Bharat Rakshak

Classic statement.
Also DIE will say why cant Indians and India be like Americans and America.

Interesting that you mention Nietzsche and right after that Einstein in the middle of the lake. Regarding the phrase "for god's sake" Nietzsche had said something like this , "Its like someone starts very confidently to swim across a lake, reaches the middle, and happily drowns".

Acyually it was Faraday, since his law of induction opened up ways to mass produce electricity.
http://www.anglik.net/faraday.htm

right, Faraday!

Two sharp critiques of christianity from two western philosophers.

1. Nietzsche is the most controversial one for introducing the phrase "God is dead" in his main work "Thus spake Zarathustra".

Nietzsche on Christianity

2. Bertrand Russel, philosopher, logician & mathamatician delivered a famous lecture which was later published as a book.
[url=http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html]Why I Am Not A Christian
by Bertrand Russell[/url]

Shiv, 60 years of brain washing has taken its toll. 1000 years of Muslim rule and 200 years of British rule did not damage SD as much compared to social engineering unleashed by LJs. leftist never wanted Indians to learn about their true heritage which can inspire them to be Nationalists. The biggest failure of modern India is education. We replaced gora sahib with brown sahib. True decolonizing and democracy would have introduce Sanatan consciousness to modern India. Few members have posted that if SD would have become core it would have curtailed the minorities. But same members are silent about imposing minority whims on majority and that duplicity can only be linked to cultural anthropomorphic slavery created by failure of education OR failure to rectify education designed for preparing generations of slaves to serve empire.

Calvin, religiously there is only one view about beef. Democratic set personal reasons could be many, especially in a society like India. If you are an Indian you should be aware of this already.., if not (i guess you have some links in India to have an interest in "BR") you should be aware of the rights that exists, respecting religious sentiments of all religions, especially if you are in the minority.

If you have ever lived in India, and a desi, you would have known answers much before you ask here. From the questions you ask, its evident that you either have not lived in India, or lived in a setup that is totally in a SEZ kind environment.

Kumar,

My response to Johann was based on something I read when was about 18 years old ... I hope you recognize this ...



such words can have profound impact on a young mind ...

[Johann was speaking of disconnect between science and society ... the part above explains my comment about "Nietzsche doing science" ... btw, too many unnecessary consonants in that name ... ]

Ok, Ok, but who is going to determine what the Dharma should be? Is this going to be an individual who sits in a Court of Law? Is this the President? Is this the LS or RS? How does this system work? To what extent are the precepts of dharma going to be subject to the loudest group (not the largest, the loudest) in the Hindu universe? From the foregoing discussion we know that many Hindus are positively economically impacted by cow slaughter, as are many non-Hindus, so this is probably not even going to be resolved by the greatest good argument.

Secondly, does this mean that we are going to have to read up on the Hindu scriptures so that we can be educated enough to rebut the claims made on behalf of dharma by one group or another?

(In a Constitutional system, where individual rights are called out, ultimately, there is a constitution for reference, and a Supreme Court passes judgement on the constitutionality of the law)

You say:

and then instantly contradict yourself by saying:


Typically, the laws are "under the Constitution" and thereofre have to be Constitutional for htem to be valid. So, does Dharma override the constitution, or does the constitution override Dharma.



This is not what Valkan asserted.



I am not sure I understand this. Could you clarify.



This is a gratuitous insult.



Is it possible that you and these members have differing views of what constitute whims and what constitute "inalienable individual rights"?

Just in this thread, we have ShauryaT saying:


Therefore, is it fair to say that the individual does have the right to sustain his life, the right to his property, or the right to action as long as it doesn't physically harm another person. From this right is the right to engage in consensual contracts with other such individuals derived? Does this freedom allow, if the contract involves killing of a beast that belonged to the first individual, and selling the meat to the second? Does it allow the first man to sell the beast to the second, so that the second may kill and consume the meat?

These questions are not whims.

