In favor of Hindutva; by a Pakistani muslim

[Surya 1]

You don't sound crazy. Just hostile to the idea of a secular nation, that demands that religion should not determine the rights of our citizens.

But that is not true. In india, religion determines the rights of civilians. Some of those rights are uncivilized and contrary to the idea of modern secular democracy. We had laws of triple Talaq, we have the laws of multiple wives based on religion even today. So what you say is a hypocrisy typical to a nation where the wrong narrative are built and strengthened over a period of time where often such bigotry goes without being questioned.

Well, the ship has long sailed.
I doubt Hindus are even 70% in India as of today.

A lot of South "Hindus" are already converted and keep their Hindu name for caste benefits...

It applies more to Muslims and Christians who have lost the faith in their irrelevant Abrahamic religion but just pretend to practice it for metforminial reason.

 

[Nilgiri]

Havent seen him/her yet.
You have someone in mind?

Nope...lot of those with potential (for long winded staying power) simply left forum it seems. With newer faces, have to see.....but lotta the great debate developers have also left for good or are very scarce.

 

[Surya 1]

Other than push other faiths down, what does that achieve?

That would save Hindus from bullying in those areas where Muslims and Christians are in Majority.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Iran is doing well,yeah sure,dream on.
Türkiye and Malaysia are secular,not religion based.
Lets just not talk about Pakistan.
Come back to reality.

You come back to reality, and stop listening to Hindu propaganda.

This is the Turkish ally of Nilgiri @PAKISTANFOREVER @letsrock @Verve @Morpheus @masterchief_mirza @Musings

@Nein

Look here the power of Discord.

 

[xeuss]

But that is not true. In india, religion determines the rights of civilians. Some of those rights are uncivilized and contrary to the idea of modern secular democracy. We had laws of triple Talaq, we have the laws of multiple wives based on religion even today. So what you say is a hypocrisy typical to a nation where the wrong narrative are built and strengthened over a period of time where often such bigotry goes without being questioned.



It applies more to Muslims and Christians who have lost the faith in their irrelevant Abrahamic religion but just pretend to practice it for metforminial reason.

It is so common to note that whenever the topic of religion and governance comes up in the context of India, the examples cited are only Muslim and Islam. As if, Hindu religious laws and customs that affect 80% of the population do not exist.

 

[Surya 1]

It is so common to note that whenever the topic of religion and governance comes up in the context of India, the examples cited are only Muslim and Islam. As if, Hindu religious laws and customs that affect 80% of the population do not exist.

It is cited as religious law in a secular democratic nation. It is cited as hypocrisy.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

It is so common to note that whenever the topic of religion and governance comes up in the context of India, the examples cited are only Muslim and Islam. As if, Hindu religious laws and customs that affect 80% of the population do not exist.

Islam is the best bogeyman in the post-WoT world.

 

[pothead]

It would need a revolution for that to happen (given Indian constitution framework), and likely rip India apart (at least temporarily) and be a great cost on just about everything.

No I do not want them to have that chance. Simply put it rides on emotion...not logic.

Modi and team are the high water mark for this stuff....a stress test Indian secularism must and will survive.

The majority are certainly not happy with that idea either...especially if its presented to them honestly and starkly.

BJP politics just know how to wrap it up in several layers and pander to majoritarianism reactionary sentiment. Congress and regional politics enables it all....because politicians care about politics the most....gee who knew.

We are confusing the cause and effect.
Hindus & BJP are mostly in reactionary mode to counter the blatant appeasement of Muslims & some what Christians.

Anand Ranga explains this better in the below debate.

BJP is not the high water mark for this stuff,
it's the muslim majority in Kashmir under which Hindus were butchered, driven out, hundreds of temples demolished, which is the water mark for this stuff - This happened post 90's & no one obviously seems to care abt all the temples destroyed.
The farce of Jai Bheem & neem is hilarious, considering who Dalits fear most.

Check any stand up comedian, the way they freely abuse Hinduism, gods, Hindu historical figures...
All the while shivering in their panties to even take slight shots at "peaceful" religions.

Today India is not secular..NO, not even constitutionally. Ready for larger debate if needed.
Just because we have the word "secular" in our constitution does not make it one.

