Aap ka corruption!
- Thread starter derp
- Start date
- Status
derp
Forerunner
Trump isn't one, Kejri is.
To the amount of PRs employed in Presidential campaign , every statement is a calculated move: He'd (Trump) remain Secular throughout the campaign now , but has made his point (& votebank) clear.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/world...harts-at-39/story-UQWWmm6j9oE4O8jG2RyJYI.html
With France ( In general Europe) adopting anti Islamic Policy now (Australia and Canada are very clear from the beginning), things are changing really fast esp. for refugees and immigrants.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html
India seems to be much 'Tolerant' as of now. See even SRK approves it.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/bolly...h-rukh-khan/story-TcX7o5ZYefPqSf4JSXGkxL.html
Trump is an idiot who constantly overrates his own intelligence and brags about it. He is not a clever guy trying to fool people. The people following him just happen to be bigger idiots than him. Make no mistake, such people will always have followers of a similar make. Kejriwal is no different. He is an idiot who self proclaimed himself to be the pinnacle of honestly and his followers are also of the same kind. Kejriwal is living proof that getting educated at an IIT or another premier institute does not imply one is intelligent and that education does not necessary bring intelligence.
Secondly, France is not adopting a anti Islamic policy. They are shutting down places of worship that are involved in radicalization and it doesn't matter which religion they belong to (most of these are unlicensed). They also have entry bans on people belonging to radical churches.
It is a secular country that tries to treat all religions the same. For instance, public display of religious symbolism is not allowed for students enrolled in their schools. If Muslims students cannot wear a burka, Christian students cannot wear a cross either. That is how it should be it. faith is a personal matter and should be kept as private as one's underwear.
Lastly, India is neither tolerant nor secular. It has never been in its long history.
The reactions to opinions of Sharukh or Amir (without even trying to understand what they were trying to say) is prime proof of intolerance. The reaction to an Tennis athlete or an airline that does s not know about Sachin Tendulkar is again a proof of intolerance. What our country has in abundance is population and its power is regularly abused to forcefully shutdown unfavorable opinions. That is what intolerance means.
The word secular means that the countries policies have nothing to do with and remain completely unaffected and unbound by religion or the idiocies that come bundled with it. And here, we have a frigging law to protect the "precious religious sentiments" of the people. Religious appeasement as a means to get political brownie points t is pretty common. We also have extremist outfits of of a majority religion operating out in the open and outfits of a minority religion which expressed similar kind of extremist views banned. A secular country would have banned all of them equally as hindrances to progress.
Secondly, France is not adopting a anti Islamic policy. They are shutting down places of worship that are involved in radicalization and it doesn't matter which religion they belong to (most of these are unlicensed). They also have entry bans on people belonging to radical churches.
It is a secular country that tries to treat all religions the same. For instance, public display of religious symbolism is not allowed for students enrolled in their schools. If Muslims students cannot wear a burka, Christian students cannot wear a cross either. That is how it should be it. faith is a personal matter and should be kept as private as one's underwear.
Lastly, India is neither tolerant nor secular. It has never been in its long history.
The reactions to opinions of Sharukh or Amir (without even trying to understand what they were trying to say) is prime proof of intolerance. The reaction to an Tennis athlete or an airline that does s not know about Sachin Tendulkar is again a proof of intolerance. What our country has in abundance is population and its power is regularly abused to forcefully shutdown unfavorable opinions. That is what intolerance means.
The word secular means that the countries policies have nothing to do with and remain completely unaffected and unbound by religion or the idiocies that come bundled with it. And here, we have a frigging law to protect the "precious religious sentiments" of the people. Religious appeasement as a means to get political brownie points t is pretty common. We also have extremist outfits of of a majority religion operating out in the open and outfits of a minority religion which expressed similar kind of extremist views banned. A secular country would have banned all of them equally as hindrances to progress.
derp
Forerunner
This exactly is the reason why the minorities feel left out, which in turn aids to their radicalization. If you dig deeper, you would find they discriminate against Muslims a lot. Religion gives a sense of belonging to people in times of distress. If that is absent, people tend to associate themselves with radical ideals which would liberate them from the shackles of oppression, apparently. Hence completely banning religion and then deeming yourself to be secular is indeed hypocrisy. This also reflects in the flexibility of their Constitution. They don't just amend it. They throw it out and enact a new one.