Can it be reflection on your complete lack of understanding about SDF? OR just selective interpretation bias? Problem with your thinking Calvin is that you believe in Utopian systems which can not exist anywhere in world and then blame SD for failure of such hypothetical systems in India.

Valkan's views are his views, imho. he perhaps would have interpreted "meat" as general animal flesh, but with exclusions of certain types of animals, especially man friendly ones like cow.

imho, Vegetarianism is an on-going effort since the Vedic days, when man was awakened by naturalism. Vedas were truth from these aspects of nature science. and still vedas are fighting to save human race from being animalistic, by infusing the ideas of eating vegetarian diet.

yes.. its surprising you are asking these questions.. shows, that you have no knowledge about beef/pork issues, and especially about its role in playing communal disharmony in desh.

i am not insulting you since i am taking from the fact that you are aware of the communal tensions India has faced on this very issue that is running miles here., and just reflecting from a thought, that, perhaps, "if you have not".. condition, and that you are not aware..., hence so.. else, you are... but, you took it tangential, rather reasoning the misunderstandings.

PS: Valkan's view per my understanding is that, Hinduism did not force hindus to follow the ideals set for the larger understandings of nature. hence, those who understood, could take up the role to save nature, hence.. Not all hindus are vegetarians by choice. The rules and dharmic laws are entirely based moral value system, under prescriptions from religious setup.

Govt role and constitution only helps in maintaining status quo as of now, and has no right nor has control over religious beliefs. It would only support those laws, that helps maintain the harmony.

separating religion and state, would be the best.. i hope all countries can do that.

Just to mix up the issue a wee lil itty bitty teeney weeney more ...

God is in everything ... so, God is in Beef ... don't worry, have Beef curry ...

this thread has highlighted the Glorious Chaos that is SD in India ...

for every position one can take, there is an equal and opposite position onlee ...

SD is Anarchy taken to perfection ...

and we love it 'cause we are like that onlee ...

Can you please enumerate the inalienable individual rights? I am confused and want to know which of these rights are not guaranteed by Indian constitution.

So how do we have a system with SD above all laws?

Re: Indian Constitution - one of the premise for this thread was the discussion about evangelization. This is a "right" that derives from the "practice and propagate" right associated with religion. The contention was that the concept of "propagate" was not in consonance with Dharma and had to go.

Consequently, having a right enshrined in the Constitution really doesn't mean anything in the context of this thread and discussion, because we are talking about dharma governing the laws. Effectively, Dharma would *REPLACE* the Constitution.

I never thought of him & science together, but his writings are very thought provoking/challenging, if that is what you mean.

I had first read "Thus spake zarathustra" when I was in the 10th grade. Didn't understand a lot of it. But it was disturbing, tantalizing and puzzling. It often appaered as if he was writing a chapter backwards, i.e. only at the end of a chpater you would fully understand what he was trying to say at the beginning.

Several years later I read "Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran, and despite the seeming similarity of plot, was amused to see such a stark difference in mood. Nietzsche lived a burning & disturbed life and died of madness induced by syphillis. Gibran, by all accounts, appears to have lived a very peaceful & serene life. Gibran is very assuaging, comforting & confirming. Nietzsche is rough, disturbing, challenging and much more interesting.

It is not too hard to see how Nazis could have used/abused his views. For example his superman (uberman or better-man) was found to be extremely ugly by Zarathustra as seen from existing standards, but still was a better man.

His name is a good kathak practice for the tongue.

Calvin has anyone tried to enforce so called apparent "SD system above law" on you? If so please enlighten us.
Schism question, Does ban on cow slaughter necessarily means ban on beef consumption?

we can have a perfect Anarchy ...

it is far superior to Democracy ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy

Vishy: your first question is a fallacy, and doesn't deserve an answer.

Your second question has been answered on this thread - ban on cow slaughter alone does not mean ban on beef consumption, it means an increase in price of the beef. Note, however, that the bill introduced in Parliament a few years ago, also called for a ban on the sale of beef.

