Vivek Oberoi takes the liberals to the cleaners - Page 5

Originally posted by: Padfoot_Prongs

BTW I was just talking to my senior who is from Kerala and a christian. According to her, one have to follow strict rules, 45 days fast with strict rules with cleanliness, no non-veg, no garlic-onion and all, so we can't just make it entirely a feminist issue.

Originally posted by: flipfl0p

Two categories of people.

Category one. Those who have "faith" in mythology and lord Ayyappa. They will obey his rules in his abode.

Second category. Those who don't believe in God or those who think these rules are made by men. When you don't have faith, why go to a faithful's place? That is not your field.

I belong to second category. I don't believe in the mythology of Ayyappa being the son of Vishnu and Shiva. (Both father and mother being men). But I find the story cute as an instance of gay acceptance in mythology.

Whether I am eligible to visit Ayyappa are not important to me. It is for the faithfuls. (I do enter other temples when other family members visit them. But unlike those, Shabarimala is not in a town where you can park the car and enter the temple). Why take hardship for a deity you don't have 100% faith?

Hinduism is the longest surviving Pagan society. Each cult has different belief and practices are so diverse. This diversity is not discrimination. Don't compare it with Abrahamic religions with one God.

If men gets to do Ganesh puja and visarjan, women celebrate Gowri festival. If there is an exclusive temple for men, there are exclusive temples for women. (Five male only temples, six women only temples in India). Are there any men petitioning for the entry in women only temples?

Can men say "women only compartments" in train are discriminatory towards men? Answer is men can "choose" any other compartment leaving one.

Let's differentiate between needs and choice. If I want to drink water, it is a need. If someone denies me water, then are denying my human rights. I need cloth for my dignity. If someone asks me to take it off, they are denying my human rights.

If I want to wear a red dress, it is my choice. Denying that will not become violation of human rights. Wearing an yellow dress would not affect my life/dignity in anyway.

Earlier women have fought for the right of education, right to vote, right for dignity. These made an impact in women's life. How does getting entry to "one temple" going to make difference in their life and dignity?

State (court) should have the right to intervene in religious matter, when it affects people's life or dignity. It abolished Sati, Dowri, Triple Talaak where women suffered.

It also banned the nude parade by devadasis to Renuka temple on certain festival (though they opposed, as it was their custom), as it threatened the dignity of women. Backward class women of Kerala fought for the right to cover their breast.

I don't feel the issues that feminists fighting today are for worthy causes. To me, opening and maintaining good toilet facilities after temple visit (if it does not exist) would help female devotees more.

Away from worship, keeping a criminal record check on the people who are in the service of vulnerable people is badly required. It is present in all developed countries. Here nobody knows the background history of the school bus driver, IT companies cab driver who drops female employees, school teacher, doctor. Should not feminists fight for this first rather than trivial tokenisms like this?

These have nothing to do with discrimination, but offer diversity.

Originally posted by: roni_berna

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.

Originally posted by: TheRager

All around me whether online or offline most men are crying over this Sabrimala issue. The situation is so desperate that yesterday's joker Vivek Oberoi is today's misogynists hero. I wont be surprised if the Supreme Court is seen as a bigger enemy than Pakistan in a couple of days.

The truth is the SC has to follow the law. Fundamental rights like right to worship without discrimination is part of our constitution.Today you can make an excuse that Lord Ayyappa is celibate so certain rules need to followed when someone wishes to worship in at Sabrimala. But then next what? You will start extending these rules to other situations too. Like people of certain castes not being allowed in temples in many places even today. I am sure custodians can show such similar rules in every case. So the law needs to be followed.

The excuse that 'Hindu khatre mein hain' doesnt hold here as similar cases were fought against the custodians of Haji Ali dargah too.

https://www.ndtv.com/mumbai-news/women-set-to-re-enter-mumbais-haji-ali-dargah-after-5-years-1631584

But having said all this I agree right now its not the devotees but people wanting to make records trying to get an entry. But I guess the initial step needs to be taken irrespective of the intention so that a beginning is atleast made.