Hindu babas get castigated daily basis in media and larger intellectual circles but these same intellectuals pretend not to see the hundreds of healing programs happening daily all over India by Padres,

Sorry but BJP & it's supporters are only pushing the Overton Window that the other side has largely been pushing for a long time - just that people don't like BJP doing it, all the while they are happily doing it themselves.

 

[xeuss]

It is cited as religious law in a secular democratic nation. It is cited as hypocrisy.

The following Hindu religious laws cover more than 80% of India's population:

Hindu Marriage Act of 1956
Hindu Succession Act of 1956
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act

These are all post-colonial acts of law based on the Anglo-Hindu law of 1772, which in turn has its origins in Classical Hindu Law.

I don't know how it is fair for Hindus to have their own religious laws in a secular democratic nation.

 

[pothead]

The following Hindu religious laws cover more than 80% of India's population:

Hindu Marriage Act of 1956
Hindu Succession Act of 1956
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act

These are all post-colonial acts of law based on the Anglo-Hindu law of 1772, which in turn has its origins in Classical Hindu Law.

I don't know how it is fair for Hindus to have their own religious laws in a secular democratic nation.

That's because Hindus are all for UCC, which is gender neutral,
We have been pushing for it.

guess which side is against it.

If there is no UCC, of course there has to be a way for Hindus to get married etc etc...
Unless one is stupid or on drugs, they won't even post such banal & baseless post.

 

[xeuss]

That's because Hindus are all for UCC, which is gender neutral,
We have been pushing for it.

guess which side is against it.

If there is no UCC, of course there has to be a way for Hindus to get married etc etc...
Unless one is stupid or on drugs, they won't even post such banal & baseless post.

I have never heard of any Sanghi ever campaigning to scrap these Hindu laws. Prove me wrong by showing me one campaign by the Saffron Nazis and their political outfits to scrap these Hindu laws.

 

[pothead]

I have never heard of any Sanghi ever campaigning to scrap these Hindu laws. Prove me wrong by showing me one campaign by the Saffron Nazis and their political outfits to scrap these Hindu laws.

Every Sanghi is pro-UCC

once you have UCC, what do you think happens to all religion specific laws?
What do you think is UCC?

Oh my......think a little before you post buddy.

 

[Gomig-21]

There are a multitude of questions that open up like this when you bring up and permeate religion in the basic national law, and they all stray away from my ideal take on what a Govt should be, and what it is there for. You may ask yourself, did God create and put govt where it is....or did imperfect humans? If the latter, you see the big problem for partaking into the matters of God?

@Joe Shearer @SQ8 @Jungibaaz @saiyan0321 @T-123456 @Gomig-21 @VCheng

I tend to stay away from this kinda topic, ma bro. Much appreciate the tag anywho. Since I've had this discussion many time 25+ years ago and in great detail up to burnout point, it doesn't appeal to me any more to be perfectly honest with you. Especially on a forum like this where nationalities form clicks and the hatred toward particular groups or entities is rampant. To discuss a heavy topic like this is like asking someone for a light with the gas in the apartment turned on. Us old guys usually come to a certain understanding by a certain age that in reality, simplicity tends to rule the day. Topics that can be answered in a paragraph or less are much more desirable.

 

[Nilgiri]

I tend to stay away from this kinda topic, ma bro. Much appreciate the tag anywho. Since I've had this discussion many time 25+ years ago and in great detail up to burnout point, it doesn't appeal to me any more to be perfectly honest with you. Especially on a forum like this where nationalities form clicks and the hatred toward particular groups or entities is rampant. To discuss a heavy topic like this is like asking someone for a light with the gas in the apartment turned on. Us old guys usually come to a certain understanding by a certain age that in reality, simplicity tends to rule the day. Topics that can be answered in a paragraph or less are much more desirable.

Yeah, further convo (and even likes) is optional man....always. I have had convo on topics like this a long time too, even on this forum before....but definitely outside of it in far greater scope and depth with worthy friend and foe alike.

My tags (first thing) these days are mostly geared to worthies I know that might be interested to read, and something to contemplate etc.

There is already inevitable specific type of toxicity in this thread (and forum at large) rising up....I just don't much give much attention to it....it dampens the wood, when the wood needs to be kept dry as possible.

I might go back to peruse pages 1 - 11 later....I don't expect much there to kindle something fresh... but lets see.

