Religion Thread - 8

Locked
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Greg wrote:@Rony
Fredom of religion in US is good-but only according to the christian and western standards.for example while the US has freedom of religion for islam and judaism,the "people of book",does they have the same freedom of religion to Hindus and other "pagans and heathens" ?.When i say freedom of religion,i mean recognition of that religious beleif by uncle sam.In "secular" france, Hinduism is not even recognized as a religion.even today in US,the southern baptists offical convention starts with a resolution to convert "heathens and pagans" with Hindus of course on the top list.Just imagine, a Hindu organization in India starting its conferance with a resolution of converting christians and islam to Hinduism.Our p-sec media and elite coupled with vote bank politicians will rip them off to pieces on television within hours !.so yes there is freedom of religion in US but no where in the scale of India.
My understanding is that evangelical groups of all religions are allowed to preach (and try to convert) in the US, as is the case in almost every democracy that I can think of. Just because a country is ruled by followers of Christ, it does not follow that other religions will be wiped out or even marginalized. It appears that the Evangelists find more success with conversion of Hindus in India rather than in the US. In the US, the religion that has made significant inroads is Islam - not Christianity. In the 70s and 80s, Hare Krishna sect was also succesfull in its influence. The apple founder, Steve Jobs' fondest youthful memory is his weekly trip to Hare Krishna temple for a vegetarian meal (and gentile Hindu preachings I suppose). The constitution that protects individual and minority rights transcends the evangelical desires of it religious majority and tolerates the evangelical desires of its religios minorities. My last word on this. :)
there is a difference between an Individual openly talking to another about his/her faith vs an Institutional conspiracy to culturally cleanse vast lands. The Souther Baptist convention, Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell groups and even Vatican.

there is something deceiptful when the Pope gets all worked up about the secular constitution proposed for the EU while he pontificates (no Pun intennded) about secularism for India.

IMO, any Indian who would collobrate with these Institutions should be treated the same way as if they collude with Chinese communists to conspire to change the political and social makeup of India.


Manny
Greg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:42

Post by Greg »

SaiK wrote:
The constitution that protects individual and minority rights transcends the evangelical desires of it religious majority and tolerates the evangelical desires of its religios minorities. My last word on this. Smile
there is nothing like evangelical desires of Hindus as minorities anywhere on the planet! wake up. i am sure its your last post on this.
You misunderstood. I never claimed that Hindus in general have evangelical desires. However, there are certain Hindu sects that have preached and absorbed followers. I mentioned Hare Krishna before. There is/was also a sect that was led by a gentleman called Pandurang Sastri that found followers. I myself have some audio tapes from that group with a commentary on Bhagwad Gita.

There are also former Christians who converted to Buddhism and Sikhism (in the US and in Canada). Just before you jump the gun, let me clarify that I understand that Buddhism and Sikhism are not Hindu sects (at least not according to Sikhs and Buddhists I know). Just clarifying :)
Greg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:42

Post by Greg »

@ Manny
there is a difference between an Individual openly talking to another about his/her faith vs an Institutional conspiracy to culturally cleanse vast lands. The Souther Baptist convention, Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell groups and even Vatican.
I understand and sympathize with what you mean. Christianity and Islam have demonstrated an evangelical zeal that breaches the boundary between spiritual and political agendas. Again, my points were in the defense of the US constitution - not any religion.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Buddhism is an off shoot of core Hinduism, and modified.. Hindu sects are not religion in itself. think role players. One does not need to convert to practice Hinduism, hence its not a religion or something that needs preaching. But, it needs only an understanding about what it is. somethings that are archaic enough may be left as is, and what is needed (the crux) is what thought and taught. People from all walks engage in enlightening the world about this wrong notion of "God" (including definitions).

perhaps Valkan here, can explain to you better.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

Greg wrote:@sadler
What do the forum members here think will happen to these faiths if the followers of the European god ------(and I say this with the prejudice that it deserves as the spread of christianism and its purported evangelical bent is the newest form of colonialism. IOW, killing satan worshipping heathens is no longer profitable as the west/white man and his god can sell the heathen his burgers, cokes, etc and make a buck. A dead hindu aint buying cokes anytime soon, know what I mean?)
you know that Jews have fluorished quite well in the US - which is more or less run by the followers of Christ. I daresay, people of other faiths have also done quite well.
The Jews in the US have done well INSPITE of the followers of Christ. Because of the secular constitution of the United States. However even the constition is at threat. The religious right wing in the US have been virulantly trying to breach that wall of seperation of Church and state.

