Bharat Rakshak

Not all conflicts have solutions, nor do they *need* to have solutions. It is merely sufficient that these conflicts be regulated in some fashion. For example, there is an inherent conflict between a thief and his victim. There is no solution to this conflict, other than to say that once the crime is committed, it must be punished.

In the same way, theological discussions, debates, arguments, even propaganda deserve their place in the sun - except when force or fraud are involved.



I have argued for "individual" rights, these rights ultimately speak to the status of every citizen as a "minority of one." I don't think I have ever suggested the the removal of "hindu religous thought" from government. Where are you getting this from?



Please explain the difference between this and religion, gods and all. Secondly, please explain what leads you to believe that there is an absence of "hindu dharma" within government.



Most people do not like to eat carrion.



Shiv, I have always thought carefully about what I say, and it owes nothing to you, nor your threat, but derives from my "cultural values" about what constitutes a legitimate debate and debating environment.

Calvin, I dpnt think its appropriate to have discussion on points you raised without knowing about Indian Constitution. I did not till we started discussing. Posting link about Indian constitution please read what it says about State and Religion. Did clear few concepts for me and hope it will clear your understanding about Indian Constitution and Rights it provide to its citizens.
http://lawmin.nic.in/coi.htm

If your right to practise your religion with dignity and without interference, impinges upon my freedom to practise my religion with dignity and without interference, whose right should get precedence?

Individual rights means a lot. You enjoy the right to wear a red shirt if you wish. If I take upon myself the duty of telling every person with a red shirt that he is wrong, and that he could be punished by God unless he stops wearing a red shirt, I am not committing a big crime. I am making a nuisance of myself by interfering with the other person's right to wear a red shirt and impinging upon his freedom to be left alone without being bothered.

However, I am guilty of being a public nuisance. When I am accused of being a public nuisance, I turn around and say "My faith tells my to stop people from wearing red shirts, and you are calling my faith a nuisance. I happen to be in a minority, and you do not want minority rights"

This is the game that evangelists are playing in India. It is a game that will continue so long as there is Hindu tolerance of this game. Hindus tolerance will continue as long as the rules of this game are not apparent to Hindus. But with increasing awareness and education, there will be resistance.

In fact let me make a suggestion to anyone who is willing to take it up and I say right now that what I am suggesting is pure rabble rousing.

Walk into the arms of a nearby evangelist and allow him to talk you into the benefits of converting, and bait him into saying what is bad. Then start a public interest litigation against him for making a nuisance of himself and insulting your religion.

It is all about individual rights isn't it? This has nothing to do with religion.

Thank you. That absolves me of the need to be polite when you choose to make false accusations like the statement that beef eating is banned.

I note that you are now defending yourself on that issue without retracting your patently false statement that beef eating is banned.

You therefore admit that your false accusation was a carefully thought out one. That is what I suspected anyway, and since I am now aware that your words are both carefully thought out and could be false accusations, I will factor that into my response when I read what you have to say.

A person cannot "force" another to listen to him. If he does, he has committed a crime.



This is the unfortunate part of individual rights - that a person can be a public nuisance.

It is likely that unless this person is providing something of value, the public will steer clear of this nuisance, ignore it, or treat the fellow as if he were insane. Those of us who travel in trains are treated to the nuisance of professional beggars on a daily basis (at least in Kerala).

BTW, your rabble rousing idea is great. The white supremacists of the AMerican South were toppled by the laws that they wrote, by those that used those same laws.



I said "beef being banned". People that like to eat meat, don't like tough meat from carrion, and banning "cow slaughter" is similar to the taxes on cigarettes or gasoline that are intended to push public behaviors in a certain direction.

I can add to this beef with beef ...

it is a huge issue among the Mizo ... I have had to suffer endless arguments of the kind that "the BJP wants to take away our right to eat beef" ...

here is the reality ...

THERE IS NO BEEF IN MIZORAM ... they have driven their beef species, the Mithun, to extinction ... and they have no one to blame except themselves ...

everybody eats pork, but loves to argue the "Beef Eating Principle" ...

this is very similar to Alok_N's Shambhu derived principle that the lousy GOI has taken away my right to smoke some good old Hashish by outlawaing it ...

