Shani temple to Sabarimala..................

[Mad Indian]

What ever makes you feel good dude...

Truth makes me feel good

 

[archie]

Kalyanotsavam as the name denotes is for married couples ? Or those who wish to get married ? But in the shani temple women is kept away unreasonably. As i searched there are reports that thirumal did allow single men, women etc.
Would you go on to justify if a dalit is kept away from a particular Temple sighting thirupathi example ?

When you say muslim darma did not last, you imply that It should last longer if not its a pretentious attempt by " secularists " and their real aim was distroying hindu traditions.

You go by reports i have sat outside when my parents went for Kalyanotsavam do you even know what the event is?? its not for married couples.. its the celebration of marriage of Lord venkateswara and Lakshmi ,,, The reason children and unmarried people are not allowed is in any marriage the married couple are only blessed by those who have led a married life .. thats Tradition... Non of the courts or ladies or who ever it is Business...

If you don't understand the depth of the tradition you have no business to reform it ...

Excluding someone from some place is not the problem... THE REASON WHY IS THE IMPORTANT THING..
Keeping a dalit out cause of his birth is wrong..

But if Any person just wants to destroy that place .. yes pls keep him out.. Do you understand ??

The moron ladies group were not interested in prayer or spirituality but only to play politics.. Real change is not brought about by this way

You dont understand strategy do you nor do you play chess.. Yes this is an onslaught on Hindu traditions ..

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

You go by reports i have sat outside when my parents went for Kalyanotsavam do you even know what the event is?? its not for married couples.. its the celebration of marriage of Lord venkateswara and Lakshmi ,,, The reason children and unmarried people are not allowed is in any marriage the married couple are only blessed by those who have led a married life .. thats Tradition... Non of the courts or ladies or who ever it is Business...

If you don't understand the depth of the tradition you have no business to reform it ...

Excluding someone from some place is not the problem... THE REASON WHY IS THE IMPORTANT THING..
Keeping a dalit out cause of his birth is wrong..

But if Any person just wants to destroy that place .. yes pls keep him out.. Do you understand ??

The moron ladies group were not interested in prayer or spirituality but only to play politics.. Real change is not brought about by this way

You dont understand strategy do you nor do you play chess.. Yes this is an onslaught on Hindu traditions ..

Yah reason is important, ans moron traditionalists are excluding hindu women in shani temple, your allegation of politics them plying politics is your conspiracy theory, and even if politics get involved it good, politics is not a bad thing.
Lastly courts can interfere in religious practices if they are found to be discriminatory, court will decide the matter, you can argue your side there, so can others.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Truth makes me feel good

Forget about truth....Your eyes are too blind with hatread and your mind is too polluted with communalism for you to see anything at all..

 

[archie]

Yah reason is important, ans moron traditionalists are excluding hindu women in shani temple, your allegation of politics them plying politics is your conspiracy theory, and even if politics get involved it good, politics is not a bad thing.
Lastly courts can interfere in religious practices if they are found to be discriminatory, court will decide the matter, you can argue your side there, so can others.

The same moron woman rights females want to touch the deity and that is against my religious sentiments yeah the court has to take into account of my right to belief as well .. since its not her private property or an public place .. its one isolated specific religious location.. she is free to go else where and pray .. if she wants to pray there she follow rules of that place..

 

[sasum]

I am a patriotic Indian born in a Brahmin family but I am not dogmatic. If I protest against gender discrimination, I don't become a feminist. If I protest against caste discrimination, I don't become a communist. If I dislike certain vein ostentatious rituals in Hindu religious practices, I don't become a closet Islamist. But if Rationalism is a dogma, then, yes, I am a Rationalist and will remain so till death.

 

[TheRenegades]

If I protest against gender discrimination, I don't become a feminist. If I protest against caste discrimination, I don't become a communist..

... All other points being okay and is your belief and opinion, you need to look up what feminism is .

feminist |ˈfemənəst| - noun a person who supports feminism.

feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm| - noun the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

feminism is exactly what being against gender discrimination is.

