Re: Priyamvada Gopal: The UK will also suffer if India elects this far-right activist and Hindu Extremist. We must sever our links with him.

by rawemotions Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:42 pm

truthbetold wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
truthbetold wrote:Rashmun

Does your secularism include MIM who abuse hindu gods? Does your secularism include christian parties? Does your secularism include yadav party called RJD? Does your secularism include caste based politicians like mulayam and mayawati?

Does your secularism mean opportunistic politics that prop up dynasty? When you partner with someone, they are secular, ex: Dev gowda in Karnataka but when he joins BJP, he suddenly turns communal?

Do you know the meaning of the word secularism? It means removal of religious influence from governmental affairs. Did congress ever practice that?

Secularism does not mean minority appeasement or opportunistic alliances.

There is such a thing as minority communalism and it definitely needs to be opposed but it should always be remembered that majority communalism is more dangerous because minority communalism can never assume a fascist character, unlike majority communalism.

Have you read history?

The poor brainwashed guy needs history lessons. He needs to look at www.aurangzeb.info.

In contemporary India, a few Muslims in West Bengal , Hyderabad are imposing their Islamic Supremacist doctrine on everybody else and all this is ignored.
In pre-independence India, there is ONLY one community who cannot bear to live with other religions because it violated their doctrine of Islamic Supremacism and started segregationist movements (starting with reservation in electoral college etc..) culminating in the country being split, with they getting a disproportionate share of the resources.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.

Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

by truthbetold Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:44 pm

Rash
Who was the dictator in Iraq? Sunni Saddam. Who were the majory? Shias.
Syrian dictator Assad is from minority shias.
India was ruled for many centuries by minorities.
So do not tell us about dangers about Hindu majority.

Even in the current India there are localities where Muslim religious domination stiffles normal democratic life. Check Hyderabad old city. When kasu Krishna reddy
Went to a ration shop inspection, local mla forced this civil supplies minister to go back. Ysr could not do a damnable thing about it.

by rawemotions Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:50 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Actually the Muslim Girls care and want the freedom to wear or not wear it. But they will be threatened with acid attacks by the Islamists. In a matter of 20 years, the veil which was not omnipresent in Muslim society, has now become a requirement. Guys like Rashmun will keep quiet and silently support them

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:51 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

europe is fundamentally different from the US. i don't believe an outright ban could withstand a challenge based on asserting the wearer's first amendment previleges.

Europe ? US ?

How about commenting on THIS?

[url= http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm] http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm[/url]http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.

Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:55 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.

by confuzzled dude Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:58 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?

So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:58 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?

U really think Uppili clicked on the link u gave and read the article? Of course not.He was responding to what u said on the burqa in your post.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Secularism is spoken about more in India because Indian secularism is still in a fragile state.
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.

If the women wear it out of their own free will, what is your problem? Who are you to tell women what to do and what not to do? Banning burkhas is *not* secularism. Allowing them to freely wear whatever they want to is.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:09 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.
If the women wear it out of their own free will, what is your problem? Who are you to tell women what to do and what not to do? Banning burkhas is *not* secularism. Allowing them to freely wear whatever they want to is.

Notice how the sissy secularists obfuscating the main issue that the Burqas had the lecturer arrested for discussing Rushdie that too in a political science class.

None of the SuCH "secularists" has a spine to criticize anything that shows iSlamis in a bad light. They all should wear a Burqua themselves or still better hide inside a burqua. Period.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:16 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rash
Who was the dictator in Iraq? Sunni Saddam. Who were the majory? Shias.
Syrian dictator Assad is from minority shias.
India was ruled for many centuries by minorities.
So do not tell us about dangers about Hindu majority.

Even in the current India there are localities where Muslim religious domination stiffles normal democratic life. Check Hyderabad old city. When kasu Krishna reddy
Went to a ration shop inspection, local mla forced this civil supplies minister to go back. Ysr could not do a damnable thing about it.

Assad is from a mystical Shia sect but he is not heading a Shia party or a party which represents shias. His party claims to be a socialist party and most of its members to the best of my knowledge are Sunnis.

Saddam's party also was not a Sunni party. His party also claimed to be a socialist party. Incidentally Wikipedia is telling me that 40% of Iraqis are Sunnis. Is this true?

India was ruled by minorities in the past just like China was ruled by Mongols and Manchus in the past ( even though 90% Chinese are Han), but that is not possible anymore. The Muslim kings who ruled hindu subjects practiced a rudimentary form of secularism in which they respected the beliefs of the non-Muslims otherwise they would face revolts and uprisings. Low caste hindus may have believed they were better off under Muslim kings than Hindu kings since Muslims may have treated them with more respect than high caste hindus.