Ask any fundementaly Christian in the US, almost all of them would repat the mantra that there is no such wall. They do not recognize the wall. They believe the US constitution is based on Christian principles.

The fundemental Christians in the US desire is to eradicate and convert Judaism. The primary reason for their recent support of Israel is for their own purpose of the second coming of Christ. The day of Rapture.

So giving the non secular Christians credit for Jews doing so well is not right. The word "secular" itself is a dirty word among American Christians (the deeply faithful ones).


Manny
Greg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:42

Post by Greg »

Manny, I dont agree with you but I dont care enough to defend the Christian right. You will have to get Ralph Reed over here for that :)
Generally speaking, Christianity in America is also very diverse - at least in practice if not its core principles. If Christian right were THAT powerful, you wouldnt see Democrats take the houses in the midterm elections.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Perhaps in the minds of Indians, the word secularism is "protecting all religions".. which is incorrect (wrong) per definitions. its a doctrine of separating religion from civil administration.

in the sense, no country can be secular based on the definition. its not easy to remove religion from minds of people. hence, the most popular accepted form or intention is to have a common set of rules that is applicable to all.

some evolution should happen pretty soon to the definition of religion itself. i am not seeing that beyond 50 years from now.
Greg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:42

Post by Greg »

Buddhism is an off shoot of core Hinduism, and modified..
IMO, all religions are an off-shoot of the most basic and primal spirituality that originated in early homo sapiens (or may be even homo erectus).
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

All in All.. After India, the US/Canada probably have the most religious freedom. I am not sure if I can say that about Europe.

Mann
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

For starters can we do away with State control of Hindu temples and religious trusts? In mid 1950s all the states in India passed laws (Eg. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act also called HR&CE Act) taking over control of Hindu temples and religious trusts. Most often IAS officers are appointed to run the temples and trusts. While the intentions are good to ptentially reduce fraud, diversion of temple assets and pilgrims contributions, the IAS officers are still in govt cadre and thus are subject to the whims of the political masters.

With current trend of coalition govts in Indian states which appease minorities, the possibility of the temples and trusts being directed to take no action that helps to preserve their existence is adistinct possibility. So I think the time has come to free the temples and religious trusts from govt control and require strict accounting and audit practices.

Besides what is a secular govt doing while running Hindu temples and religious trusts?
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

Greg wrote:
Buddhism is an off shoot of core Hinduism, and modified..
IMO, all religions are an off-shoot of the most basic and primal spirituality that originated in early homo sapiens (or may be even homo erectus).
then we have NO issues at all with religions to co-exist. lets keep this as fundamental thought.
Last edited by SaiK on 03 Apr 2007 23:16, edited 1 time in total.
RajeshG
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 29 Mar 2003 12:31

Post by RajeshG »

Abhibhushan

Thanks for posting that, the link doesnt work however. Entire debate can be found here.

http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/debates.htm
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

ramana wrote:For starters can we do away with State control of Hindu temples and religious trusts? In mid 1950s all the states in India passed laws taking over control of Hindu temples and religious trusts.

With current trend of coalition govts in Indian states which appease minorities, the possibility of the temples and trusts being directed to take no action that helps to preserve their existence is adistinct possibility. So I think the time has come to free the temples and religious trusts from govt control and require strict accounting and audit practices.

Besides what is a secular govt doing while running Hindu temples and religious trusts?
The money from the temples may be used for the EJ activities. There are some info and leads which are leading to this conclusions. There could be massive hijacking of Indian govt to ensure such a policy with the Hindu losing control over the temples. It is just like the early Muslim invaders of 1000 AD.
Manny
BRFite
Posts: 859
Joined: 07 Apr 2006 22:16
Location: Texas

Post by Manny »

ramana wrote:For starters can we do away with State control of Hindu temples and religious trusts? In mid 1950s all the states in India passed laws (Eg. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act also called HR&CE Act) taking over control of Hindu temples and religious trusts. Most often IAS officers are appointed to run the temples and trusts. While the intentions are good to ptentially reduce fraud, diversion of temple assets and pilgrims contributions, the IAS officers are still in govt cadre and thus are subject to the whims of the political masters.