I grew up on it ... it was plentiful and "legal" as in it was not explicitly illegal ...

the darned "seculars" of Kangress-I passed a law against it ...

MY MINORITY IS VIOLATED ...

Moreover, AS OPPOSED TO THE MIZO, MY NATURAL RESOURCE IS NOT EXTINCT ... THERE IS PLENTY OF IT GROWING IF THE BLOODY GOI WOULD GET ITS GREEDY PAWS OFF OF IT ...

sorry for the rant ...

just wanted to add to the BELIEF THAT A FOOD GROUP CAN BE THE CRUX OF AN ARGUMENT ABOUT LARGER PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT ...

The Question of Conversion in India

Sarah Claerhout, Jakob De Roover

http://www.epw.org.in/showArticles.php? ... etype=html

Calvin/TSJ,

what would happen if I open a corner stand selling cat and dog burgers in the US of A? ...

surely, I would be welcomed by a TOLERANT SOCIETY THAT APPRECIATES FOOD GROUP ARGUMENTS ...

heck, I may get a medal for opening a new sector of the economy, no?

at the same time, would you see something wrong with Textbooks in India teaching that Americans worship Cats and Dogs? ... evidently, that is the case, no?

Hmmmm Yummy steak. Well I love my beef and will have beef with someone who will tell me I cant have beef in India. Nothing can replace a nice juicy T-bone. Yummy bring it on.

The US despite the best efforts of its founding fathers has some pretty anti-liberal laws on its books. We have discussed the bans on drug dealing, prostitution before, and it is likely that the cat-burger would be shut down by these "culture defenders", unless of course the free market got to them first and turned them into a "delicacy" or a "bankruptcy". None of this, of course, justifies the actions of the cultural recidivists.

How many states permit cow slaughter in India? Kerala and Arunachal? What will happen to the price of beef if both of those also ban cow slaughter? Will it effectively be defined by the cost of imports?



More "you farted" positions? Are we going to define how we do things based simply on how some americans do things? If we did, we would have to redefine PI, wouldn't we? So, perhaps we should take the best and leave the rest. Wait, did I define Dharma?

Our cultural values forbid the preparation and consumption of dogs and cats by humans. In fact, Congress is also trying to ban the slaughter of American horses for the European and Japanese dinner plate. We are also against the slaughter of whales and dolphins for human consumption. Let's see, what else.......hmmm generally wildlife cannot be industrial slaughtered in the US. If one wants to eat them one must buy a license, wait until they are in season and then shoot them yerself. No, you cannot pay someone else to shoot them. It is against the law to shoot them and then sell the dead wildlife. In fact most wildlife are excluded from being shot period. Only certain animals are considered game animals and eligible to be hunted. If you do shoot a game animal and do not properly process it (leave it to rot in the woods) you can be charged with breaking the law.

We have a whole host of cultural laws concerning the processing of animals and the consumption there of. It has nothing to do with religion.

I would also like to point out that we do not make pets out of cows. They are a legitimate food item and if people stopped eating them, most of them would cease to exist. In America, it is against the law to let livestock roam where ever they want.

I have seen people in videos worhiping cows in India.

unless you invented the concept of "individual freedoms", you are surely borrowing from the american model ...

as for "you farted", I didn't bring a food group into this discussion ...

entire credit for equating "jesus love you" with "I need my beef" belongs entirely to you ...

Thank you Shiv.. the above neatly sums up the original conflict of Evanjehids in India.

Ideally, religion is not the issue and should not be the only issue. Man has always sought a free and unfettered existence to contemplate the meanings and questions of life. The sages of India (ergo Hinduism) have given serious thought to such questions and have a built up a reasonable logical basis upon which to build and model ones life practices. The underpinnings of mans existence vis-a-vis the universe is well thought out and seems irrefutable (Valkan's clear exposition does the same). Since a body of knowledge was created by various people (federated control) it is natural that there is no enforcing regime other than pure logic. Clearly the profusion of practical expressions and practices are mind boggling huge and for a layman presents a confusing picture. Various gods and sub-gods are present. Practices are varied. Adherence to the faith is less regimented. It is a work in progress so to speak and the final chapter is yet to be written.

