the streets of its cities and villages, then India has its priorities all wrong- it should stop buying Su-30s and start buying some more batons and good old water hoses. Lack of ability to enforce civic order is not a sufficient reason for pleading legal change. The only credible argument towards practicality of a law, is its enforcability and as such, enforcing a curfew due to civic rioting should not be a reason for an aspiring superpower to collapse into a political power vaccum.

I can only laugh at the idea of imposing martial law to ensure fundamental right to freedom of speech and choice of meat (!) In all developed countries, it was only after the population was sufficiently educated, the state had sufficient resources and the polity was matured enough that issues such as fundamental rights to absolute free speech, non-discrimination etc were settled. I mean, less than 60 years ago, schools in US were segregated. Even today, in European countries you dont have absolute right to free speech. In a country like Poland, it is banned to promote communism. There are blasphemy laws in many European states. People can be arrested there for denying the holocaust. Just to give you an example - in the USA a woman is free to decide to have an abortion after learning the gender of the foetus. In principle it is part of her fundamental rights. But that right, if granted in India will lead to a devastating effect. In the USA, it is legal to give and take dowry. These rights have been curtailed in India for the betterment of society.

I dont think Gandhi/Nehru/Bose were of the era where legal rights of the citizens of India was the entirity of their focus or even a major avenue of exploration.

So why should that be different of leaders today? We retain the same Constitutional principles of 1947. If Nehru and ilk were not evil back in 1947 for introducing all sorts of laws against absolute freedom to speech etc, why do you label others evil today for demanding similar laws.

The point about law and order in India is a salient one but i do not think legal system can technically claim 'fear of public riot' as a legally binding cause to determine its outcome. at the very least, we should have a supreme court order that is a de jure decree, lacking de facto enforcement. That has happened in the past too where the abovementioned scenarios of legal freedoms have collided with ability to enforce public order and safety.

As I said there are any number of laws (on abortion, sex selective fertilization, dowry, anti-SC/ST speech, blasphemy etc) which curtail freedom to speech etc in India for the betterment of the society. Every society has a right to reasonably restrict absolute freedoms to avoid anarchy.

[seedhi]

What is and is not vulgar, is not a fixed benchmark through society. There is plenty of archaeological and literary evidence to suggest that our ancestors lead a far more sexually liberated lives, that would be seen as 'vulgar' by your mainstream hindus, who's ideas on sexuality have largely been moulded by the rigid views of Islam,via a cultural contact. Either which way, what is or what is not vulgar, is for the individual to deciede, not society. Also, it is not upto you or any other hindu or any such association to dicate whether they 'allow' individuals to profess their own ethics in life- whether they are based on assumptive religious basis or irreligious basis.

Actually, the society has every right to decide what is vulgar and what is not. For example, an upper caste cannot pass even a remotely anti-dalit remark in India, while the reverse is allowed (the SC/ST Protection Act). One could argue that our ancestors also liberally abused each other on the basis of caste so should that also be allowed today? Note that in a country like USA you can make also sorts of remarks insulting people based on religion, race or caste, even tough they had treated blacks no better than the treatment of SC/STs in India.

[rageaddict]

If the state can prohibit its citizens from indulging in Gambling activities then how is a ban on beef any different ? Who is the state to decide that its citizen cannot have two spouses at the same time ? If my neighbour has 2 wives then it doesnt bother me in anyway but according to law its illegal. Maybe the state thinks that it is for betterment for the society. Likewise in states where beef is banned, it is the right of the majority of the people to decide the norms that should be followed.

[CSK Fan]

The biggest thing is, hindusim does not ban eating beef. In fact Southie hindus from Kerala always had beef. Its only the north Indians hindus, mostly who worship vishnu and cows as a result who consider beef as uneatable. People who worship shiva have no qualm in eating beef (despite Shiva having Nandi as an escort) So what next, why not all meat eating be banned because of majority of hindus being Brahmins or upper castes?

[CSK Fan]

If the state can prohibit its citizens from indulging in Gambling activities then how is a ban on beef any different ?

Gambling activities are harmful for individuals and the goverment. How is eating beef harmful

Who is the state to decide that its citizen cannot have two spouses at the same time ? If my neighbour has 2 wives then it doesnt bother me in anyway but according to law its illegal. Maybe the state thinks that it is for betterment for the society. Likewise in states where beef is banned, it is the right of the majority of the people to decide the norms that should be followed.