With current trend of coalition govts in Indian states which appease minorities, the possibility of the temples and trusts being directed to take no action that helps to preserve their existence is adistinct possibility. So I think the time has come to free the temples and religious trusts from govt control and require strict accounting and audit practices.

Besides what is a secular govt doing while running Hindu temples and religious trusts?
Absolutely!

Imagine the Indian Govt taking over the Muslim funds.

Imagine the US Govt taking over the Church funds.

This is an abomiation. I am by no means a Hindu fundu. I am as secular as they come.

This is insane. Only in India.

Manny
Rony
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3512
Joined: 14 Jul 2006 23:29

Post by Rony »

Greg wrote: It appears that the Evangelists find more success with conversion of Hindus in India rather than in the US.
That is also my impression although it may or may not be correct.The missioneries are following the same strategy in India which they have succesfully followed in korea and now following in china.I spoke with a korean buddhist some time back on this subject.He said that christian missioneries were most succesfull in korea because they took advantage of people's ignorance.They began to spread the word that modernisation equals westernisation and westernisation equals christianisation.Since the east asians in general wanted to emulate west in everything,they naively belived that the western economic prosperity was because of christianity.This is how the remaining korean buddhists atlest the one whom i spoke to views the desrtruction of their culture.I am afraid that there are people in India who beleive in this nonsense and thats why its more dangerous.
Greg wrote:In the US, the religion that has made significant inroads is Islam - not Christianity.
Exactly.I always thought why are the american missioneries more interested in "harvest of souls" in India and other asian countries when they are loosing their own sheep in their own house to their enemy islam.Isnt it a good way to have allies in this civilizational war rather than make more enemies? or is it because since the missioneries already know that they lost the number wars in US,they are making it up by targetting indians and other asians?
Greg wrote:The constitution that protects individual and minority rights transcends the evangelical desires of it religious majority and tolerates the evangelical desires of its religios minorities.
Greg, I think you are aware of that dispicable org called uscirf.Its only job is to intervene in other countries internal affairs in the name of religious freedom.while it has members from all the "religions of book" ,it does not have a single Hindu or Buddhist in its panel and yet it gives opinions on India and other asian countries.Its a open thing that uscirf is used by american protestant missioneries to target those countries which are resisting christian conversions.not suprisingly India is one of their favorite whipping boys !
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Sadler wrote: What i am asking for is that the term Abrahmic faith be restricted to the Jewish faith only. That the others claim kinship with Abraham is no reason to club them together with my faith.
I think we are arguing at cross-purposes.

Judaism as practised today is Mosaic in origin, the 5 books of the Torah having been compiled either under his auspices, or under his descendants.

So, Moses and Judaism are somewhat synonymous.

But Moses did not invent monotheism.

Monotheism arose in many places, and formed different types.

The Zoroastrian monotheism, for example, has almost no zeal against idolatry.

That zeal is ONLY reflected by ONE kind of monotheism,- the Abrahamic form of monotheism, and the story of his smashing idols, which - unfortunately for the Jews - forms an important part of the 'history' of Christian and Islamic traditions.

The usage 'Abrahamic' to also refer to the iconoclastic monotheism of the Christian and Islamic faiths is only in that sense.

There is no other common denominator to differentiate THEIR monotheism ( and their rationale for hatred of idolatry ) from docile monotheisms of the Zoroastrians, other than the Abrahamic story.

That's why we use 'Abrahamic' faith as the terminology of choice.

If you have a better terminology to offer, feel free to do so.

I can't think of anything more resonant of the facts on the table.
But be assured that the day i find a jew who passes such judgement on non-jews (be they hindu, buddhist or even christian), they will find themselves with me squarely in their faces.
Not that it really matters, but perhaps you should take a closer look at Noah's prescription for non-Jews.

Not quite as dramatic as 'smashing' prescription of Abraham, but still idolatry is castigated as a mortal sin.
So, why is then that unlike christians and moslems, we simply have not inflicted the kind of murderous righteous slaughter that they have?
Simply put, we don't really know if the above is completely true.