Hyderabad is a special case. Hyderabad is very different from Lucknow or any other city with a large Muslim population anywhere in India. Hyderabad's problems probably stem from the razakar and police action related violence which left deep wounds which will take some more time to heal.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:18 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?

U really think Uppili clicked on the link u gave and read the article? Of course not.He was responding to what u said on the burqa in your post.

Really? you want me to believe that he didn't read it but still mentioned about the news item? Upps is really something then!

Anyway, now that you read it, what do you and the other 'secular' aka 'non-blood thirsty' ones have to say about it?

by confuzzled dude Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:22 pm

truthbetold wrote:Rash
Even in the current India there are localities where Muslim religious domination stiffles normal democratic life. Check Hyderabad old city. When kasu Krishna reddy
Went to a ration shop inspection, local mla forced this civil supplies minister to go back. Ysr could not do a damnable thing about it.

The same could be said of many Hindu locations in certain parts of the state. Haven't we heard of similar stuff about Bihar?

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:29 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Besh besh....this is the ideal "secularism" that the elite "intellectual" secularists approve of by not commenting on such newsitems.
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?
So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.

Are you even following the thread? You are totally off mark. Go back and read again pls.

And yeah, read the news item that goes along with the picture.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:31 pm

Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Exactly! Going against muslims on anything is 'non-secular' which is equal to 'communal' and which automatically makes you 'blood thirsty.'

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?
So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.
Are you even following the thread? You are totally off mark. Go back and read again pls.

And yeah, read the news item that goes along with the picture.

What a bunch of SISSIES we have here on SuCH calling themselves as secularists. Don't even have the nerve to even DISCUSS the news item and posting all kinds of run around non-sense....

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:32 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Really? Most muslim college and even high school girls in Hyderabad go to schools and colleges in black burkhas that cover them from top to bottom. Imagine that happening in US or europe. Let a girl student go to a college or school in a burkha in US or Europe or Australia.

Take a look here:

http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/14/stories/2007071460000300.htm

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.
If the women wear it out of their own free will, what is your problem? Who are you to tell women what to do and what not to do? Banning burkhas is *not* secularism. Allowing them to freely wear whatever they want to is.

It is a question of reform. Up till the last century, Hindu widows used to dress in white clothes, sleep on hard floor, eat simple/bland food, shave off the hair on their head and so on. Hindu reformers came forward and put an end to this nonsense. Similarly Ataturk put an end to similar religious nonsense in Turkey ( and this included a ban on the burqa).

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:56 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

What u say reminds me of my home town where the convent school girls used to wear skirts as part of their uniform. The nuns in the school were threatened to change the school uniform or else face the consequences. The school uniform of the girls was changed to salwar-kameez (that cover them from top to bottom) after the threats. The threats had been issued by RSS/BJP/VHP Chaddiwalahs.

What does this show? It shows that the Chaddis are the mirror images of the Mullahs.
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.
If the women wear it out of their own free will, what is your problem? Who are you to tell women what to do and what not to do? Banning burkhas is *not* secularism. Allowing them to freely wear whatever they want to is.

It is a question of reform. Up till the last century, Hindu widows used to dress in white clothes, sleep on hard floor, eat simple/bland food, shave off the hair on their head and so on. Hindu reformers came forward and put an end to this nonsense. Similarly Ataturk put an end to similar religious nonsense in Turkey ( and this included a ban on the burqa).

Are you acting dumb or are you really dumb? Stop talking irrelevant things about the condition of hindu widows a century ago in a stupid attempt to divert the topic. The point wasn't about 'reforming' muslim women from wearing burkhas either. let me refresh you: I asked you why the word 'secularism' isn't used at all in US but used a zillion times every day in India. For which, you said that secularism in india is still in its 'fragile' state compared to US. I challenged that with the question of muslim girls wearing black burkhas top to bottom, to schools and colleges in US as they do in India. Can you imagine such a thing happening in US? So....where is secularism more fragile? In India or US?

My intention to post that pic was to show the burkha-clad students in india. The news item that goes along with the pic tells us more about the kind of 'secularim' that is being followed in india and why none of the 'secularists' have a nerve to criticize or question the muslims wrt that.

by Guest Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:04 pm

Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Don't divert the topic. Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

There is a difference of opinion amongst secularists on this issue. Personally I agree with Kemal Ataturk's view on the burqa which is also the view of many politicians in western countries. This ban should be considered similar to bans on things like child marriage which used to be the norm among Hindus at one time.
If the women wear it out of their own free will, what is your problem? Who are you to tell women what to do and what not to do? Banning burkhas is *not* secularism. Allowing them to freely wear whatever they want to is.