 

[TheRenegades]

The same moron woman rights females want to touch the deity and that is against my religious sentiments yeah the court has to take into account of my right to belief as well .. since its not her private property or an public place .. its one isolated specific religious location.. she is free to go else where and pray .. if she wants to pray there she follow rules of that place..

Do tell what are your reasons are that females can't touch the deity? What special snow flake these men are that they get to touch the deity and others can't?

 

[jackprince]

I am a patriotic Indian born in a Brahmin family but I am not dogmatic. If I protest against gender discrimination, I don't become a feminist. If I protest against caste discrimination, I don't become a communist. If I dislike certain vein ostentatious rituals in Hindu religious practices, I don't become a closet Islamist. But if Rationalism is a dogma, then, yes, I am a Rationalist and will remain so till death.

Now you are correct by stating 'born in brahmin family'. Anyway, following a tradition and resisting a key change in that tradition, doesn't mean one is dogmatic, but means one is faithful to his/her faith. No protesting against caste discrimination doesn't make you communist. However, when you try to undermine Hindu rituals and tradition, and bulldoze through it in the name of equality, you become as bad as a communist.

And, if you think restriction of women visiting Shanideva or Ayyappa is 'vain ostentatious ritual', then you may not have become a closet Islamist, but you have become an self-righteous ignorant fool, playing in the hands of people who wish to undermine Hindus at every step.

There're rituals in Bengal where a young pre-pubescent girl is worshiped as 'Shakti'. Now, isn't that discrimination by your dictionary, since pre-pubescent boys should also be worshiped to keep it equal, no? It is the Hindus who have given rights to women to be priest and except a few voices, none protested. It is in Hinduism where female deities are worshiped. And, you call it discriminatory only because it has restrictions at some places where the restrictions are intrinsic to the existence of those temples?

Anybody, who has any faith of the those deities, would not find these restrictions prohibitive, and would be leery to offend the the deities. Only those who pretend to have faith and have no respect for the deities, will try to demolish a faith-system that is intrinsic to the worship of the deities of those particular temples.

... All other points being okay and is your belief and opinion, you need to look up what feminism is .

feminist |ˈfemənəst| - noun a person who supports feminism.

feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm| - noun the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

feminism is exactly what being against gender discrimination is.

Nope. @sasum was right feminism is not same as against gender discrimination. The early date feminism was about equality, now it is about supremacy. Examples are countless, and anybody who has a free mind, not yet brainwashed by western media , can see that.

 

[TheRenegades]

Is it natural that gays are permitted to rear kids in west? A mother and a father is not just for procreation of child, but they play a much bigger role in building a man or woman of the child. It has already been proven in many studies in western nations that a child with both parents present has much better chance of developing better intellectual to social skillset, than a single parent child. Now, how do you think the gay parents would rear a child presenting both male and female role models in the child's life. This in turn damage the future of a society in whole when more and more children, whose sexual orientation happens to be straight, comes of age and they don't have any idea about their role on the society, but a vague whitewashed idea of their responsibility.

Further, nature's natural course for any species is procreation and mutation for survival of the species. How does homosexuality helps on that? If it doesn't, it is against the natural course.

Any species' primary role os safeguarding its future generation, in which the modern liberalism is an utter failure.
.

What are these studies you speak of? Now if you are quoting from a religious blog or a journal it doesn't count and has been debunked. Do not tell everyone that being gay is unnatural. There have been documented evidence of 1000's of species engaging in homosexual, bisexual behaviors including humans. Homosexuality has also been documented even in Kamasutra and subtly mentioned in Hindu mythology.

Up until 1860 (I think) the act which banned "unnatural" acts (read Victorian era, Politics and Religion of the Brits at the time) , the Indian society at large, I can presume, more or less tolerated homosexuality. India had nothing to do Victorian era or their religious practices except we were a slave country to the British. It is high time we repealed the 156 year old law.


