Temples should allow non-Hindus, agree?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#21

Originally posted by: SolidSnake
A temple (esp temples like the Jagannath) is no one's private property, everyone should be allowed in!

No, a temple can be considered a property of it's priest (or the one who commissioned it to be built). Although the priest can't use the property of the temple for personal gains (apart from what is given to him) but he has the powers to set the rules and it's his word which matters inside the temple premises.
In Kautilya's Arthashastra temples are classified based on it's priest:
1) Ordinary brahmin priest
2) Srotriya brahmin priest
Although the king was the owner of all the free land of a country, temples and it's land were not included under free lands. Moreover, during emergency even though the king had the power to attach even some private properties but he didn't have the power to attach temple properties. Nowhere have I read anything which suggests that the temples are actually the property of the king (unless it's the rajmandir we are talking about) or the state (which is what you are suggesting). But even in the case of rajmandir, it's considered as a private property and the priests were salaried, just like if you have a temple in your house and appoint and pay a priest to perform the rituals.
Another law was also there and it placed more importance on temples belonging to srotriya brahmins. This law specifically forbade rebelling princes from looting temples belonging to srotriya brahmins. If temples were to be treated as the ruler's or the state's property then there would have been no point in having this law as then it would have been taken for granted that a rebelling prince can target this place and it's upto the king to defend that place. Why go into the trouble of including one extra clause unless they felt that srotriya brahmins deserve respect and that the temple actually belongs to him and that's why should be respected?

Someone mentioned that in some temples women are not allowed. As far as I know it's not entirely true. Yes in some temples women are not allowed inside the sanctum sanctorum but I haven't heard of any temple where it is forbidden for women to enter the temple premises. From what I know, the only temple where women are not allowed near the main area is in Shani temple. It's believed that Shani dev was a brahmachari and that's why this rule.
However, earlier temples did have a rule of not allowing women during the time of their periods. Maybe because of sanitary reasons.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#22

Originally posted by: qwertyesque
Hindu temples dont stop anybody as long as they oberver certain rules... i think he was trying to enter some estrictive temple.. of some sect.. or something else.....

Can't say about other Hindu temples but yes Jagannath temple in Puri does have this rule. People of other religions are not allowed there. Though am not surprised at all, with the kind of hostility famous temples had to face throughout those Islamic invasions it's only natural. Infact, when Buddhism came to power even they ransacked many temples (which is why I don't get it when people claim that only buddhists are the only one who have never been the aggressor).

Edited by souro - 15 years ago

Quote

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

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#23

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

^^ but still then, does the Medieval expierience make it justifiable for any House of Worship in the 21st century, to have such narrow disciplines?

The rule was natural under that context. The context ceases to exist so the rule should go too. I don't think there is any reason to not allow someone inside the temple premises. People on their part should also follow some simple rules, like go there in clean clothes and obviously try to respect the customs that are followed.

Quote

Summer3

@Summer3

Trailblazer

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#24

I think if there are less places of worship there will be greater infestations by Ghosts and spirits and less by mischief mongers.

More God = More mischief mongers

😆

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#25

Originally posted by: krystal_watz
^^ nope, religion does not nesseccarily include all the illogical demands and/or customs that come with it. if that, then we'd all be stuck in the middle ages.

It's not the religion (organisaion) which demanded, it can't because an organisation is not a structure or a building per se. It's that particular building where it is demanded that you be a member of the organisation of whose members it allows inside.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#26

Originally posted by: krystal_watz
yep, and its that DEMAND which i deem as illogical and unreasonable, and see as fit for removal.

Yes, you might think it is illogical and fit for removal. But you can't press charges for discrimination. Your personal opinion as against a legal issue, see the difference?

End of debate from my side.

Quote

441597

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#27

Originally posted by: souro

You mean changing the law and making it mandatory for all religious places to allow entry for people of other religions?

turn this a little around- take up an egalitarian policy and take steps to end this sort of regressive rules in the 21st century.😛

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#28

Originally posted by: krystal_watz

turn this a little around- take up an egalitarian policy and take steps to end this sort of regressive rules in the 21st century.😛

Hmmm... nice thought. Anyone who wants to visit the bedroom of the President of India in the Raj Bhavan should be allowed to do so. Anyone who wants to go inside the Parliament should be allowed to do so, even if that person is not an MP, MLA or doesn't hold a pass. And those are places owned by the people we are talking about.

Quote

3365

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#29

Originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades
Just to clarify a point, mosques actually allow[s?] women. But the women are made to pray in a corner unlike the men, who takes over the whole mosque. The place where women pray is covered heavily with drapes and all (so that men's eyes do not reach them, lest they commit a sin). (Take it from someone who frequents mosques almost every week).
Reason given is that since visiting/going to the mosque isn't compulsory for the women as it is for the men, women seldom goes to mosques, as such, men are given more spaces unlike women.

Personally, mosques or any other place of worship can be a great way of socialization for people. As such, I feel these things need to be reformed. But can you actually change things that were practiced for over a thousand years?

and for us it has been for N number of years, you know uncountable number of years and still we are constantly changing and updating ourselves. inspite of which we are still called discriminating. so if we can change then y cant others?

Quote

sudesh kumar

@qwertyesque

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#30

Originally posted by: krystal_watz
race and religion is not practically equivalent to being a "member of an Organisation", if im not wrong. Religion, and spirituality are matters of the heart and soul and cannot be drawn parallels with any organized sect or anyhting of similar nature.

No religion and race are equivalent to making groups based on similar characteristics... if you believe in jesus you can be christain.. if you believe in islam u could be muslim.. but however hard you try unless you are born one you cant be a hindu....

the bold line is wrong.. religion spirituality is a community act.. otherwise you wouldnt have religions in first place.,....

if you feel you can have a private view of "your" religion thats fine... but then why would you voice opinions in these matters....when others wont have the same view as yours...😊