It is a question of reform. Up till the last century, Hindu widows used to dress in white clothes, sleep on hard floor, eat simple/bland food, shave off the hair on their head and so on. Hindu reformers came forward and put an end to this nonsense. Similarly Ataturk put an end to similar religious nonsense in Turkey ( and this included a ban on the burqa).
Are you acting dumb or are you really dumb? Stop talking irrelevant things about the condition of hindu widows a century ago in a stupid attempt to divert the topic. The point wasn't about 'reforming' muslim women from wearing burkhas either. let me refresh you: I asked you why the word 'secularism' isn't used at all in US but used a zillion times every day in India. For which, you said that secularism in india is still in its 'fragile' state compared to US. I challenged that with the question of muslim girls wearing black burkhas top to bottom, to schools and colleges in US as they do in India. Can you imagine such a thing happening in US? So....where is secularism more fragile? In India or US?

My intention to post that pic was to show the burkha-clad students in india. The news item that goes along with the pic tells us more about the kind of 'secularim' that is being followed in india and why none of the 'secularists' have a nerve to criticize or question the muslims wrt that.

My view on the burqa is similar to Ataturk's view on the burqa. I want a ban on the burqa in India for the same reason that Ataturk banned the burqa in Turkey i.e. To help ingrain the modern mindset in present day Muslims in India. The comparison with reforms carried out to ban certain restrictions on Hindu widows, like the prohibition in Hinduism for a widow to marry again, etc. is quite appropriate in my opinion.

by confuzzled dude Sun Apr 20, 2014 11:27 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

You are clutching at straws. I have in the past argued for a ban on the burqa.
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?
So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.
Are you even following the thread? You are totally off mark. Go back and read again pls.

And yeah, read the news item that goes along with the picture.

What a bunch of SISSIES we have here on SuCH calling themselves as secularists. Don't even have the nerve to even DISCUSS the news item and posting all kinds of run around non-sense....

We can find similar incidents pertaining to the other side too.. in any case that is irrelevant to the discussion. I will give you this though, Muslims, in general are much more conservative and forthcoming about their religious beliefs than Hindus; mainly due to the fear induced by their religion but to keep harping relentlessly that Indian Muslims are always on the hunt for their Hindu neighbors heads is an illusion created by your mind or you're carrying out witch hunt to appease your redneck neighbors.

by rawemotions Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:11 am

confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
Upps and I were talking about the news article that goes along with the burkha-clad students in the picture. Didn't you get that?
So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.
Are you even following the thread? You are totally off mark. Go back and read again pls.

And yeah, read the news item that goes along with the picture.

What a bunch of SISSIES we have here on SuCH calling themselves as secularists. Don't even have the nerve to even DISCUSS the news item and posting all kinds of run around non-sense....
We can find similar incidents pertaining to the other side too.. in any case that is irrelevant to the discussion. I will give you this though, Muslims, in general are much more conservative and forthcoming about their religious beliefs than Hindus; mainly due to the fear induced by their religion but to keep harping relentlessly that Indian Muslims are always on the hunt for their Hindu neighbors heads is an illusion created by your mind or you're carrying out witch hunt to appease your redneck neighbors.

There are always a bunch of folks in Muslim Community who espouse Islamic Supremacist Doctrine. This doctrine takes many forms (read "Lajja" by Taslima Nasreen to get a good overview of how this doctrine is used). The other Muslims keep quiet, because if they oppose it, they are marginalized as someone opposing Koran /Hadith itself, which has passages which justify this kind of behaviour and the basic faith is mixed with Political aspects. This is how the Political Islamist Doctrine being propagated in every single country in the world unopposed by the rest of the common folks. The Muslims who keep quiet thus effectively become silent supporters. This is happening all over the world.

by confuzzled dude Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:27 am

rawemotions wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Kinnera wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:
So.. shall we conclude that Hindu students that wear bottu are backward looking.
Are you even following the thread? You are totally off mark. Go back and read again pls.

And yeah, read the news item that goes along with the picture.