Embracing all religions is different from banning them altogether. Rampant bans lead to radicalization in oppressed societies.
^^ That fake sense of belonging is exactly what breeds hatred and turns people to violence towards anybody who they think don't belong to their own idea of what their group is about. Why do Jews and Muslims hate each other even though their belief is in the same god? Same for Christians who believe in the same god. For that matter why do one sect of Muslims hate and kill another. Belief in God may be still necessary for a few, but let it remain a personal thing. Religion is totally unnecessary and so is flaunting your faith in public. Things like religion serve to divide people and breed hatred for one another, not to bring them together.
Also, Embracing all people is different from embracing all religions. What is needed from a free and secular govt and country is embracing people, not religions. The very definition of secular implies disregarding religions.
Embracing religions is like the fake equality that USA had for nearly a century after slavery was abolished in 1860's. For instance, In every train, they had 3 sets of compartments for black, while and colored people. The people can travel only in the compartments designated for them. They called it equality because they are providing space for all of them to travel, but within their own closed up groups. But that is not equality that we understand now. It is letting people mix freely.
You talk about prejudices and discrimination. Where does that come from? From this fake sense of belonging to some group (caste, religion, race, country) which in their own minds is better than any other out there.
When Sati was forcefully abolished by the British, there were rampart protests to stop it from happening and even women were incited to go into the streets and protest. But now, people are doing perfectly fine without that evil. What would have happened if the British had let the practice continue in the spirit of respecting the sentiments of the people?
A secular govt has no reason to accommodate religion. Let people follow their faiths in their own personal lives, they don't need to let people drag those sentiments into schools and other places and start forming sub groups.
Also, Embracing all people is different from embracing all religions. What is needed from a free and secular govt and country is embracing people, not religions. The very definition of secular implies disregarding religions.
Embracing religions is like the fake equality that USA had for nearly a century after slavery was abolished in 1860's. For instance, In every train, they had 3 sets of compartments for black, while and colored people. The people can travel only in the compartments designated for them. They called it equality because they are providing space for all of them to travel, but within their own closed up groups. But that is not equality that we understand now. It is letting people mix freely.
You talk about prejudices and discrimination. Where does that come from? From this fake sense of belonging to some group (caste, religion, race, country) which in their own minds is better than any other out there.
When Sati was forcefully abolished by the British, there were rampart protests to stop it from happening and even women were incited to go into the streets and protest. But now, people are doing perfectly fine without that evil. What would have happened if the British had let the practice continue in the spirit of respecting the sentiments of the people?
A secular govt has no reason to accommodate religion. Let people follow their faiths in their own personal lives, they don't need to let people drag those sentiments into schools and other places and start forming sub groups.
You can't guarantee peace, If you ban religions saying that they're unnecessary, people will find something else to discriminate each other and fight, it may be anything like their matnee idol, football club, android vs iOS anything.
Religions did help a lot in the evolution of mankind ; fear of God was a powerful factor.
Religious marginalization doesn't always lead to radicalism. Did Kashmiri Pandits became terrorists? Hindus are a minority elsewhere, do you hear any terrorist activities from them? Christians in India are a minority, do they indulge in something like that? There's something more and unique to Islam per se.
If, The fact that social media reactions against SRK proves prevalence of Intolerance ; SRK U turn proves that, the others were right in criticizing him & there's no overnight Intolerance . It's a manufactured dissent for Bihar elections. We are a very tolerate society, we're tolerating a juvenile rapist now. Surprisingly no more Award Wapsi now..
