Vivek Oberoi takes the liberals to the cleaners

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

blue-ice.

@blue-ice.

Achiever

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: ponymo
The concept of god itself is stupid and on top of that there are rules created as to how that god ought to be worshipped. Beyond silly. (Good for those who believe in it, but please count me out).

No need to call the concept of God silly...if you don't believe in it ...thats fine and you can debate why u don't believe in it...but don't disrespect those who believe in it.

Quote

ponymo

@ponymo

Sparkler

+ 4

Posted: 7 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: blue-ice.

No need to call the concept of God silly...if you don't believe in it ...thats fine and you can debate why u don't believe in it...but don't disrespect those who believe in it.

Not disrespecting people who believe in it. I am sharing my personal opinion.

Just because I found a movie silly doesn't mean I am disrespecting those who liked it. It's just different opinions. My own parents are devout religious people. But when they ask me to come along to the temple, I tell them I think the concept of god doesn't make sense for me. But I'm not stopping them from going and worshipping. It's an individual's own choice.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

tina

@tina59

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#33

I have no issues with the verdict by the supreme Court coz the way I see it.

No way good descriminated between men and women in terms of worshipping.

Every bhakt irrespective of their gender, caste, or religion are the same for every god.

So I respect the verdict.

I however don't like that this verdict only applies to one religion. Why doesn't supreme Court talk about other religion and it's practices too related to it's traditions in worshipping places.

They do not the guts to take on give the same verdict , only one religion is being targeted . That in my POV .is wrong .

Quote

liberiangirl

@liberiangirl

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: ponymo
The concept of god itself is stupid and on top of that there are rules created as to how that god ought to be worshipped. Beyond silly. (Good for those who believe in it, but please count me out).

I believe in God, but am not a stickler for religion. I absolutely detest the fact that despite us all praying to the same God, the one and only one Supreme Power, we fight because of certain man-made rules and frameworks which were built (religions) to help understand and get closer to God.

I know that many of these so-called beliefs may have had a reason. Some may not be valid in the current times, some may pretty well be valid even now. Where they are valid, the religious leaders should take it upon themselves to help people understand the significance of these beliefs. It will help people understand and appreciate those beliefs and would ensure that they are followed. But to expect people to blindly follow beliefs just because the rules say so and in the process discriminate between different sects of people is so wrong!

Quote

astha36

@astha36

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#35

I support the SC judgement. I think this belief that only women of menstruating age need to be kept out, else the deity will not be celibate anymore is wrong. If women of that age can worship him, which means he must listen to them(?), then he already interacts with them right? Someone here said they can enter other temples of this deity but just not this one. If that rule about the deity not being celibate as soon as a woman* came into sight were true/accepted, it would be applied everywhere. And still it would be wrong. This argument just makes the judgement appear more right.

Also, one doesn't have to be a christian to enter a church, a muslim to enter a mosque, a hindu to enter a temple and so on. So, one doesn't have to belong to one religion to enter its place of worship. I don't know if men who don't pray to Lord Ayyappa are allowed in the temple or not. If they perform all the required fasts and rituals, will they be granted entry or not? How do they even know if this person believes or not? Anyway. A place of worship is a public place, cannot be held closed to a particular group of people, especially half the population*. So, I'm with the SC on this and hope that the govt grows a spine in Kerala and strengthens the protection to women who want to enter the temple and make it happen.

*T&C - ages between 10 years to 50 years

Quote

kedar575

@kedar575

Beginner

Posted: 7 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: AllThatCritique
And people saying how so many temples only allow women not men,well to them am gonna ask what's stopping you from petitioning and getting that entry for men too?

becasue we respect that faith/tradition (something feminazi can't). there are thousand of other goddess temple that allow man just like woman can go to any other ayyappa temple and pray. also back in 2006 it wasn't devout who filed PIL but some commie woman with full support from commie/maoist parties. even each and every woman who tried to enter temple in past few days isn't devout but commie/maoist sent by CPI(M). real devout woman's are out in street protesting against SC order but feminazi don't have time for them. this is commie vs hindu fight not male vs female.

In all this bishop who raped nun got bail without big noise in media. looks like golden time for asaram bapu, he can now get bail with hardly any noise.

Quote

Pooja

@Samaina12

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 7 years ago

#37

Biggest joke is the ones who petitioned are muslims and dont even.believe in ayyappa.

So called minorities poking their nose in everything that doesn't concern them

Quote

~*sindhu*~

@~*sindhu*~

Sparkler

Posted: 7 years ago

#38

What I find weird is that God's celibacy can be affected by a mortal woman of a certain age. Then what is the difference between God and human. God creates humans and humans play by his rules. So a woman menstruating is his wish. Why will he be affected by it. Also does anybody knows where does this rule originates from? Cause some people are saying this rule didn't exist in the beginning.

On the other hand I saw a news yesterday where woman got to enter haji ali dargah after SC order , so its not like SC only targets one religion. But they have to go by the constituition while giving their verdicts. Their beliefs means nothing in the court of law.

Quote

Erika

@roni_berna

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 7 years ago

#39

Even Parsi women fought their case in the SC as if they marry outside their caste, their entire family wasn't allowed in the Fire Temple and they won this case. A Fire Temple was built for such women.

It's sad that every time people claim only one religion is targeted or the people who file a case are non-believers and don't respect the God while this is not the case. Nobody should ever judge the belief of another person especially when it comes to their religious belief and God. Everyone should be allowed to enter any place of worship but sadly this is not the case not only in India but in other countries as well.

Quote

Padfoot_Prongs

@Padfoot_Prongs

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 7 years ago

#40

Why is Sabrimala given so much importance? Ignore it. there are lakhs of temples out there.

It is such a non-issue given unwanted importance just to make an issue. Jo Bhagwan hume darshan nahi dena chahte, hum unko kyu puje. Or bhi bahut bhagwan hai pujne ke liye. 33 crore, in fact.

Quote

1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14

Vivek Oberoi

Vivek Oberoi takes the liberals to the cleaners - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics