Jump to content

Should Allow All Women In Sabarimala Temple, Kerala Tells Supreme Court


Malcolm Merlyn

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

Goverent has a say over individual rights...but has No control whatsoover on the faith and belief system of a  religion or tradition.

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. 

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

The government has no say in what a person should believe or not believe. It is the fundamental right of a person They cant ban a belief of a sect that believes in virgin birth altho scientifically it is impossible. The deity and his followers believe in the type of brahmacharya followed by the deity where women of a certain age is not allowed to interact. If the devotee doesn't believe she stops being a devotee and hence has no rights.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, coffee_rules said:

No , not in a democratic goverment has no say in the religion's core tenets or beiefs. Otherwise they are called fascists or communists.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Again, stop saying nonsense like western viewpoint or colonial history. This only shows YOUR lack of knowledge about Indian history. 

This shows your lack of swadeshi or indigenous history and blind faith in your wesyern colonial masters' version.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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, it does not. If they are allowed, the deity's right to beief is violated.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Why not? Isn't that what a secular goverent should do, treat all religions equally?

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Doesnt change the fact that the idea of banning half of humanity from a place of worship due to their biology, is discrimination.

It is not man made, it is in scriptures and puranas. Lets see if bible can be changed by gender equality police.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

Unnatural sex act had made it criminal , only it has been decriminalized, It is far from recognizing gay rights for property, children etc.as it is in the west.

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

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. 

If constitution says right to freedom of religion, it can do Ghanta for belief system, otherwise they have to change the basic fundamental right and let's see what chimps of FOE will do then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

This shows your lack of swadeshi or indigenous history and blind faith in your wesyern colonial masters' version.

You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

No, it does not. If they are allowed, the deity's right to beief is violated.

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. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Why not? Isn't that what a secular goverent should do, treat all religions equally?

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. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is not man made, it is in scriptures and puranas. Lets see if bible can be changed by gender equality police.

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. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Unnatural sex act had made it criminal , only it has been decriminalized, It is far from recognizing gay rights for property, children etc.as it is in the west.

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. 

3 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

If constitution says right to freedom of religion, it can do Ghanta for belief system, otherwise they have to change the basic fundamental right and let's see what chimps of FOE will do then.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

You seriously want to go down the route of historical discourse with me - this should be fun. 

No, just pointing to your ignorance, you mandooka are entitled to your koopa.

 

Quote

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. 

In Hindu belief, once a prana prathishtapana is performed on the idol, it is believed to be living, and hence as a person it is entitled for constitutional rights. It is his abode, his story and his rules. Devotees believe that and follow the rules. This is as per our scriptures and hence constitution allows it because of it as a right to freedom and belief. There are beliefs in quran and bible (scriptures) that cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Quote

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. 

Asking space for belief and not denigrating or snatching others' beliefs is what thos is about. 

Quote

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. 

It is in Bhutanatha purana where Ayyapan has taken a vow of naisthika brahmacharya, making him not be anywhere near women who are capable of progeny. This menstruating thing is added by feminazis to denigrate the belief.

Quote

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. 

right to freedom of religion is so vast, all beliefs are protected under it. So, go figure out how to quash it.

 

And yes, Matter over

 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

No, just pointing to your ignorance, you mandooka are entitled to your koopa.

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. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

In Hindu belief, once a prana prathishtapana is performed on the idol, it is believed to be living, and hence as a person it is entitled for constitutional rights.

Ok. Good for hindus. Too bad India is not a hindu nation. Try your nonsense beleif based laws in Nepal, maybe. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is his abode, his story and his rules. Devotees believe that and follow the rules. This is as per our scriptures and hence constitution allows it because of it as a right to freedom and belief. There are beliefs in quran and bible (scriptures) that cannot be challenged in a court of law.

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. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Asking space for belief and not denigrating or snatching others' beliefs is what thos is about. 

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. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

It is in Bhutanatha purana where Ayyapan has taken a vow of naisthika brahmacharya, making him not be anywhere near women who are capable of progeny. This menstruating thing is added by feminazis to denigrate the belief.

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. 

5 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

right to freedom of religion is so vast, all beliefs are protected under it. So, go figure out how to quash it.

 

And yes, Matter over

 

Same way any right to innanimate object can be taken away and has been taken away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why go where someone is not welcome. 