Many nations ( tribes ) residing in the area that became Israelite territory are no longer there to tell THEIR side of the story.

There are of course, references to Yahweh-directed massacre of Midianites, Canaanites and many other tribes that worshipped other divinities, especially Baal.

After that, the Israelite territory was annexed by other more-powerful empires, and so the possibility of any further righteous slaughter was gone for nearly 2000 years.

Likewise, the Christians and Muslims were too weak to initiate righteous slaughter when more powerful forces were aligned against them ( pre-Constantine and pre-Medina days ).

With power, came ambition. And the rest is history.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Rony wrote:
Greg wrote: It appears that the Evangelists find more success with conversion of Hindus in India rather than in the US.
That is also my impression although it may or may not be correct.The missioneries are following the same strategy in India which they have succesfully followed in korea and now following in china.I spoke with a korean buddhist some time back on this subject.He said that christian missioneries were most succesfull in korea because they took advantage of people's ignorance.They began to spread the word that modernisation equals westernisation and westernisation equals christianisation.Since the east asians in general wanted to emulate west in everything,they naively belived that the western economic prosperity was because of christianity.This is how the remaining korean buddhists atlest the one whom i spoke to views the desrtruction of their culture.I am afraid that there are people in India who beleive in this nonsense and thats why its more dangerous.
This was repeated in BR itself. GO to the caste reservation for education thread and we have some posters talking of modernization of society as westernization. They have no clue that the entire scam is to create an image of fake social change only for evangilisation.
One poster talks about modernising the society but has no clue that they have already rigged the process with a western centric rhetoric(sociology) and scholarship for 50 years.

Globalization is also another image used for the same goal for Old Roman Empire.
We have also now dalits talking about westernization and thanking Maculay for English which means westernization/modernization.

Can Indians create an Inglish and India centric modernisation?
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

Inglish is a distinct possibility within next fifty years. The reason is it would be over ~100years since Indian Independence and the language Act and that would allow the development of Inglish. And further the number of Inglish speakers would reach critical mass.

Recall Hindi is a development of the last three hundred years from Maithili and Hindusthani.

As for developing an India cenric modernization we need to understand India first and see which parts we want to retain and which to discard. For permamance it has to be by consensus and not legislation. And the Indian per captia has to be higher for the idea to take toot that it is OK to be Indian and be modern. In other wors SLIME (Self Loathing Indian Media) has to de-slime itself and the DIE, unDIE.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

SaiK wrote:
Greg wrote: IMO, all religions are an off-shoot of the most basic and primal spirituality that originated in early homo sapiens (or may be even homo erectus).
then we have NO issues at all with religions to co-exist. lets keep this as fundamental thought.
The problem is both tigers and deer originate from some most basic and primal species that climbed onto land from the sea.

But tigers hunt and eat deer, rather than coexisting 'peacefully'.

Of course, tigers maul each other too, but the deer don't.

Evangelical religions are like the tigers.

Buddhism and Hinduism are like the deer.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

Greg wrote:Manny, I dont agree with you but I dont care enough to defend the Christian right. You will have to get Ralph Reed over here for that :)
Generally speaking, Christianity in America is also very diverse - at least in practice if not its core principles. If Christian right were THAT powerful, you wouldnt see Democrats take the houses in the midterm elections.
Greg, I do not disagree with you per se. However, the non-EVJ christians have yet to make themselves heard with regards to stopping the excesses of their EVJ brothers in the third world. The stuff that the EVJ pull off in countries like India would not be attempted in the US, except surreptitiously.

All things said, the US is not perfect but no country is. Also, the US has clearly allowed for "freedom" of religion as much as most countries. But, like some others pointed out, the US is not alone in this "tolerance."