On the other hand the religions of Xtian and Islam have key central figures from which the practice of the religion gets its regimen. We have a basic conflict in approach. The Evanjehads take it to literal extremes whereas the average follower practices the faith. Everything is ordained and well laid out. Faith takes predominance rather than pure logic.

There is no conflict with the expression of different thoughts, ideas, philosophy of other religions but when coupled with economic incentives becomes coercion i.e. man is no more free and unfettered to contemplate the meaning of life and existence. There is no room for logical queries, counter arguments. It is a straight and narrow path.

I have seen videos of folks taking their dogs and cats for massage and counselling sessions in the US ...

how do you define "worship"?





of course

This does not mean that all *americans* subscribe to the model. Therefore, using the actions or thoughts of one to undermine the other is somewhat of a non sequitur, wouldn't you agree? Hell, it doesn't even mean that all those that were involved in creating this model agreed with all aspects of it. You know enough about logic to realize what you were trying to do.



You seem affected by American characterization of the "holy cow", enough to craft a "holy cat" thought experiment.

no, I disagree violently ...

look at TSJ ... folks like you and him use the convenience of defining "religion" versus "culture" at the drop of a hat ...

so, the animal laws of the US are "culture" while the animal laws of India are "religion" ...

another 50 threads will not pound it into your heads that the concept of Dharma is closer to Culture than to Religion ...

how do you define "worship"?

Lying down in the street prostrating themselves face down in front of a newborn calf. The whole family, man, woman, children. Saw it on a National Geographic special about the cow and its importance to man.

how do you define this:

spending $10K to save a dog when the family can't afford it ... taking out home equity loans to pay for such medical expenses ...

I hear about these cases on a daily basis ...

knowing TSJ, he would call it "love" ... the Indian famiy loving their cow is not love but "worship" ...

take your snake oil elsewhere buddy ...

Dharma does not define all Indians. It does not define me, nor do I need anyone' permission to define myself as an Indian.

With the spread of dharmic ideas outside India, it is not even clear that all dharma followers are Indian.



Please do not conflate TSJ's ideas with mine.



Did you miss Valkan's comment on this subject? ("That's because the Brahma Vaivarta Purana suggests that SD adherents shouldn't allow slaughter of cows in Kaliyuga")

american "culture" also does not define every american either ...

I also don't need anyone's permission to define myself as an american ...

ok, so far?

you are a minority in India ...

I am a minority in the US ...

get used to it ... period.

If you love your wife do you lie face down on the floor in front of her, chanting? If you do, I would like to see that. Hell, I'd pay 10 bucks for the video.

if you love your dog, would you send it $100 flowers on Valentine's day? ... heck, don't bother making a video, it'd make me throw up ...

stop trying to define a global sense of behavior ... the world is bigger than Texas + Oklahoma ...

Ah, so much for "tolerance." Today its cow slaughter, what will it be tomorrow?

Actually Calvin is a minority in both the countries. In a racial minority in US and in a religious minority in India.

there is tolerance for your spiritual needs ...

if you choose to say that "I can't love Jesus unless I get to eat beef", you are the one confining yourself ...

that sort of argument will only attest to shallowness of your faith, so why push it? ... can you quote a passage from the Bible that says that God will not love you if you don't eat beef? ...

this whole argument is BS ... it is definitely an attempt to carve out a special place by creating a conflict ...

I thought only Islamists did it ...

I can see TSJ laughing his ass off seeing BR admins fighting amongst themselves all the while pretending to engage in debate with a poker face.

This is a straw man, so why push it?

Would your point of view change, if there were a religion that said that beef eating was *necessary*?



What makes you think I am not a religious minority in the US as well.

Shankk,

thanks for the insight and visual surveillance of TSJ ...

however, it is a debate and not a fight ... why don't you join in?

I would like to bring to attention, recent attempts by Islamists to redefine their role in the workplace ... taxi drivers refusing to carry passengers who have booze on their person ... employees at some stores refusing to handle pork ... etc etc ...

Is TSJ in agreement with them?