Alok: The biggest issue with Anarchy is how we protect a citizen from another; and then how do we protect a criminal from disproportionate punishment by the victim or bystanders.

Selective interpretation bias again. No one is challenging rights of Ejs to propagate. This thread was to discuss SDF under threat of social engineering of Ejs which has nothing to do with Christianity. Conversion is a personal matter but when coercion, exploitation and politicization is introduced under pretext of RELIGION, it does becomes every ones problem. Now it might not be perceived by you as threat but we SDFs do. Are we allowed to voice our concerns? Or that's not part of your Individualistic freedom?

wrong~.

"God" as defined in NON-Hinduisms is not "GOD" in Hinduism. Hence, its not the same "HIM" or hymn one can profess about it.

anyways, lets say B' = Hindu God. its for the positive moral values, that B' plays to help humans understand nature. B' is everything, does not imply, eat everything. Eat NOT that helps you.. or like Johann says, don't eat you pet., and hence cannibalize things.

This link spooked me, I can see where Shiv is coming from and why he sometimes appears to be becoming fundoo (by Indian standards that is). Several other articles of his are interesting too. I would recommend his article on "whiteness". Maybe it can be made a sticky somewhere to give a perspective of the kind intellectual racism Shiv talks about.

The framers of the constitution did not understand the diabolical nature of EJ'ism and Jihadism. The right to 'propagate' was not meant to be a right to denigrate the majority religion while hiding behind the pseudo-secularism purchased with minority appeasement and paid for by the external fund sources. If Ambedkar had foreseen this turn of events he would have forestalled it with suitable injunctions on the insidious twisting of the system blatantly carried out by the EJ's - and it still might not have worked.
The constitution allows for self correction using the mechanism provided therein. There will come a day when the excesses perpetrated by the E and I jihadis will be understood by the majority. The constitution will be changed suitably then - I hope it is not too late. Because the delay will be extremely expensive for the nation as a whole.

I don't think anyone is asking you to slaughter cows or any other animals against your religion. But that doesn't mean you can flout your religion to infringe on individual freedom of others who may want to slaughter cow for their consumption or sale to other parties who may want to purchase the meat for their consumption. That doesn't mean any one is imposing cow-slaughter on you.

My choice of what to eat and not to eat and when to eat should not be dictated by your religion (or my religion for that matter). It should be entirely upto me to decide. IOW, my choice of what to eat and your religion are not correlated.


If you had checked the figures carefully, you would have found that percapita consumption of beef is twice as much as that of poultry in India (0.7 kg vs 1.5 kg) and rate of consuption of beef is increasing at a higher rate than the poultry (probably because beef is cheaper in India compared to poultry)

Vishy: I have tolerated your nonsense on this thread benignly. You have clearly not followed this thread, nor its predecessors with any amount of attention. This discussion was *specifically* spawned in the context of the "right to propagate." You on the other hand, are unable to make a logical argument, to understand one, or to logically defend a position.

Using high falutin words like "selective interpretation bias" do not make you intelligent, particularly when you are unable to engage in simple reading comprehension. If you are not going to give respect, you will get none.

Please enlighten me how it is a fallacy. It is a genuine question because of your so called concerns about what SD (majority) has done to minority. I don't see any evidence that majority is coercing minority in India. You have alternative take and I am curious to know from where this concern about SD majority brutality originated. There is a possibility that we SDF are insensitive to minorities in India and if so we need to address it.

there is that "individual freedom" again ...

boss, suppose my "Individual Freedom" compels me to construct public bathrooms in which the Urinals are made of christian crosses ...

all day people would urinate on the cross for free ... on some days of the week, I would hang some other religious symbols on the cross just for variety ...

no one is asking you to pee there ...

will you be cool with that?

I am perfectly fine with that. You can go and make urinals like cross, someone else can make urinal like "Om", yet another one can make urinal like david's star or kaaba. I don't care. Are you clear now ?

the core fundamental and elementary problem here is, that people of different faiths have not understood how to co-exists, like in the united states of Amrika! (in what they trust?)..