Regarding the assertion that it is not axiomatic that "christian" countries would automatically wipe out non-christian minorities. That is true today. But, if the EVJ gain unprecedented power as is their goal, this intolerance will surface and result in the annihilation of non-christian faiths, if not sooner then later. The streak of intolerance that pervades EVJ is the real danger. I am not arguing that there are not enough christians in the US today that would, and are currently strong enough, to halt EVJ excesses in the US. But, clearly outside the US, they have been unable to do so.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Post by SaiK »

S.Valkan wrote:
SaiK wrote: then we have NO issues at all with religions to co-exist. lets keep this as fundamental thought.
Evangelical religions are like the tigers.
Buddhism and Hinduism are like the deer.
may be something in their food!? what they eat? :twisted: .
lets take "homo sapien" chain and apply it.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

S.Valkan wrote: That zeal is ONLY reflected by ONE kind of monotheism,- the Abrahamic form of monotheism, and the story of his smashing idols, which - unfortunately for the Jews - forms an important part of the 'history' of Christian and Islamic traditions.
In this case, i do not disagree with you.

S.Valkan wrote:There is no other common denominator to differentiate THEIR monotheism ( and their rationale for hatred of idolatry ) from docile monotheisms of the Zoroastrians, other than the Abrahamic story.
Again, i do not disagree. However, one can still separate the "zeal" of Abraham's to destroy idols within his world of the judaic faith. From my reading and its interpretation, it is not clear to me that he even knew about "IWH."
S.Valkan wrote:That's why we use 'Abrahamic' faith as the terminology of choice.
That is precisely what i was requesting. That you restrict the word faith to the singular and use Abrahamic faith (singular) instead of Abrahamic faiths (plural).

S. Valkan wrote:
Not that it really matters, but perhaps you should take a closer look at Noah's prescription for non-Jews.

Not quite as dramatic as 'smashing' prescription of Abraham, but still idolatry is castigated as a mortal sin.
One, i may be old but unfortunately not old enough to be able to confront Noah himself. FWIW, i take Noah as an example in allegory for the obvious reason that it would be impossible to be able to take "two of each kind" aboard any ship on this planet.

Again, contemporary interpretation among jews (and i'll bet there are exceptions) is that the idolatry references are to be restricted to jews only. Not extended to outsiders.

This is what i said in an earlier post.
There are numerous passages in ancient Hebrew texts that can only be called intolerant in today's milieu.
S.Valkan wrote:So, why is then that unlike christians and moslems, we simply have not inflicted the kind of murderous righteous slaughter that they have?

Simply put, we don't really know if the above is completely true.

Many nations ( tribes ) residing in the area that became Israelite territory are no longer there to tell THEIR side of the story.

There are of course, references to Yahweh-directed massacre of Midianites, Canaanites and many other tribes that worshipped other divinities, especially Baal.

After that, the Israelite territory was annexed by other more-powerful empires, and so the possibility of any further righteous slaughter was gone for nearly 2000 years.

Likewise, the Christians and Muslims were too weak to initiate righteous slaughter when more powerful forces were aligned against them ( pre-Constantine and pre-Medina days ).

With power, came ambition. And the rest is history.
Actually, i meant in more contemporary times. However, that point is moot as in contemporary times before the foundation of the nation of Israel, we have never been in power. So, i will gladly concede to your statement that "we dont know."
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I think first Indian Government de-control of Hindu temples and religious/ charitable trusts with proper fiduciary controls and responsibilities to prevent illegal diverson of devotee contributions and fraud.

Also appoint IAS officers who are not in the cadre anymore to allow independence of action from Govt fiat.

Next allow the establishment of educational insititutions similar to the minority religions.

Right now the GOI control is tieing up the Hindus while the rest are allowed to their Constituional freedoms and rights. These two steps would restore to the Hindus the same rights that are enjoyed by all the citizens.
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Post by SRoy »

ramana wrote: Right now the GOI control is tieing up the Hindus while the rest are allowed to their Constituional freedoms and rights. These two steps would restore to the Hindus the same rights that are enjoyed by all the citizens.
Does the constitution explicitly forbids Hindus from setting up their own educational institutions?

If yes, then this what Hindus should be fighting for, instead of getting distract by bogeys like reservation (internal matter to Hindus anyway), beef eating etc..

If no, take legal recourse in case of unconstitutional hurdles.
Last edited by SRoy on 04 Apr 2007 00:43, edited 1 time in total.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

I think it is defacto. By controlling the trusts that have the capital it effectively prevents the enjoyment of Constituional rights. It doesnt have to explicitly state it. And might not.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Sadler wrote:
In this case, i do not disagree with you.