Gay people adopt or do IVF to have kids. And these kids grow up just like any other normal kid would. Now if you are treating these kids any differently than you would a straight couple's, that is demented and you are the one to blame.

With 7 billion world population, I think our world is safe from certain doom you speak of.
With 1.25 billion world population, I dont think gay people in India are going to cause any harm to India. They are not out to get you. They just want to live a normal life to their liking.

Having kids is that couple prerogative is not the sole reason to live.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

... All other points being okay and is your belief and opinion, you need to look up what feminism is .

feminist |ˈfemənəst| - noun a person who supports feminism.

feminism |ˈfeməˌnizəm| - noun the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

feminism is exactly what being against gender discrimination is.

Islam : (noun) : A religion of peace.


If we allow people to self-certify their own morality based on their own definition, they will conjure up a definition that makes them look good, their actions notwithstanding. Intellectual inspection by virtue must come from an observer and not by the actor himself. That's why it is called inspection and not introspection. The most violent of movements in the world have the most peaceful mission statements. People, groups and political movements are judged by their actions not by their definition. Islam, for example seeks to spread peace. We all know what means they have adopted it to spread it.

"There have been documented evidence of 1000's of species engaging in homosexual, bisexual behaviors"

There are also documented evidences of many species of animals engaging in cannibalism. Let's legalize cannibalism then? Many mammals, like Lions, intrude on the territory of other lions, kill their cubs and rape the lionesses to start a new generation of cubs. Let's legalize rape, then?

The fact that differentiates humans from animals is that we have a conscience which has enabled us to build social norms that are favorable to humanity. This is precisely why 'behaving like an animal' isn't something to look up to, in popular parlance. You can't have it both ways. On one hand you liberals build your arguments on the very premise of humans being more evolved than animals and therefore the assumption of greater responsibility, over and above other animals. Hence the opposition to capital punishment, which are considered beastly. When it comes to gay rights, suddenly you reverse your stated position and start drawing parallels with animals with positive connotations.

This is a glaring example of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

The same moron woman rights females want to touch the deity and that is against my religious sentiments yeah the court has to take into account of my right to belief as well .. since its not her private property or an public place .. its one isolated specific religious location.. she is free to go else where and pray .. if she wants to pray there she follow rules of that place..

Sorry not every temple is a private property, even in private properties you cannont have irrational gender discrimination, it's all governed by indian laws, you have no basis to be offended if a women touch the feet of a diety, infact it's you hurting the feelings of womens by objecting her touch in the feet of her god.

 

[sasum]

There're rituals in Bengal where a young pre-pubescent girl is worshiped as 'Shakti'. Now, isn't that discrimination by your dictionary, since pre-pubescent boys should also be worshiped to keep it equal, no?

This is also discrimination (however, I didn't know about thus obscure ritual). You are unable to comprehend the larger issue. One ritual can't be compensated for by another ritual. Rituals were added to Hindu religious practices to enable Brahmins to earn livelihood. In vedic period Brahmins were not revered for their skills in performing religious Mumbo-Jumbo but their higher intellectual calibre, their quest for knowledge, scientific temperament and problem solving abilities. They made deep studies in laws of physics, astronomy, medical science, mathematics etc. Idol worship was just one of them. Today, when Hindus have very little achiements to boast of in the world community, they try & find solace in obscurantism. What is Celebacy of Shani Dev? An idol curved out of stone by a low-cast artisan? What is the use of worshipping little girls when you or your Shani Dev can't protect her from sexual predators.
You should change your I'd from "jackprince" to "jackass"

 

[jackprince]

What are these studies you speak of? Now if you are quoting from a religious blog or a journal it doesn't count and has been debunked.

http://patient.info/doctor/child-parent-relationship-and-potential-problems
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-common-todays-Britain-couples-minority.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...at-raising-children-than-married-couples.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...-in-single-parent-families-worse-behaved.html


If you have read that single parenting is well and dandy in feminist rags, that don't count.

