Pathetic Hindus, everyone has problem with them.
@Joe Shearer Your description para was made up obviously
. I have nothing against you personaly but the way you project every Hindu or a BJP voter are communal and generalize them is the reason you deserve that. And its hard to believe you have no political agenda.
I have nothing against you personally, but your blatant hypocrisy is difficult to take, even in small doses. What I really deprecate is your constant pretence that you mean well, and your phrasing of the most poisonous messages in unctuous language.
No Hindu voter per se has been projected as communal by me. I have projected BJP supporters, not voters, an important distinction, as communal because their agenda is communal. What else should they be called.
As for finding it hard to believe that I have no political agenda, should I seriously pay attention to what you find easy to believe or what you find hard to believe? I can think of better ways of spending my time.
Nothing is permanent. Neither the constitution nor the governments.
Wrong - as usual. You have an unusual capacity for not knowing even the elementary things.
There is a 'basic structure' of the Constitution that cannot be amended or distorted. Do yourself, and the rest of us, the favour of reading up on the legal history of the Constitution, and court judgements in this regard. Keshavanand Bharati mean anything to you?
Indira is the one who added the word secular to the constitution to confront the right wing parties that were being supported and propped up by the west.
Do you think right wing politics did not exist in Congress?
What about people like Morarji Desai who opposed Indira? What about pre-Independence leaders like Bal Gandar Tilak & Mohammed Ali Jinnah?
The rise of BJP is directly attributed to the flawed appeasement policies of Rajiv. Appeasement never works. Why cry over spilt milk now?
As usual, and boringly so, your answer misses the point, in this case because it has nothing to do with the original issue, which was that governments change, hence their approach to any issue changes, not because the government contradicts itself. Pointing to the element within a particular government that might conceivably have opposed a change has nothing to do with the underlying fact that each government follows a programme with which some members of the government might well be at odds. That means nothing and makes no difference.
I am not delusional and I do not expect Pope to be secular. It was you who brought him up into this debate by projecting Pope as a secular messiah.
Of course I did. And the exact passage, which you seem to have missed understanding (nothing unusual) was
One can be as religious as the Pope (not this one, one of his immediate two predecessors), and yet be secular, by not letting it show up in public behaviour and publicly expressed attitudes. Such a one can be secular by treating all persons alike, by showing no favour to one set over the others, by deciding on merit.
Source:
https://defence.pk/threads/interceptor-missile-mission-a-‘failure’.431776/page-10#ixzz4A4LF7Xoj
On public matters, naturally; he would not invite a Rabbi in or a Mufti to opine on a matter of doctrine.
But I can understand that you have difficulty getting this.
And who decides what is considered Private or Public?
Until few ago smoking was allowed in public places but gradually laws have been passed and being enforced to ban it in public places. Note that it is the non smokers deciding what smokers can do in public places (the definition of public places itself could be a subject of debate).
So, can I extrapolate and say since I am a vegetarian, hence eating meat in public places should be banned? If not, Why not?
Is that such a difficult distinction? Smokers are still allowed to smoke. They were allowed to smoke on aeroplanes earlier, in my own living memory. Social evolution is not required to move forward always; some societies retreat into primitive behaviour due to a fear of the future. So a state or a district deciding to remove the smoking ban is possible; that is then up to the people to remove such a regressive government.
As for your example, the primitive mentality of the BJP has already taken that step. Because the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh is a vegetarian, he has banned eggs from the menu of mid-day meals to children.
Or a blind passing judgements on who in this world is blind.
I think even you know better. I think.
Show me a Muslim minority country which has allowed Muslims to follow their own Islamic personal law?
People like you have the gumption to taunt the deficiencies of the majority but does not have the courage to call out the acts of minority like the below
You are like that father who keeps sermonizing the kids on the virtues and righteousness but does not have the courage to protect them from the neighborhood bully.
You are like that mother who keeps asking the older son to do more for his younger brother while turning a blind eye to acts of omission & commission of the younger child. There comes a tipping point when the older child would start wondering why he keeps receiving the step motherly treatment from his mother.
Don't blame the child for the results of bad parenting. If the parents cannot lead by example and ensure equality & fairness, they loose the right to question and blame the child.
I didn't realise that you would get so tearfully sentimental so quickly.
Incidentally, you have obviously missed my posts on the regressive left, which favours a particularly vicious kind of religious fundamentalism, and on the license given to the Muslims by Mamata's utterly disastrous government.
I was highlighting how government of India is making a mockery of the constitution of India. India is a secular country hence there should be no place for Endowments Ministry & Minority Affairs Ministry.
And your example is wrong, as usual. I suspect that you were making quite the opposite point, by saying that Hindus were regulated more than Muslims, and implying that that was an unequal treatment of the two communities.
However, taking your statement above at face value, being secular does not mean abdication. The Endowments Ministry was brought into existence because of the rank abuse of the access to temple riches by a narrow segment of people, and the Ministry seeks to supervise and oversee the use of the worshippers' donations. Just as another set of officials supervises Muslim Trusts, which apparently you did not even know.
Do you support left front? Its been almost 40 years it came into existence, just a guess though. But looking at your anti BJP stance and propaganda, it might be true.
No.
I was part of the drive to remove Naxalism from my college. I am opposed to their propensity to shed blood, which they use as a lazy way out of an ideological puzzle that they cannot solve. They have nothing for us, with their basic inability to understand the nature of Indian society.
My opposition to the BJP is due to its clearly fascist leanings.