No states in the world control personal behavior by allowing a restrictive policy or rule, so that the others are offended(except for a few rouges). when rules are framed for co-existence, then rules should be applicable to all types of beliefs in public and in general, i.e, for the union of multiple religion, taking best practices from all.

People who take tangential route, should understand the basic philosophy behind co-existence.

All I have done is raise questions. I have never seen you answer them with any intelligence or understanding. I never claim to be intelligent not I claim to be right. Frankly you have your own bias which no amount of discussion is going to change. Then why this facade? Please mind your posts are as irritating and without content, I was just returning the favor.
Added later: Anger is good please use it wisely. Think about all the questions you conveniently forgot to answer.

Abhijit:

And that mechanism should be used, if we believe that the Constitution as it stands is an acceptable framework. If we do not agree to this, we will need to either have another Constitutional Convention; or abrogate it in its entirety and replace it with Dharma.

I am still struggling to understand *how* the system will function under Dharma. Note, I am not suggesting that I don't believe it will work, but that I am curious as to the mechanism by which it would function. Who decides what, and on what basis?

Sajan: Your answer is the right one. Unfortunately, people will come up with all kinds of reasons to say that it is not. Primarily it will consist of alleging that "the vast majority" of people will be offended. In fact, we will likely have enlightened people who say that god or religion doesn't exist in shapes saying this. Some of them will even say that they wouldn't be offended, but they *know* that this "vast majority" would be offended. And since you don't have access to this "vast majority" - they would have to be right.

SaiK: Could you rephrase what you are saying, because it is not clear. I think you are saying that people of different faiths coexist in the US because rules are applicable to all types of beliefs in public. Are you saying that all people are governed by the same laws, and that therefore there is coexistence? As far as the discussion here, my contention has not been to have different rules for different religions - just one rule for individuals.

yup, I'm clear ... (even though you agreed only after some equal-equal) ...

do you see anything wrong with cannibalism? ... cool dude like you should be ok with that as well, no? ...

you see, equal-equal doesn't get you very far ...

now, here's the tough part ...

even if you are cool, the majority will disagree with you ...

either in a democracy or in an anarchy ...

now what would you do?



[it doesn't have to be a "vast majority" as Calvin has stated above ... some things just don't pass the "common sense" test ... it is clear to Anarchists, but not to Democrats ...]

India is a Hindu majority country. Hindus are sensitive to cow slaughter. It is just a minor courtesy for EJ group to avoid eating cow. This is the logic western countries use when they deny the rights of minority. I do not see why same logic cannot be used in India for the sake of communal harmony. For example, most western countries will not change their anti polygamy laws just to appease Muslims.

As Shiv said, until Hindus start showing some intolerance ….

Arrey Guruji why are you walking into the trap to start a peeing contest (with decorated urinals etc. ).

You see the problem. Likes of Sajan can indeed challenge you to construct a shrine cum urinal. You go ahead and do it. Sajan need not care (as he had made it clear).
Saja's concern will be taken care by EJ's, secular govt., NGO's, social anarchists and DDM, while he himself can pretend to be a unbiased bystander. At the end of the day you will left with an urinal with Om.

Remember Sajan can afford not to care, someone else will do it for him.

Karan:
1. Are there any other "minor courtesies" that may arise?
2.Polygamy is an interesting situation. Quite frankly, it seems to me that if two consenting adults (or four or ten) want to do this, they should be allowed to. (although, quite frankly, I find one more than enough) Similarly, for gay marriage. One may make the case, that as society becomes less tied to its Judeo-christian religious roots, at least in the US, the marriage institution will change with the times.

Ah . religion thread.. I will break my own rules of posting here just this absolute once again.