Do not tell everyone that being gay is unnatural. There have been documented evidence of 1000's of species engaging in homosexual, bisexual behaviors including humans. Homosexuality has also been documented even in Kamasutra

Have you hear of the saying 'exception proves the rule'? I guess you didn't. Some 1000s of instances in species across the nature, doesn't mean it is 'natural'. How does those species procreate or mutate?

and subtly mentioned in Hindu mythology.

Now, you believe in mythology? Bringing in mythology in support of your argument in a thread where you want to counter mythology is pretty poor example of you reasoning dexterity. Plan it better my friend.

Up until 1860 (I think) the act which banned "unnatural" acts (read Victorian era, Politics and Religion of the Brits at the time) , the Indian society at large, I can presume, more or less tolerated homosexuality. India had nothing to do Victorian era or their religious practices except we were a slave country to the British. It is high time we repealed the 156 year old law.

Indian society might have tolerated it or might not have. At least I don't know instances where Homosexuality was mentioned as an okey thing in any of the texts available with us today of our ancient times. What are the basis of your presumption? Even if it was okey thing in our past, I hardly think they were allowed to raise kids and take part in society as normal. To be frank, I cannot believe that a normal man would accept a homosexual as equal in the past society where manliness was the very identity of men, unlike this modern era where being effeminate is a IN thing. Also, all that has been done in Victorian era wasn't a bad thing either.

Gay people adopt or do IVF to have kids. And these kids grow up just like any other normal kid would. Now if you are treating these kids any differently than you would a straight couple's, that is demented and you are the one to blame.

Hmm... how would a male child born in a lesbian relationship fare? Anyway, I guess it is too early to judge given how it is a new thing and those children born and raised by gay couples are still at their childhood.

Anyway, the western society is anyway half-way demented, a little screwed up children cannot be differentiated anyway. More than half of Kids in UK and USA doesn't know united family. What difference can gay parents make?

With 7 billion world population, I think our world is safe from certain doom you speak of.

have you heard of mutation?

Anyway, it is not certain doom, but social doom that I speak of.

With 1.25 billion world population, I don't think gay people in India are going to cause any harm to India. They are not out to get you. They just want to live a normal life to their liking.

Nope. they cannot hurt me anyway.

You know why I am against recognising gay people. It is because once they get recognition, they will boast it and gradually like western society, our society will also follow to the way of extra-liberalism. Next they will ask the right to marry and raise kids, and I am opposed to the idea of homosexuals raising children. A child needs both his/her parents as role models. India is still not as bonkers as west because in most families both units of parents stick to their child and provide role models.

Having kids is that couple prerogative is not the sole reason to live.

Having kids may be couple's prerogative, but denying that is not natural. Nature is much more bigger than wants and wishes.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Sorry not every temple is a private property, even in private properties you cannont have irrational gender discrimination, it's all governed by indian laws, you have no basis to be offended if a women touch the feet of a diety, infact it's you hurting the feelings of womens by objecting her touch in the feet of her god.

If a person wants to enter a mosque with a plate full of roasted pork, will you also stand for his right?

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

If a person wants to enter a mosque with a plate full of roasted pork, will you also stand for his right?

Apples and oranges comparison...

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

Apples and oranges comparison...

Not apples and oranges. It's the exact same argument you are making "everyone has the right to go everywhere". The constitution grants the right to eat pork, the constitution also grants the right to freedom of movement anywhere in the nation. Why cannot a pork eating person enter a mosque then? is it not equally in violation of his rights as it is a violation for a woman to be disallowed in a temple?

Why isn't pork allowed in mosques? aren't mosques violating the constitution? can they enforce their own law in a mosque that stands on Indian soil governed by Indian laws? If so then you need to explain why they are allowed to do so but Hindu's can't have their own law in Hindu temples?