Again, i do not disagree.
...

That is precisely what i was requesting. That you restrict the word faith to the singular and use Abrahamic faith (singular) instead of Abrahamic faiths (plural).
The points that you agreed to are the precise reasons that the name of Abraham gets tangled in with Christian and Islamic iconoclasm against idolatry by non-believers.

I am ever willing to use a different epithet, should you find me one.

However, unless we can find a suitable substitute, I am afraid the term "Abrahamic faiths" will invariably be used to refer to the iconoclastic monotheistic evangelical creeds of Christianity and Islam.

No disrespect meant to Judaism.
S. Valkan wrote: One, i may be old but unfortunately not old enough to be able to confront Noah himself.

Again, contemporary interpretation among jews (and i'll bet there are exceptions) is that the idolatry references are to be restricted to jews only. Not extended to outsiders.

This is what i said in an earlier post.
I just pointed out the example of Noah to point to the inherent thinking on the part of Jews of ancient times.

I have frankly limited knowledge of the undercurrents of thinking of Jews spread across the globe, and I am certain the Chabad Lubavitcher or Neturei Karta thinkers don't represent the vast majority of tolerant, inclusivistic, secular Jews, or even the Baal-Teshuva ones.

So, I'll accept your word for it on this one. :)
SRoy
BRFite
Posts: 1938
Joined: 15 Jul 2005 06:45
Location: Kolkata
Contact:

Post by SRoy »

ramana wrote:I think it is defacto. By controlling the trusts that have the capital it effectively prevents the enjoyment of Constituional rights. It doesnt have to explicitly state it. And might not.
So it can challenged in courts? Any constitutional experts....???
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Post by ShauryaT »

SRoy wrote:
ramana wrote:I think it is defacto. By controlling the trusts that have the capital it effectively prevents the enjoyment of Constituional rights. It doesnt have to explicitly state it. And might not.
So it can challenged in courts? Any constitutional experts....???
No expert here but article 30 of the constitution allows only minorities to control and reserve upto 50% of the seats for their community, even with state funding.

A school run by members of a hindu trust, would not be eligible for state funding.

Article 30 would have to be suitably amended. Only parliament can do that with 2/3 majority.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

SRoy,

The problem is that the constitution gives special rights to minorities regarding educational institutions etc. Such rights are not explicitely mentioned for non-minorities. That ties the judiciary's hands. It may still be worth a PIL to see what view the courts take. But what is primarily needed is a constitutional amendment.
Sadler
BRFite
Posts: 256
Joined: 30 Oct 2005 10:26
Location: USA-ISRAEL

Post by Sadler »

S.Valkan wrote:
Sadler wrote:
In this case, i do not disagree with you.

Again, i do not disagree.
...

That is precisely what i was requesting. That you restrict the word faith to the singular and use Abrahamic faith (singular) instead of Abrahamic faiths (plural).
The points that you agreed to are the precise reasons that the name of Abraham gets tangled in with Christian and Islamic iconoclasm against idolatry by non-believers.
I believe i am getting (slowly as i am an old fart) what you were getting at.
S.Valkan wrote:No disrespect meant to Judaism.
I never thought you meant any disrespect to the Judaic faith. Like i mentioned earlier, no faith should be immune from introspection. And as a jew, i am perfectly willing to be a jew and yet discard those aspects of my faith that clash with my inherent sense of right from wrong. I do not think that makes me any less of a jew.
S. Valkan wrote: I just pointed out the example of Noah to point to the inherent thinking on the part of Jews of ancient times.

I have frankly limited knowledge of the undercurrents of thinking of Jews spread across the globe, and I am certain the Chabad Lubavitcher or Neturei Karta thinkers don't represent the vast majority of tolerant, inclusivistic, secular Jews, or even the Baal-Teshuva ones.

So, I'll accept your word for it on this one. :)
Thank you. Shalom.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Kumar wrote:SRoy,

The problem is that the constitution gives special rights to minorities regarding educational institutions etc. Such rights are not explicitely mentioned for non-minorities. That ties the judiciary's hands. It may still be worth a PIL to see what view the courts take. But what is primarily needed is a constitutional amendment.
Then the govt cannot hold the temple funds and use it for its own purpose.
Greg
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 29
Joined: 03 Apr 2007 08:42

Post by Greg »

@Valkan
Evangelical religions are like the tigers.