Yeah 'In God we Trust' has been defined by the American Supreme court repeatedly. Some of those famous cases include
'Stephan Aronow vs United states of America'

In this the problem was the printing of 'In God we Trust' on all currency notes and coinage passed by a law by congress. Stephen filed a public litigation as a tax prayer and concerned citizen that it violated the principles of first amendment in the establishment clause which had stated that the congress could not pass any law that was religious in nature or would prohibit the exercise of religion or its practice. The district court highlighted that he had no locus standi as the law had not violated the principles of the first amendment. It was then brought to its first appeal where the court highlighted that it was not empowered to do so since in the case of Massachusetts vs melons the court had adopted the doctrine of standing and pointed out that the courts cannot simply review the unconstitutional act of the congress and the question could only be considered when there is involvement or justification based on direct injury suffered or threatened. They court agreed with the district court since the appellate had not suffered any injury then he had no standing however they did not implement the doctrine of standing and decided to answer the question still. The court highlighted that the national motto has nothing to do with establishment of religion. Its usage is patriotic and of ceremonial in nature and does not give the image of government exercise to establishment of any religion. The court stated that the term 'In God we trust' is simply a term and not a support for any specific religion. Infact the court highlighted the Theodore Roosevelt saw its usage as sacrilegious due to its ceremonial and secular credentials. The court also stated that the courts will not tolerate governmental interference with religion or attempts to bring forth a government established religion.



'Mcgowan vs Maryland' ( which spoke of religion and secularism and its interconnected nature)

Elk Groove unified School district vs NewDow 2004

Lamberd vs Board of commisioners of Davidson county'

American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio vs Capital square Review Advisory board'


In the comments of Justice Sandra, the term has lost its religious value and it has now entered Ceremonial deism and its constant repetition has given it a secular meaning and has become an expression of patriotism. Justice sandra pointed that it highlighted the role of religion in national life and it was this that gave it secular flavor that the role of religion, not singular religion but all religions for all those that follow in their lives, the role it plays. In the elk groove case the good justice worded that its usage is in no way an endorsement of religion by the government or state and for those that truly respect history, they would understand the meaning behind the motto.

In newdow vs congress, it was again held that the motto does not violate the separation of state and religion and the national motto is excluded from the first amendment because the motto has no theological or ritualistic impact and is of solely secular, patriotic and ceremonial nature.


All these cases have one thing in common that they have repeatedly highlighted separation of state and religion and they have repeatedly highlighted that the motto is not religious. Now the most interesting thing in my eyes is their interpretation.

Firstly they interpreted the motto as secular despite having religious undertones. The reason is because unlike the majority of idiots found in our region, the courts in US actually know what secular is and it is not synonym with irreligious but is the state treatment of all religions equally. There exists no superiority and to make sure such exists and balance is maintained, the doctrine of separation of state and religion comes to be. The doctrine is itself is the child of secularism because secularism, in its meaning, simply tries to create equality amongst all religions and to truly be equal, the sovereign power cannot have the power to interfere in religious matter since the sovereign power is also human and is open to bias like take the case of theodore Roosevalt and his dislike for the motto.

Secondly a highlight that while a phrase will lose religious significance if it is used repeatedly as patriotic and if it gains ceremonial nature then the religious meaning will be changed. What i truly like in this is the advancement of thought that the motto is not slave to the maker nor the America of that time but to the meaning and the America of now and indeed that in the future it will no longer be slave to America of now but to the America of future. They explained it through how people see it rather than how they used to see it and that is the evolution of constitutional governance in a country. Do you see, a person born of our region where we try to throw everything back to our founding fathers or to our great leaders without thinking that rather than try to interpret their meanings and highlight their speeches, we need to spend time figuring out what we want from the country and what we need to see out country as so that we can live just lives without oppression. Did you notice the clarity of thought in their interpretation. The jurisprudence of our region pales in comparison.

Anyhow this was meant to be a great highlight how US state is not religious and the usage of this motto does not mean that US is religious and frankly in a perfect world, you guys should have tried to emulate the secularism they had.

I stand corrected.... there is worthiness in the thread body.

 

[Blacklight]

You don't sound crazy. Just hostile to the idea of a secular nation, that demands that religion should not determine the rights of our citizens.

Blame the retards he is surrounded by PPP & MQM.