@sasum, check out how I've caught this hypocritical communist motherfucker in an intellectually compromising position. You can proceed to bash him now

 

[jackprince]

This is also discrimination (however, I didn't know about thus obscure ritual). You are unable to comprehend the larger issue. One ritual can't be compensated for by another ritual. Rituals were added to Hindu religious practices to enable Brahmins to earn livelihood. In vedic period Brahmins were not revered for their skills in performing religious Mumbo-Jumbo but their higher intellectual calibre, their quest for knowledge, scientific temperament and problem solving abilities. They made deep studies in laws of physics, astronomy, medical science, mathematics etc. Idol worship was just one of them. Today, when Hindus have very little achiements to boast of in the world community, they try & find solace in obscurantism. What is Celebacy of Shani Dev? An idol curved out of stone by a low-cast artisan? What is the use of worshipping little girls when you or your Shani Dev can't protect her from sexual predators.
You should change your I'd from "jackprince" to "jackass"

Call me jackass, if you wish to. If you think, your effort of insult will offend me, you are sorely mistaken. You amuse me.

Just with a single post you have revealed yourself for what you are - a communist if you are born truly in a Hindu family. These are very same arguments propagated by the communists throughout ages and you know what, these also don't cut any more. Your kind have been unmasked for what you are - a self-hating bunch of insecure people having been brainwashed by worshipers of Marx.

Silly really, how the new generations of communists like you haven't even mastered the art of subterfuge like your elders who have been fooling people for 5 decades.

Now, i would have given you counter to your BS arguments, if you haven't proclaimed your pathetic ignorance and self-loathing in such a way. The man who doesn't have any faith, should not be argued with about faith. You don't have any right to argue about the topic og the thread once you have said this - "What is Celebacy of Shani Dev? An idol curved out of stone by a low-cast artisan? What is the use of worshipping little girls when you or your Shani Dev can't protect her from sexual predators."

And, to other folks, @saty @archie @Mad Indian @Navneet Kundu those who are still trying to argue here, I would suggest them to refer to what the Great @pmaitra said once " Don't fight with the pigs in Pig pit, because you both will get dirty, only the Pig will enjoy it."

 

[Agnostic_Indian]

Not apples and oranges. It's the exact same argument you are making "everyone has the right to go everywhere". The constitution grants the right to eat pork, the constitution also grants the right to freedom of movement anywhere in the nation. Why cannot a pork eating person enter a mosque then? is it not equally in violation of his rights as it is a violation for a woman to be disallowed in a temple?

I belive Pork eating person can enter the mosque, you cannont carry pork meat into mosque. There are many such rules which governs many institutions religious or non religious, every rule has to make sense and satisfy constitutional requirements.
You cannot prevet a dalit or women from a plsce of worship while their male vounter parts or other communities are allowed.

 

[Nuvneet Kundu]

I belive Pork eating person can enter the mosque, you cannont carry pork meat into mosque. There are many such rules which governs many institutions religious or non religious, every rule has to make sense and satisfy constitutional requirements.
You cannot prevet a dalit or women from a plsce of worship while their male vounter parts or other communities are allowed.

Why can't people carry pork into mosque, can you tell me the exact IPC section that criminalizes it? If a person walks into a mosque with a piece of pork in his hand, which specific law will he be violating? after all, you are a rational person, you ought to tell us which law is being violated otherwise it will be like an arbitrary law being enforced, or as you loathingly call it 'moral policing'. If there is no law to prevent people from taking pork into mosques and you are stopping them then it's merely moral policing. Do you condone moral policing? then why do you complain about moral policing that happens on Valentine's day? do you have a greater right to indulge in moral policing than say, Bajrang Dal activists?

"You cannot prevet a dalit or women from a plsce of worship while their male vounter parts or other communities are allowed."

You cannot prevent a pork carrying person from entering a mosque if other people are allowed. For example people are allowed to carry flowers in a mosque but not pork, why discriminate against a person who carries pork but allow a person who carries flowers? Isn't that arbitrary, moral policing? For something to be called as a 'rule' it has to be just and equally applied to all, don't you agree?