ravishingravi Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Not talking about right or wrong. For the record, I completely disagree with this. But is it truly the upholding of secular values. It is highly debated with friends who eat and who don't.But truly speaking, cow is holy animal for lot of hindus. So,appeasing or upholding their feelings should be secular, no ? Atleast thats what has been happening in this country.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 How is it in any way secular?? Do people not understand what secular means? Secular means religious beliefs and values are kept entirely to each other, and in no way affects anyone's lives but your own unless of course people voluntarily subscribe to them. Secular governments keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business Removing beef from the menu of all non-Hindus because it offends Hindus is pretty much the opposite of secularism
rahulrulezz Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 How is it in any way secular?? Do people not understand what secular means? Secular means religious beliefs and values are kept entirely to each other, and in no way affects anyone's lives but your own unless of course people voluntarily subscribe to them. Secular governments keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business Removing beef from the menu of all non-Hindus because it offends Hindus is pretty much the opposite of secularism :two_thumbs_up: tbh, we Indians, have a different meaning of Secularism :cantstop:.. We think that secularism means appeasing or keeping every religion and their followers happy.. but as you clarified, secularism actually means ' keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business' ..
Sachinism Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 How is it in any way secular?? Do people not understand what secular means? Secular means religious beliefs and values are kept entirely to each other, and in no way affects anyone's lives but your own unless of course people voluntarily subscribe to them. Secular governments keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business Removing beef from the menu of all non-Hindus because it offends Hindus is pretty much the opposite of secularism This. Confused Indians.
ravishingravi Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 How is it in any way secular?? Do people not understand what secular means? Secular means religious beliefs and values are kept entirely to each other, and in no way affects anyone's lives but your own unless of course people voluntarily subscribe to them. Secular governments keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business Removing beef from the menu of all non-Hindus because it offends Hindus is pretty much the opposite of secularism So you are for uniform civil code then ? All equal in the country. No separate laws for people of different religions
Yoda-esque Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 So you are for uniform civil code then ? All equal in the country. No separate laws for people of different religions I think this was discussed before. UCC is the way to go.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 So you are for uniform civil code then ? All equal in the country. No separate laws for people of different religions Different states can have slightly different laws, but by and large they should try be as similar as possible. Secularism means you put the rights of EVERYONE equal, so if Christians want beef, they should be able to get it. If Hindus dont, then dont buy it. In other words, if you disagree with something, dont partake in it/buy it rather than force your views on people who dont believe in them By pandering to the rights of a majority A) minorities feel misrepresented B) The majority feel they can get their way by whinging all the time and C) your pretty much telling the minority that what they say goes. He's green' date=' but of a different kind :secret:[/quote'] And you're an Aussie I assume :P
Yoda-esque Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Different states can have slightly different laws, but by and large they should try be as similar as possible. Secularism means you put the rights of EVERYONE equal, so if Christians want beef, they should be able to get it. If Hindus dont, then dont buy it. In other words, if you disagree with something, dont partake in it/buy it rather than force your views on people who dont believe in them By pandering to the rights of a majority A) minorities feel misrepresented B) The majority feel they can get their way by whinging all the time and C) your pretty much telling the minority that what they say goes. And you're an Aussie I assume :P Whats your view on conversion? Can there be conversion to and fro from every religion?
ravishingravi Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 Different states can have slightly different laws, but by and large they should try be as similar as possible. Secularism means you put the rights of EVERYONE equal, so if Christians want beef, they should be able to get it. If Hindus dont, then dont buy it. In other words, if you disagree with something, dont partake in it/buy it rather than force your views on people who dont believe in them By pandering to the rights of a majority A) minorities feel misrepresented B) The majority feel they can get their way by whinging all the time and C) your pretty much telling the minority that what they say goes. And you're an Aussie I assume :P So aren't you pandering to rights of minority by allowing blasphemy of majority's religious feel. Points A,B and C can be replaced with majority. So, you are for single rule of law for all. Equal before the law. Yup, that kind of secularism isn't there in India. In the secularism, practiced in India, this is secular.