Besides in Hinduism, no one can exclusively claim to be a medium between diety and devotee. PERIOD. So what is the need to go to temple even. If I am restricted from entering somewhere, I will build my own temple and worship there. If I understand spirituality correctly, if I am sincere and real devotee then god is more likely to bless me in my own temple than from some weird place where administrators and priests think that they own the god.

 

They dont have spirituality in them, no humility, no real powers and no siddhis. 

 

No disrespect intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

They cant ban a belief of a sect that believes in virgin birth altho scientifically it is impossible

Science cannot prove many things, like the origin of the universe. What is Dark Matter/Energy, What existed before big bang? what caused the big bang? So may be science doesnt know if virgin birth can be possible or not. 

Science knows that traveling with the speed of light is impossible for man but they believe otherwise. Same way virgin birth may sound impossible to science but it might not be. Who knows.

 

Just an argument for the sake of argument. (Your argument questions my belief, my most 2 fav dieties whom I worship)

 

Eitherway I dont have issues with your overall post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dial_100 said:

why go where someone is not welcome. 

Besides in Hinduism, no one can exclusively claim to be a medium between diety and devotee. PERIOD. So what is the need to go to temple even. If I am restricted from entering somewhere, I will build my own temple and worship there. If I understand spirituality correctly, if I am sincere and real devotee then god is more likely to bless me in my own temple than from some weird place where administrators and priests think that they own the god.

 

They dont have spirituality in them, no humility, no real powers and no siddhis. 

 

No disrespect intended.

Hinduism believes in Ishtadevta, it is respected and celbrated as well. The argument is how libs are turning this into gender issue while it is not. 

 

Ayyappan is not a vedic god, but a tantric one. It is about a spiritual energy in a sthala and the energy of belief in a sthala mahime. It is a private place, where a public place discrimination laws don't apply. Feminists and libs have a single dolution for all diverse issues such as these and want to kill tradition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Hinduism believes in Ishtadevta, it is respected and celbrated as well. The argument is how libs are turning this into gender issue while it is not. 

 

Ayyappan is not a vedic god, but a tantric one. It is about a spiritual energy in a sthala and the energy of belief in a sthala mahime. It is a private place, where a public place discrimination laws don't apply. Feminists and libs have a single dolution for all diverse issues such as these and want to kill tradition.

Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope. We don't want to 'kill' tradition. We are simply not interested in protecting a grotesque concept under the guise of 'tradition'. Tradition exists to serve us. Over time, almost all traditions become meaningless, flawed or obsolete. We are simply going to educate people on this concept and over time, remove all the traditions that have ceased to serve our modern existence. Simple.

 

Who is to decide that? An authoritarian liberal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, dial_100 said:

Science cannot prove many things, like the origin of the universe. What is Dark Matter/Energy, What existed before big bang? what caused the big bang? So may be science doesnt know if virgin birth can be possible or not. 

Science knows that traveling with the speed of light is impossible for man but they believe otherwise. Same way virgin birth may sound impossible to science but it might not be. Who knows.

 

Just an argument for the sake of argument. (Your argument questions my belief, my most 2 fav dieties whom I worship)

 

Eitherway I dont have issues with your overall post. 

I was commenting on the Christian core belief of a Virgin birth of Jesus. If it was not for birth from a Virgin mother, Jesus would not be born out of sin like all of us and hence he can't deliver us out of our born sin. This is the core belief. Scientifically, the only way a mother can give birth and still be a virgin is if Mary was a hermaphrodite. Forcing such beliefs would be blasphemous as well as unconstitutional.

 

May I know who are the two deities that I offended with virgin birth remark? Ganesha ? 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

decision by logic, reasoning and by committee ofcourse. 

Democracy works by laws from Legislature from people's reps, Executive from the Government and Judiciary which is supposed to implement and safeguard the laws. This committee is part of what?  Judiciary? With enough people pressure any Judicial committee decisions can be impeached. So, who has authority in a simple democratic process? 

 

This #377 WAS ALLOWED TO BE PASSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGISLATIVE OPPOSITION.  As in the case of Shah Bano, Judicial activism can be thwarted by legislative mandate. 