A democracy which blindly follows majority and infringes the right of the minority can never succeed. Look at any successful democracy in the world I dont see anything wrong with attacking the ideas of the majority IMO. If you notice, in any liberal country, any institution, any corporation, its the minority rights which are stressed and the minorities which have special protection. The majority is always open to criticism. But is this approach wrong? Are we trampling on the majority rights? absolutely not! Human beings are tribal in nature. They have a habit of sticking in similar groups and also somtimes become hostile, without realising it, against those in the minority. So every institution worth its salt, will always have rights protecting minorities. Whether the minorities are defined by race, gender, language, caste, religion or anything else or all of the above. Its assumed (and rightly so) that the majority, by the very fact of them being the majority, can take care of themsevles. In most of these countries (institutions, business) some of the majority might feel like you. Some white guys in america might resent the fact that its ok to be able to make fun of the white guys, but not ok to joke about the blacks or the jews. They might feel a threat, or feel they are being discriminated. But they should always realise that a country or an institution is only strong as its weakest link. Enpowering the weak (as opposed to the ones who can take care of themselves) should be the first focus. A mother will also give special care to her handicapped child more than her other normal ones. Is she being biased? The minorities are handicapped just because they are lesser in numbers. The majority is enpowered, just because they outnumber the rest. Its not fake liberalism. In fact, its the very definition of liberalism. Lets make fun of the majority, lets attack them, question them. Because they can take it. Thats how they will be in check and will progress without trampling rights of those who are in lesser numbers. On the other hand, lets work towards making the minorities feel more secure and assure them that we will tread with soft foot, lest they feel threatened and strive to make them more enpowered. Thats the only way a diverse nation can progress, take the example of any successful diverse nation. The majority have to sacrifice for the minority Its the pseudo democracy and insecure nations which have laws favoring majority (the blasphemy law in Pak being the prime example) Some of you guys sound like you just want India to be a carbon copy of Pakistan with just hinduism replacing Islam. Somehow, the fact that Pakistan is almost failing as a nation with its majority appeasement, while we are succeeding despite our minority appeasment seems to escape your narrow views

[seedhi]

The biggest thing is, hindusim does not ban eating beef. In fact Southie hindus from Kerala always had beef. Its only the north Indians hindus, mostly who worship vishnu and cows as a result who consider beef as uneatable. People who worship shiva have no qualm in eating beef (despite Shiva having Nandi as an escort) So what next, why not all meat eating be banned because of majority of hindus being Brahmins or upper castes?

Shia Islam does not ban making decent images of Mohammad. But still it is banned in India as it is offensive to other Muslims. As for comparison between cow and other meat, that question could also be directed to the framers of the constitution who added cow protection specifically to the Directive Principles of State Policy.

Article 48 of Part IV of Constitution of India. Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.- The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.

[seedhi]

Gambling activities are harmful for individuals and the goverment. How is eating beef harmful A democracy which blindly follows majority and infringes the right of the minority can never succeed. Look at any successful democracy in the world I dont see anything wrong with attacking the ideas of the majority IMO. If you notice, in any liberal country, any institution, any corporation, its the minority rights which are stressed and the minorities which have special protection. The majority is always open to criticism. But is this approach wrong? Are we trampling on the majority rights? absolutely not! Human beings are tribal in nature. They have a habit of sticking in similar groups and also somtimes become hostile, without realising it, against those in the minority. So every institution worth its salt, will always have rights protecting minorities. Whether the minorities are defined by race, gender, language, caste, religion or anything else or all of the above. Its assumed (and rightly so) that the majority, by the very fact of them being the majority, can take care of themsevles. In most of these countries (institutions, business) some of the majority might feel like you. Some white guys in america might resent the fact that its ok to be able to make fun of the white guys, but not ok to joke about the blacks or the jews. They might feel a threat, or feel they are being discriminated. But they should always realise that a country or an institution is only strong as its weakest link. Enpowering the weak (as opposed to the ones who can take care of themselves) should be the first focus. A mother will also give special care to her handicapped child more than her other normal ones. Is she being biased? The minorities are handicapped just because they are lesser in numbers. The majority is enpowered, just because they outnumber the rest. Its not fake liberalism. In fact, its the very definition of liberalism. Lets make fun of the majority, lets attack them, question them. Because they can take it. Thats how they will be in check and will progress without trampling rights of those who are in lesser numbers. On the other hand, lets work towards making the minorities feel more secure and assure them that we will tread with soft foot, lest they feel threatened and strive to make them more enpowered. Thats the only way a diverse nation can progress, take the example of any successful diverse nation. The majority have to sacrifice for the minority Its the pseudo democracy and insecure nations which have laws favoring majority (the blasphemy law in Pak being the prime example) Some of you guys sound like you just want India to be a carbon copy of Pakistan with just hinduism replacing Islam. Somehow, the fact that Pakistan is almost failing as a nation with its majority appeasement, while we are succeeding despite our minority appeasment seems to escape your narrow views