See.. It is not just a religion thingy alone and it is not as clear cut as that. If any religion called "X" say, makes it necessary to kill and eat some endangered species or protected species.. or even if for "health " reasons (which usually overrides religious reasons -- alcohol for medicinal purposes in islam, insulin even among vegetarian hindus.. maybe even horse derived vaccines for the not horse eating types) like "Tiger Penis Soup" (I am not joking.. it is from a Newsweek article) in Chinese Medicine (which supposedly allows you a virtuoso performance in bed like a tiger) , the right of the toothless old hag limp d**k Chinese dude to copulate (after a dose of a **** like soup) does not override the right of the state/civil society /authorities whatever to protect the tiger in the larger interest , even if you violate said Chinese dude's right to a roll in the hay and trample his rights under your foot.

If suppose you want to shoot and eat say a bald eagle, I assure you that even in the US, you will cool your heels in the slammer.. Now go ahead and protest that your minority rights are being discriminated and that bald eagle meat /wild bison meat whatever is a part of your traditional diet and/or religion and lets see how far that gets you.

If I remember right, HAF (Hindu American Foundation) had successfully challenged display of 10 commandments in public places and won the case. So what types of rights are being denied there, I am just curious ?

Compare that with the call for banning cow-slaughter because it offends majority. Display of 10 commandments would have been perfectly fine with majority, but it was removed (along with nativity scenes) because it offended the minority in a secular country

Maybe I missed parts of the intervening threads - they went quite fast. I do not recall anybody claiming that the constitution should be replaced with Dharma. If there has been a claim to this effect then I wish to categorically distance myself from it. The constitution is and should remain to be the social contract for the country.
Now based on my limited understanding of the constitutional issues involved, the slaughter of animals is a state subject and if states decree that cow slaughter is banned then legally it is banned. If you partake of beef in these states then you are breaking the law. Are we in agreement so far?

There is no ban on consumption in any state.

From my experience, "vast majority" of people have plenty of commonsense and they don't care about most of these issues as they have plenty of other things to worry about. It is a very small minority (which may include but not limited to internet brigadiers and arm-chair generals) that are formenting these "issues".


Your "individual freedom" is protected through no-call lists, opt-out options etc.

How about the state endorsing via the 10 commandments stuff that go fundamentally against hindu and buddhist and other indic religions (now dont give be horse dump about how god is supposed to one in hinduism with differenet manifestations.. I think that is merely an interpretation of one particular school and not subscribed to by the lay hind on the street).

1) Thou shalt have no gods other than me.. (Hinduism has millions of gods )
2) Thous shalt not worship graven images (Hinduism , buddhism and many other religions have images/statues)..


Now what will the response from one god traditions (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) be if the govt of india endorsed a version of 10 commandments that said.

1) There are millions of god , not one.. (so worship everything including sky,earth, trees, stones, statues..)
2) God is in all forms and statues are just a human beings way of percieving god (so make statues and worship).

I guarantee you that there will be storms of outrage and protest , with JNU types crawling out of the woodwork condemning "Hindu / majoritarian" fascism and intolerance and all the other usual names.

I agree that so far it has been a state subject, and that the "loopholes" here are that this pertains to "slaughter" of cows, so that if the cow "dies" it is a separate issue. I am not clear on whether bulls are exempted. Other animals (buffalo, chicken) are not prohibited. Secondly, if beef from Kerala or Arunachal (I think is the other state) is exported to any other state, that is legal.

Consumption, as far as I know is not illegal anywhere.

The bill that was introduced in parliament at one time (don't believe it passed) also called for banning the sale of, and export of beef.

vina: The issue of endangered species protection is an interesting one. I suppose if there was a "social contract" that gave government the role of protecting the environment, endangered species protection would fall within the purview of government. This has certainly happened in the US. There isn't 100% support of the idea, however, constitutionally it is legal, which implies that consuming an endangered species is not a "fundamental" right.

This is an important point, which is that there are a limited number of "rights" that are inalienable. Perhaps the question is whether consuming beef falls into that category. If one is a habitual beef eater, it probably feels this way. But then, probably so did the cigarette smoker and the peyote smoker.