Buddhism and Hinduism are like the deer.
In that case, Buddhism and Hinduism have nothing to fear. It is the tigers that are endangered not the dear. Individuals may fall prey but the dear have evolved to survive and thrive in spite of the tigers (and many other big cats).
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Acharya wrote:
Kumar wrote:SRoy,

The problem is that the constitution gives special rights to minorities regarding educational institutions etc. Such rights are not explicitely mentioned for non-minorities. That ties the judiciary's hands. It may still be worth a PIL to see what view the courts take. But what is primarily needed is a constitutional amendment.
Then the govt cannot hold the temple funds and use it for its own purpose.
IMO the government's view has been that it has the right to assign proper uses of such funds for public good in general, unless prohibited by law/constitution. Which leaves out minority run schools and religious installations.

It may still be worthwhile to file a PIL to seek the judiciary's view.
pradeepe
BRFite
Posts: 741
Joined: 27 Aug 2006 20:46
Location: Our culture is different and we cannot live together - who said that?

Post by pradeepe »

ShauryaT wrote:
pradeepe wrote:IIRC, "socialist" has been dropped a long time ago. Will look up the preamble again.
What the 42nd added in the preamble, was not what was amended in the 43rd or 44th or subsequently, to my knowledge.
Thanks.

Preamble
ref
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Kumar wrote:
Acharya wrote: Then the govt cannot hold the temple funds and use it for its own purpose.
IMO the government's view has been that it has the right to assign proper uses of such funds for public good in general, unless prohibited by law/constitution. Which leaves out minority run schools and religious installations.

It may still be worthwhile to file a PIL to seek the judiciary's view.
Then Hindus have the right to expect the govt to prevent foreign EJs to thrive inside India.
S.Valkan
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 15 Mar 2006 01:29

Post by S.Valkan »

Greg wrote: In that case, Buddhism and Hinduism have nothing to fear. It is the tigers that are endangered not the dear.
No, dear.

That lopsided effect is because of a third predator in the equation, - man. :)

Who's hunting the evangelical hunters to their extinction ? Scientists ?
Individuals may fall prey but the dear have evolved to survive and thrive in spite of the tigers (and many other big cats).
Not quite so, dear.

The survival of deer relies on a threshold proportion between tigers and deer.

Once the number of tigers exceed the replacement threshold for deer, that "thrive" mode evaporates rather quickly.
Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 530
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Post by Abhijit »

It is time to make an elephant out of a deer. The mass is there - the tusks and trunk need to be cultivated, making sure that we don't become a woolly mammoth. :)
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

Abhijit wrote:It is time to make an elephant out of a deer. The mass is there - the tusks and trunk need to be cultivated, making sure that we don't become a woolly mammoth. :)
Deer has to control the education of new deers, control of the mass media and take political control so that tigers dont hijack the deer land.
Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 259
Joined: 13 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by Kumar »

Acharya wrote:
Kumar wrote: IMO the government's view has been that it has the right to assign proper uses of such funds for public good in general, unless prohibited by law/constitution. Which leaves out minority run schools and religious installations.

It may still be worthwhile to file a PIL to seek the judiciary's view.
Then Hindus have the right to expect the govt to prevent foreign EJs to thrive inside India.
I think framers of the constitution thought that in a free hindu majority India hinduism would never really require any protection regarding education and temple funds etc. Therefore only protection that was specifically mentioned was for minorities.

But 60 years after independence, it is easy to see that such fears of outright dominance by hindus, where special protection for minorities, but no such protection for hindus, would be needed, were ill founded.

Now it is clear that Hindu religious orgs and educational institutions need protection against multifarious assaults including marxists and EJs. Besides that we have the case of govt meddling with temple trust funds. In such a scenario tying down hindus' hands and letting minority run orgs have much freer hands, is discriminatory.

But Congress with its ever present appeasement agenda is not going to touch that. Only BJP run govt can bring forth those amendments. I am not sure when they would manage to get past the required 2/3 majority.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Post by svinayak »

You have not answered my question
Locked