Temples should allow non-Hindus, agree?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

sudesh kumar

@qwertyesque

Rocker

Posted: 15 years ago

#51

Originally posted by: Golden iron
Wow wow wow....So much for no entry of a foreigner 😆

Well if he went without seeking permission of the trust, then serves him right. It is our sacred place sfterall. We all have temples in our house and still most of us keep it sacred. I remember my grandparenst will not allow outsiders to that area and not even in the kitchen.

Ye sit is private property but to maintain it and to set the rules is the person's responsibility who are maintaining it.

So what if they do it for money only, which profession is not after money ??

how can they maintain the place that is visited y so many people...plus who knows who might come their with what idea.

God is everywhere so why complain. The visitor was not going to pay his respect, he was merely going as a visitor. We have every right to protect the rules set by the goverence body.

I see nothing wrong. The guy was shown way out and not killed as would have been done by some other religion followers.

More over Hindus do not convince anyone to convert them self so do not need any outsiders. Where as other religions they always try to get people to adopt their relion and hence welcome all.

If some one really wants to visit a temple, they can go to any other. There are hundreds of them which allows anyone.

Why go to the one whic protects itself with certain rules?????????????????????????

Let the temple trust decide or people objecting try to become trustee and bring changes :) :)

Unlike mosques.. temple allow everyone.. there is no restricytion.. you just have to observer certain rules.. like not wearing the shoes.. etc....and foreigners do know these things.. it may be some sectrain temple... for eg.. Swaminarayan temple has its own rules.. so and so forth./.....

Quote

479445

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#52

Every religion other than Bahais have sect...

There are sects in Islam which allows women to be in the mosque (huge sects) ... and then similar things exist in other religions.

In the Bible, it can be sited where women were actually forbidden to enter into the church.

So lets not point fingers ...

The situation is that time has changed, and laws need to be reviewed/renewed. Thats all.

Quote

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

461339

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#53

Originally posted by: Ice-Thinker
Every religion other than Bahais have sect...

There are sects in Islam which allows women to be in the mosque (huge sects) ... and then similar things exist in other religions.

In the Bible, it can be sited where women were actually forbidden to enter into the church.

So lets not point fingers ...

The situation is that time has changed, and laws need to be reviewed/renewed. Thats all.

so what do you call this?

http://www.sectsofbahais.com/

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 15 years ago

#54

The only large popular religions I know without sects and truly universal are

Church of FSM
Church of Google

The most unified religion is RTHism though. Only one follower. 😛

Edited by return_to_hades - 15 years ago

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#55

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

#56

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

441597

Suspended

Posted: 15 years ago

#57

Originally posted by: souro

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).

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

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 15 years ago

#58

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

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 15 years ago

#59

Originally posted by: souro
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).

This is new information for me. Do you have any links or references for further reading on this matter? I'd love to read more into it.

Quote

return_to_hades

@return_to_hades

Stunner

+ 6

Posted: 15 years ago

#60

A temple maybe a private institution owned by a trust or organization. But it serves a public interest. The temple offers public services like worship, rituals, spiritual discourses, religious meetings etc. A private institute has rights to have their own rules. However, in democracy these rules stop at racism and discrimination.

For example fancy restaurants can be black tie only, malls can prohibit people for no shoes and no shirts. This is because these are universal laws anyone can follow irrespective of race etc. However, no private restaurant or mall can say no blacks, Asians, Indians, Jews etc.

Similarly I think temples can have fair universal rules. No footwear allowed etc. They can have requests like modest clothing, no meat eaters and other regulations requested that people can universally follow. However, when they say no foreigners, no outsiders that is discrimination.

It is not just temples, many religious institutions have this practice. While there may have been reason in the past, the practice is archaic and old and must be discouraged. It is about time even religious institutions were held accountable for equality and fairness - each and everyone of them.