Edited by coffee_rules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

Democracy works by laws from Legislature from people's reps, Executive from the Government and Judiciary which is supposed to implement and safeguard the laws. This committee is part of what?  Judiciary? With enough people pressure any Judicial committee decisions can be impeached. So, who has authority in a simple democratic process? 

False. Judicial committee has ultimate authority in legality of laws created. No amount of public pressure is going to get 'unnatural sex act' back in the constitution. 

Also, democracy works with an element of authoritarianism in it - our fundamental human rights for eg, are not democratically elected values, neither are they subject to democratic erasure. Ie, its fundamentally authoritarian imposition - in this case, it is our rights. 

Ie, you can get a 100% super-majority in both the houses to change the Indian constitution, to revoke all human rights from muslims. SC will immediately invalidate that, as fundamental rights are not subject to democratic consensus. This is for every single democratic nation btw.

Quote

 

This #377 WAS ALLOWED TO BE PASSED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LEGISLATIVE OPPOSITION.  As in the case of Shah Bano, Judicial activism can be thwarted by legislative mandate. 

Nope. Judiciary cannot CREATE any laws. But they certainly can and will override any laws created by the legislative, if they deem it unconstitutional/in violation of our rights or heck, even amend the constitution if they find one part conflicts with another (such as with unnatural sex act part).

 

 

You must've skipped basic civics class in school it seems. The legislative has the ultimate mandate in CREATING laws. The executive has the ultimate mandate in IMPLEMENTING said laws. And the Judiciary has the ultimate mandate in determining the VALIDITY of said laws. No amount of 'people pressure' is going to legally force the supreme court to change its decisions on a law.Thats basic civics 101.....

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^I will reply on individual points, but Judiciary given supreme powers will  lead to a banana republic. It is not civics 101. Judiciary is individuals and if it's left to people like you then society will turn to anarchy and artistcratic communities.  There is no idealism in society, there is a practical  balance that results in peace in the region. I think we are digressing, we should debate in DM. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

^^I will reply on individual points, but Judiciary given supreme powers will  lead to a banana republic. It is not civics 101. Judiciary is individuals and if it's left to people like you then society will turn to anarchy and artistcratic communities.  There is no idealism in society, there is a practical  balance that results in peace in the region. I think we are digressing, we should debate in DM. 

Judiciary does not have supreme power, since judiciary has no power to MAKE the laws. They have the power to strike down any law if they deem it unsatisfactory. And that is required, because without judiciary having the supreme authority to strike down laws, you WILL have a banana republic, in a region rife with low education, where all you will need, is to have a big majority and you can deem any group - muslims, hindus, sikhs, christians, bengalis or gujjus or whatever- to have no rights or xyz impositions specifically on them.
The best system we can think of, is the system we have currently, where the legislative body only has power to MAKE the law while the judiciary has the power to VETO a law. One without the other, is where abuse of power will come from. 

 

 

Also, i am a statist - not an anarchist. I simply do not share beliefs in old, out-dated systems made thousands of years ago by people who'd be considered ignorant illiterates by grade-10 kids. That does not make me an anarchist, just a modernist. 

Anarchism is anti government/anti-system. That is fundamental anathema to statists like me, who think that under current socio-political systems, the state machinery reigns supreme. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jahan tak mujhe samajh aaya hai, wo mahila bhakt jo sach me is mandir me Pooja karne jana chahate hai, unhen is niyam se koi aapatti nahin hai.

Lekin dusri taraf @Muloghonto ke bhai bahan feminazi balak aur balikayen who probably won't ever step foot in the temple premises are itching to get this law overturned.

Kya koi bhai seedhe shabdo me ye samjha sakta hai ki esa kyu ho raha hai?

Aur @Muloghonto please aap na samjhayen.

Dhanyawad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Jahan tak mujhe samajh aaya hai, wo mahila bhakt jo sach me is mandir me Pooja karne jana chahate hai, unhen is niyam se koi aapatti nahin hai.

Lekin dusri taraf @Muloghonto ke bhai bahan feminazi balak aur balikayen who probably won't ever step foot in the temple premises are itching to get this law overturned.

Kya koi bhai seedhe shabdo me ye samjha sakta hai ki esa kyu ho raha hai?

Aur @Muloghonto please aap na samjhayen.

Dhanyawad.

Uhm, pretty sure i have been in more churches, mosques & temples than 99.9% of humanity.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...