Donal Cozzie Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Whats your view on conversion? Can there be conversion to and fro from every religion? Once it isnt forced or pressurized then why not? To each their own
Kalia_Test Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Completely against ban on beef for many reasons. Who will take care of non milk-giving cows? Will Govt buy and feed them? A butcher would have paid price XYZ. If you had so much love, then let the Govt pay more than XYZ and take care...again this is also wrong as why should tax-payers pay for this? Now what will happen to the owners of old cows? There are no butchers they can sell the cow to and they cannot afford to feed it. What should they do? What will happen to the families of butchers whose livelihood has been taken away from them? Will the Govt give them jobs? I have many views but ( with few exceptions ) agree fully with Devdutt Patnaik ( I had opportunity to debate with him couple of time but he is a wonderful guy - Chief Belief Officer of Future Group - Pantaloon and Central and also author of many books and regular speaker at TED). Why the heck are we trying to equate dharma of hinduism with commandments of Abrahmic faiths. http://devdutt.com/articles/world-mythology/cow-slaughter-and-dharma.html Dharma has been made out to be a complicated word. That way you can call anything dharma. Currently, many Hindu – or rather Hindutva – leaders want to equate it with commandment, taking a cue from Abrahamic mythology that they love to otherwise mock. So dharma becomes law that you can use to control (or oppress?) sections of the population, create parameters for ethics and morality, deem what is good and right. But there is another word for law – it’s called niti. Niti (law) and riti (tradition) can be inspired by dharma, but is not dharma. Dharma is a thought, not an action. So people want to save cows. They say it is dharma. It is the Hindu way. That is a controversial statement. For it sounds like a commandment, which has never been the Hindu way. Hinduism has always appreciated the flux of society, changing with period, place and people (kala, sthan, and patra). In fact, there are verses (furiously debated and far from conclusive) in Vedic scriptures that suggest ancient Hindus did consume meat, probably even beef, before the rise of monastic orders in Hinduism. Cow was sacred in Vedic times, when people lived a pastoral life, as it was the source of milk from which one could make curd and ghee, hence food. So cow protection had much to do with economics. Did this protection of cow extend to the bull, or the buffalo? We are not sure. Does cow protection mean cattle protection? Does it mean not eating buff (buffalo) meat? There are no clear answers or injunctions anywhere. Metaphorically, cow is the foremost symbol of livelihood. Killing cows was destroying someone’s source of livelihood. It was not acceptable. It could not be dharma. By banning the consumption of beef, many butchers will be deprived of livelihood. Many poor farmers will be forced to take care of old cows, which will add to their economic burden. Many tribals and Muslims and Christians and non-Brahmanical Hindus will be deprived of a much favoured and cheap non-vegetarian food, a source of protein for them. Is this dharma? Banning beef will create conflict, conflict will provide media fodder, polarise society, divert attention from real issues (like land grabbing, dispossession, draconian labour laws, marital rape, violence against women, children and LGBTQ), and maybe even win votes.
vvvslaxman Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Wonder where should we stand on polygamy, bigamy based on religion. Those kind of laws should be based on principles not based on religion. In the United states a muslim cannot have multiple wives (may be in Utha) legally. Mormons do have in states like Utha. But Illegally muslims have multiple wive in the US. There was an article on it why Muslims don't care about legalization of polygamy in the US. Because women follow the Qran which states men can have upto 4 wives and accept it . They don't go to court over this.
Detonator Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 beef ban isn't done in the name of secularism. The recent beef ban is done by a party with right wing ideology
G_B_ Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Beef is not banned. Beef= Bovine which includes Water Buffelos which are not banned. Cow slaughter was already banned in the state of Maharashtra. Bullocks and Bulls are just added to the list.
G_B_ Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 beef ban isn't done in the name of secularism. The recent beef ban is done by a party with right wing ideology the congress supported it... only the NCP opposed it.
G_B_ Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 How is it in any way secular?? Do people not understand what secular means? Secular means religious beliefs and values are kept entirely to each other, and in no way affects anyone's lives but your own unless of course people voluntarily subscribe to them. Secular governments keep religion entirely separate from government dealings and business Removing beef from the menu of all non-Hindus because it offends Hindus is pretty much the opposite of secularism every country will have a characteristic. Abortion is taboo in catholic ireland for example Secondly Non Hindus is bit of a vague term. There are many other dharmic faiths (like Jainism) who are also religious minorities who dont consume cow meat.
Guldozer Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Not secular. Even in Pakistan non-Muslims are allowed to drink, can a similar system not be used? Don't know who in their senses would consider this secular.Whether you think it is fine to do or not is another thing but it definitely isn't secular.
G_B_ Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Not secular. Even in Pakistan non-Muslims are allowed to drink, can a similar system not be used? Don't know who in their senses would consider this secular.Whether you think it is fine to do or not is another thing but it definitely isn't secular. what about pork. Is it legal? Just asking.
Recommended Posts