What a bunch of SISSIES we have here on SuCH calling themselves as secularists. Don't even have the nerve to even DISCUSS the news item and posting all kinds of run around non-sense....
We can find similar incidents pertaining to the other side too.. in any case that is irrelevant to the discussion. I will give you this though, Muslims, in general are much more conservative and forthcoming about their religious beliefs than Hindus; mainly due to the fear induced by their religion but to keep harping relentlessly that Indian Muslims are always on the hunt for their Hindu neighbors heads is an illusion created by your mind or you're carrying out witch hunt to appease your redneck neighbors.
There are always a bunch of folks in Muslim Community who espouse Islamic Supremacist Doctrine. This doctrine takes many forms (read "Lajja" by Taslima Nasreen to get a good overview of how this doctrine is used). The other Muslims keep quiet, because if they oppose it, they are marginalized as someone opposing Koran /Hadith itself, which has passages which justify this kind of behaviour and the basic faith is mixed with Political aspects. This is how the Political Islamist Doctrine being propagated in every single country in the world unopposed by the rest of the common folks. The Muslims who keep quiet thus effectively become silent supporters. This is happening all over the world.

If I may, just like those Hindus that kept quiet thus became silent supporters of Hindutva thugs.

"In Husain's case, unfortunately, India gave him everything he could have dreamt of — fame, success, wealth, recognition — but not many defended him as strongly as he would have liked against unfair calumny. He was not even heard when he repeatedly went out and said in every forum possible that he had no intention to hurt anyone's religious feelings."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/MF-Husain-was-as-Hindu-as-any-one-of-us/articleshow/8794586.cms?referral=PM

by confuzzled dude Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:41 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:1) who is a "secular"?
2) why do you nounify adjectives and adverbs?
3) should we call you the "thirsties" (because your lot seem to be blood thirsty)?

Max, you're giving too much credit to these limp-wristed breast beatings. You would be shocked to see them within 100-mile radius of the riots let alone participating. They possess similar traits as a chickenhawk.

by truthbetold Mon Apr 21, 2014 5:11 am

Cd
Show us examples of another city area large enough like old city where normal citizens are blocked from normal activities?
You cannot deny Kim activities because these are recorded history. So you take the route of it happens everywhere. Not true. It happens only where Muslims ghettos controlled by extremist religious fanatics like mim run the show. It may happen in small pockets in caste based localities of Hindu secular leaders like mukesh goud of Hyderabad and Congres or factionists of kadapa.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:08 am

Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

by Guest Mon Apr 21, 2014 7:55 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

it is true that the indian definition of secularism is different from the western interpretation of secularism. In India, it means the state will give equal respect to all religions while in the west it means the state will have nothing to do with religion. But at the level of an individual i do not see any difference between the western and indian interpretations of secularism. Whether a person is secular is determined by whether he is tolerant of other religions and beliefs and has respect for diverse religious views--this is true both for India and for the west.

With respect to the burqa, opposition to burqa from a secular perspective has a great precedent in the Turkey of Kemal Ataturk. This opposition is not out of religious hatred but out of wanting to better the lives of people who wear burqa. it is like fighting against the prohibition against widow remarriage which used to be the custom in hinduism . No one can deny that the Turkish women of today are more modernized--and by this i mean having a more modern mindset-- than Pakistani or Afghani women.

by confuzzled dude Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:21 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

AFAIK, there are no specific dress code restrictions on wearing veil in public schools in the US. I've seen a few (very few) girls putting veil on. Religious activities such as celebrating Diwali at the US congres did happen. Hindu priest showed up in his traditional attire and performed puja, chanting veda mantras and the US congress members did lit pramidalu (diya). Does it mean the US congress is not secular or trying appease Hindu community? Problem with Lord Narendra & his ardent supporters is that they're just fine with their religious practices but can't stand others. Would Lord Narendra decline/prohibit performing bhoomi pujas at ground breaking ceremonies of public projects?

by confuzzled dude Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:43 am

truthbetold wrote:Cd
Show us examples of another city area large enough like old city where normal citizens are blocked from normal activities?
You cannot deny Kim activities because these are recorded history. So you take the route of it happens everywhere. Not true. It happens only where Muslims ghettos controlled by extremist religious fanatics like mim run the show. It may happen in small pockets in caste based localities of Hindu secular leaders like mukesh goud of Hyderabad and Congres or factionists of kadapa.

I think you've answered your own question. It is an isolated incident not a norm even by old city standards.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:01 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

hmmm....I guess it's unsecular to point out that the same argument is roundly condemned when it's used by supposed "chaddis" and "hindu nationalists" regarding muslims

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:45 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

hmmm....I guess it's unsecular to point out that the same argument is roundly condemned when it's used by supposed "chaddis" and "hindu nationalists" regarding muslims

I'm the first to admit that I'm as bigoted as the garden variety mouth-breathing, limpwristed chaddi. Only my intolerance covers all religions. Whereas they just mirror the mullahs they love to hate.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:57 am

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

hmmm....I guess it's unsecular to point out that the same argument is roundly condemned when it's used by supposed "chaddis" and "hindu nationalists" regarding muslims
I'm the first to admit that I'm as bigoted as the garden variety mouth-breathing, limpwristed chaddi. Only my intolerance covers all religions. Whereas they just mirror the mullahs they love to hate.

but your brand of bigotry is more virtuous coz it's all emcompassing

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:05 am

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Kinnera wrote:Nobody criticizes or objects to muslim girls wearing burkas to colleges and schools in India. No one really cares in India. But ppl in the western countries will have a problem with that and the girls will be ridiculed or/and banned from doing so. So, where is secularism more fragile? US or India?

