Is a higher birthrate the solution?

First Previous

Page

Next Last

Frequent Posters

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#71

Originally posted by: charminggenie

Perhaps England might be a good case - it recognizes Church of England as the established religious institution, with equality and tolerance for other religions.

In absolute terms they cannot co-exist together, there has to be some dilution, loop hope to balance the equation for a stable democracy.

Thanks for bringing up UK. I never understood those Brits. State religion on one hand, freedom of religion on the other. Prime-minister on one hand, monarchy on the other.

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#72

Originally posted by: Gubbara.
oh boy! Bazigar, here too? lol
Just found out about this section after following one of my posts from the thread that got moved here.

Anyway, this guy bazigar...a self proclaimed uppercast brahmin hindu is a hardcore hindutva hater. No matter what the topic at hand is, he will bring RSS, VHP and all into the discussion and will go as far as comparing them with ISIS. However, i am yet to figure out what he thinks about ISIS and their ideology😆

Maybe according to him they are freedom fighters, protecting their land/religion/culture etc... just like how i view RSS guys as.lol

Be that as it may be, let us not engage in discussing the antecedents of a member because it matters not; instead it's better to concentrate only on refuting his points or that of any other member with whom one disagrees.

Edited by souro - 10 years ago

Quote

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

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#73

Originally posted by: souro

It's in the interest of those who want the country to be what it currently is - to protect the constitution, and it's in the interest of those who want to make the country what they want it to be - to break the status quo and change the constitution. Who will win when, we don't know. And depending on which side we view it from, both are right and both are wrong. I prefer to view it from the side that I feel best suits my interest and my idea of what India should be.

I don't see an advantage to officially endorsing a religion as opposed to letting the citizens choose.

What is the big idea?

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#74

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I don't see an advantage to officially endorsing a religion as opposed to letting the citizens choose.

What is the big idea?

The idea here is more or less similar to the idea of having different nations. Most of the times a separate nation is formed because the people staying in that part of the earth want a piece of land that they can call theirs and theirs only and can have a system in place that suits their interest, language, culture, religion, etc. It's in the interest of the Hindus in India to have a piece of land that they can claim to be their own (and nobody else's) and where they can have a system in place that best suits their interest and their languages, culture, religion, lifestyle, etc. Of course others may be allowed to stay there, just like a person of one nationality can stay in another nation, but won't have any rights on the country, and therefore can't partake in deciding which direction the country should go.

Quote

Gubbara.

@Gubbara.

Inactive

Posted: 10 years ago

#75

Anyways, on topic...I would say yes to the question that TM has raised.

If hindus become minority, they will have no where to go. Nepal isnt big enough. So my advice to hindu men in that case would be to kill your kids and women before you get your balls n head chopped off by islamic state fundamentalists. You know what happens to them, right?

btw, any of you have supported #25YearsofKPExile today? If not then please do. There wont be anyone left to make such hashtags when your turn comes in the near future.

Edited by Gubbara. - 10 years ago

Quote

Gubbara.

@Gubbara.

Inactive

Posted: 10 years ago

#76

Originally posted by: souro

Be that as it may be, let us not engage in discussing the antecedents of a member because it matters not; instead it's better to concentrate only on refuting his points or that of any other member with whom one disagrees.

Ok m outta here. you guys can carry on...

Quote

souro

@souro

Alumni

+ 2

Posted: 10 years ago

#77

Originally posted by: Gubbara.
Nepal isnt big enough.

Nepal also has ceased to be a Hindu kingdom and went the secular way in 2006. Although some in that country are demanding that it be made a Hindu nation again, however, whether it will happen or not is anybody's guess at present.

Edited by souro - 10 years ago

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#78

Originally posted by: souro

The idea here is more or less similar to the idea of having different nations. Most of the times a separate nation is formed because the people staying in that part of the earth want a piece of land that they can call theirs and theirs only and can have a system in place that suits their interest, language, culture, religion, etc. It's in the interest of the Hindus in India to have a piece of land that they can claim to be their own (and nobody else's) and where they can have a system in place that best suits their interest and their languages, culture, religion, lifestyle, etc. Of course others may be allowed to stay there, just like a person of one nationality can stay in another nation, but won't have any rights on the country, and therefore can't partake in deciding which direction the country should go.

Oh, boy! I don't even know where to begin.

I will come back to this, of course, when I have more time but first things first: in your New India, what will happen to those currently in India who are not Hindus but who can " partake in deciding which direction the country should go"? And who are Hindus? Adherents of Hinduism? But there's no commonly agreed set of teachings for these guys so what text will govern the whole of the country? What if a Shaivite doesn't agree with a Vaishnavite's version of who Hindus should pray to? Who will go where then?

Again, I have a gazillion questions and I don't know where to begin. Are you sure you thought this through?

Quote

@K.Universe.

Voyager

Posted: 10 years ago

#79

Souro, my previous questions were not answered to my satisfaction so I will bring them up again.

What would you do with the current set of Indian citizens who do not belong to indigenous religions of India? How would you relegate them to a second-class status without bloodshed?

If those people who belong to indigenous religions of India want, in your own words, a "a piece of land that they can call theirs and theirs only and can have a system in place that suits their interest" depending upon who they worship, how would you resolve that? In other words, how do you plan to keep them under one nation, without further segregation and secession?