I would characterize it as a case of creating conflict where none existed ... it is a call to confrontation in order to push a larger agenda ...

similarly, unavailability of beef has nothing to do with being a practicing christian ...

yes, in that case there would be two changes in my POV:

1. my definitions for stupidity will admit a new low.

2. I would argue that that religion should be banned under Indian Law.

[point #2 is similar to how expediency has resulted in Laws against marijuana in the US ... even after California passed a measure by popular vote that medical marijuana should be legal, federal agents were busting growers ... surely, if a majority vote can be ignored, why not a minority voice?]

It apparently has everything to do with the "tolerance" of the land he lives in, doesn't it?

As for the Islamists in question, their employers should have the right to fire them if these persons do not act in accordance with expectations.

However, again, not all US states adhere to the "at will" relationship, and the Supremes have interpreted the "interstate commerce" clause to the point that every business other than a truly private club wth no commercial function is under the purview of the federal discrimination rules. I suppose this has to do with legislating judiciary and the "culture" of the land that can do nothing about judges who serve for life.

Alok ji, I am not sure if you misunderstood me but want to suggest something...just my 2 cents if at all you care. There is no point defending Hinduism (cow worship for example) as it is practised in India. You may not be actually defending it but got into related arguments with TSJ. Such arguments is exactly what makes them feel superior and then they feel it is their duty to preach better way of living life to others aka evanjihadism.

>>What makes you think I am not a religious minority in the US as well.

yes, you can be that too.

actually it does ...

the state has examined the religion and accepted the reasonable components of it and protected them ...

christian faith is taught in Indian schools as an equal among faiths ...

there is no derogatory commentary about christians in textbooks ...

unlike how Hindu faith is treated in the US ...

of course, you have a choice as follows:

1. glow warm and fuzzy about how 99% of christian beliefs find protection in India and sing praises in the glory of Indian tolerance ...

2. Pick on the 1% beef-eating clause, bitch, moan and complain about lack of tolerance ...

my last post on the topic

if TSJ felt superior after that exchange, I would have to add another correction factor to my point #1 a few posts above ...

commentary from the sidelines I alright, Shankk ... but watch out for self-goals yourself ...

I am not "defending" cows etc ... I have never met a cow in my life that did not irritate me ...

I am defending the right of the country of India to define its cultural heritage and implement laws that prohibit behaviors that are counter to this heritage ...

It's an attempt to create a NWO where everyone is insecure. In this game Islamists and evenjehadis are used where appropriate to create insecurities in the majority. Both the above are alien philosophies introduced into societies.

It only takes one case to the contrary to disprove a negative. This is not about statistics. BTW, where are you getting the 99% from?



This is such a wide brush that you are seizing. Given the diversity of the heritage, who gets to decide what behaviors are worthy of proscribing?

The majority?

How is this not majoritarian tyranny?

it is about law, not logic ...

if I had my way I could tear apart the US constitution based on logic ...

the law in India about cows is catering to the majority sentiment without causing any great harm to the minority ...

all laws are like that ...

[I also negated my comment about "last post on the topic"]

Morarji Desai also enacted a law banning monkey exports to westerm labs ... that was based on environmental concerns ... monkies were disapperaing ... folks tried to rais ethe bogey of Hanuman inspired decision ...

in any case, forget India, even in California, folks are turning against beef ...

who would you blame if cow slaughter is banned in some counties of California?

Actually, this is not the case. IN a Constitutional Democracy, any law that goes against the Constitution is invalidated. Therefore, in the US a law that "prohibits the free exercise of religion" even if it catered to the majority sentiment would get thrown out. Or should.

sorry, I should make it 99.99% as an upper limit ...

Let's say there are 10,000 items in the bible ... if none of them say anything about eating beef is important to being a christian, my limit would be correct, assuming a "one item error" as an irreducible fluctuation ...

if say the number of items spelling out the importance of beef in christianity were 11 out of 10,000, I would revise my figure to 99.89% ...

The evangelists probably have a hundred verses that insist that evangelization is a quintessence of their religion. If Rongsheng is to be believed, they may even claim that they should be able to do this with force or fraud.

It seems so much simpler to focus on fundamental individual rights.

(at least we wouldn't have to spend our time reading up the various holy books)