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

hmmm....I guess it's unsecular to point out that the same argument is roundly condemned when it's used by supposed "chaddis" and "hindu nationalists" regarding muslims
I'm the first to admit that I'm as bigoted as the garden variety mouth-breathing, limpwristed chaddi. Only my intolerance covers all religions. Whereas they just mirror the mullahs they love to hate.

but your brand of bigotry is more virtuous coz it's all emcompassing

I don't know abt virtuosity but I certainly meet the warped desi definition of secularism, in the opposite.

by Propagandhi711 Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:08 pm

Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Kinny, don't mistake pluralism for secularism. We are a diverse country with dress codes ranging from none (Naga sadhus, Digambara jains and the aborigines of Nicobar) to minimal (adivasis in different parts of the country) to medieval (orthodox Muslims, Sikhs) to modern. This radical diversity in appearances, clothing, food and religious beliefs and practices is not something new, but has been around in our midst for millenia. So a burqa is as familiar to us as a sikh's turban or a Jain sadhu's nudity. None of them is seen as alien to cause alarm or consternation. Western societies which have been far more homogeneous through out their history are less pluralistic, hence the difference.

Just because the pussilanimous Bharat sarkar abuses the word "secularism" and chaddis use the word as abuse, that doesn't change the meaning of the word. Secularism has always been and remains the indifference of the state to matters of the religion. To that extent, India is NOT secular, although it is pluralistic. Western societies are far more secular, although they may be less pluralistic.

That said, while I personally don't care about people's clothing or their religions, I don't have an ounce of sympathy for overtly religious people who get discriminated against. For millenia, it was the other way around. The religious persecuted the non-believers, and so this is payback time. It's the 21st century and high time people learned to practise their religions only in the privacy of their homes. If they insist on thrusting their beliefs on others, aurally or even visually, they deserve every bit of the hostility they invoke.

hmmm....I guess it's unsecular to point out that the same argument is roundly condemned when it's used by supposed "chaddis" and "hindu nationalists" regarding muslims
I'm the first to admit that I'm as bigoted as the garden variety mouth-breathing, limpwristed chaddi. Only my intolerance covers all religions. Whereas they just mirror the mullahs they love to hate.

but your brand of bigotry is more virtuous coz it's all emcompassing

I don't know abt virtuosity but I certainly meet the warped desi definition of secularism, in the opposite.

well atleast it's a break from the all encompassing and relentless virtuosity of our global liberal admin. refreshing I might even say

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:30 pm

Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

I don't know abt virtuosity but I certainly meet the warped desi definition of secularism, in the opposite.

well atleast it's a break from the all encompassing and relentless virtuosity of our global liberal admin. refreshing I might even say

Yeah...that is what HE thinks - he is UNIFORMLY against all religions - except, when it comes to Mangalore bar bashing he would go on and on and on forever against the hindu terrorists, while simply posting a one-line general condemnation following the 11/26 killing by muslim terrorists. Now, that is the equal criticism of Maulana gaywala or so (s)he thinks.

by Merlot Daruwala Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:35 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Propagandhi711 wrote:
Merlot Daruwala wrote:

I don't know abt virtuosity but I certainly meet the warped desi definition of secularism, in the opposite.

well atleast it's a break from the all encompassing and relentless virtuosity of our global liberal admin. refreshing I might even say

Yeah...that is what HE thinks - he is UNIFORMLY against all religions - except, when it comes to Mangalore bar bashing he would go on and on and on forever against the hindu terrorists, while simply posting a one-line general condemnation following the 11/26 killing by muslim terrorists. Now, that is the equal criticism of Maulana gaywala or so (s)he thinks.

Upps Aunty, in the Mangalore episode, there were retards like you who were actually supporting the thugs and trivializing their thuggery by bringing in extraneous rhetoric. So I felt the need to speak up.

Whereas during terrorist attacks, you and your chaddi cohorts are anyway engaged in your usual hysterical limpwristed breastbeating, so there is hardly any need for anybody else to speak up. See the difference? No? I thought not. This is just your usual persecution complex speaking up. The whole world is ranged against you. Not.

by Sponsored content