Wrong comparison. We are talking about laws here. Under the legal system in the USA, all races are treated equally. Unlike India where we have different laws for different religions.

[seedhi]

The most racially diverse and successful democracy is the United States of America where MINORITIES DO NOT ENJOY ANY SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHTS !!

[The Outsider]

The most racially diverse and successful democracy is the United States of America where MINORITIES DO NOT ENJOY ANY SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHTS !!

Ever heard of affirmative action?

[seedhi]

Ever heard of affirmative action?

Yes and this is what the "affirmative action" law says: (Executive Order 11246)

It "prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[1] It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin."

It is a law that promotes NON-DISCRIMINATION.

[Sachin=GOD]

does anyone here even remember what the actual topic of the thread was?

[The Outsider]

Yes and this is what the "affirmative action" law says: (Executive Order 11246) It is a law that promotes NON-DISCRIMINATION.

Ever heard of the 2003 Supreme Court ruling which allowed educational institutions to use race as a factor in granting admissions as long as it benefits the overall student population?

[seedhi]

Ever heard of the 2003 Supreme Court ruling which allowed educational institutions to use race as a factor in granting admissions as long as it benefits the overall student population?

It is an enabling judgment and does not impose that policy on the university. It does not bestow any particular race or religion with a special legal right. This is a far far cry from having separate laws for separate religions. Let me just say that I am actually in favour of having affirmative action in educational institutions - we already have that in India for SC/STs and OBCs including backward castes amongst Muslims and Christians. What I disagree with are different personal laws for different religions.

[seedhi]

My principled concern is that no special right or provision should ever be based in religion. This is because one can always change religion to take advantage of that provision. We have seen innumerable cases of people changing their religion to marry a second wife. One cannot have a system which induces people to change their religion to avail of benefits.

[The Outsider]

It is an enabling judgment and does not impose that policy on the university. It does not bestow any particular race or religion with a special legal right. This is a far far cry from having separate laws for separate religions.

It does not impose the policy on the university, but allows race to be used as a factor. That's a far cry from your claim that minorities do not have any special rights. And yeah, it does not specify any race in particular but common sense will tell you that it will effect and benefit minority races.

Let me just say that I am actually in favour of having affirmative action in educational institutions - we already have that in India for SC/STs and OBCs including backward castes amongst Muslims and Christians. What I disagree with are different personal laws for different religions.

I agree with that, but earlier in the thread you were arguing for the ban on cow slaughter - that's clearly an imposition of Hindu religious beliefs on the society.

[seedhi]

It does not impose the policy on the university' date=' but allows race to be used as a factor. [b']That's a far cry from your claim that minorities do not have any special rights. And yeah, it does not specify any race in particular but common sense will tell you that it will effect and benefit minority races.

How does a minority have any special rights because of the judgment? Can a minority applicant demand that he/she be given extra benefit. Secondly, the judgment does not rule out favoring any race (including white) if there is such a need.

I agree with that, but earlier in the thread you were arguing for the ban on cow slaughter - that's clearly an imposition of Hindu religious beliefs on the society.

I was arguing that such an imposition does not violate the fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution. My point was that if drawing pictures of Mohammad is banned then by that same logic cow slaughter could also be banned. The Indian state does not have enough resources to ensure law and order if absolute freedoms are allowed, and thus it is justified to curb individual freedoms in many cases - like laws on blasphemy, protection of SC/STs, banning beef, pork, alcohol etc, banning dowry, banning sex selective abortions/fertilizations etc. Most of these laws would be unconstitutional in USA but are required in India due to a huge difference in resources.