I agree with you that we're anything but secular. If you divide a country on the basis of religion one cannot be made secular & other communal. In fact word Secular was included in constitution, later in 1975 not in 1950. Without a uniform civil code, Secularism is a joke or vote bank politics to say the least. This going overboard to appease the minority as part of vote bank politics is irking the majority. Absence of this appeasement by a pro majority party is perceived as Intolerance, which isn't the case per se.
In case of Europe and US ; I'm talking about their unofficial policies. Officially it's a war on terror, unofficially you know what it is. They'll remain secular on paper ; But they'll continue religious profiling. You'll see Visa for certain communities will be hard to come by. Similar to post 9/11. I don't think you're naive enough to to take their claims by face value.
How much blood was spilled in the name of God and religion via Crusades, Jihad and the like in the last 1000 years? During the crusades, soldiers were brainwashed by the representatives of the church that everything they do in the name of god is all good. They held special masses before raiding cities and convinced them into believing that even after destroying the enemy armies, there is nothing wrong in raping women and burning alive children and old folk left behind in the cities and that is has already been forgiven by god.
Fear is a powerful factor, but it is clear that this fear is not leading people towards a rational path. The purpose of religion has always been to control people and make them do irrational things that they won't if they thought and acted for themselves.
The unique thing that you are looking for is that many of them tend to be more obsessed with religion than others. Hindus and Christians and anybody else who are just as obsessed about religion would be just as susceptible to radicalization. As I said before, personal faith is totally different thing than religion. Religion is a group behavior and irrational and stupid things are regularly done in the name of religion.
He expressed an opinion. So what do people do? They do not refute through verbal arguments or by providing evidence as rational people would do. They do not have anything refute, so they gang up to threaten his business by boycotting his movies and spreading hate speech online. Ultimately, he has to go back on his statement out of the threat to his business than anything else. If somebody puts a gun against your family and asks you make a statement that you do not agree with, you will most likely do it to protect your loved ones. But does it make it your opinion? Does it make it the truth? In Amir khan's case, people did not even try to get the context before they started to spread the hate. They went so far as to give negative rating to Snapdeal.
Even leave the matter of Sharukh and Amir aside. I pointed out another case... How was Sharapova treated just because she doesn't know about Tendulkar, a sportsman who played a sport that is exclusive to mostly the British common wealth countries. She got responses ranging from vulgar and abusive to threats of bodily harm. How was British airways responded to to just because they asked for the full name of Tendulkar on twitter. No religion is involved here, but it also comes from a false sense of patriotism that is no less absurd and dangerous than religious fanaticism.
Such irrational things are never done by people who are tolerant and think rationally before they act. So, no, we are not a tolerant society. I do agree that the BJP Govt is not the reason for all intolerance because our country was never tolerant to begin with. At best, we are only tolerating things that we shouldn't and that is not a good thing either.
That is exactly what I said. You cannot have a Hindu law, christian law and Muslim law and call it a secular country.
There is not a single political party so far that has not shown favoritism for political edge. BJP, Congress, AAP are all guilty of it.
You say that discrimination exists and religious profiling happens. But where does it stem from if not for absurd and meaningless sentiments like religion, race, caste, patriotism that people cling to.
There were certain principles in Religion to prevent the animal-istic behavior of Human beings, all religions did a great job ; eg eating human flesh, unnatural sexual practices etc , which couldn't have been universally implemented without the fear of god. Just to say religions just caused violence is unacceptable, it stopped people from fighting with each other ensured an order. It is the personal greed more than religious teachings per se , which lead to Wars & Massacre. They used every tool available to motivate people to fight and religion was one of them. Perhaps in the current scenario it may look unneeded but things weren't that simple earlier, esp before renaissance.
World is not much bothered about any other religious radicalization much at the moment except for one, if you go by percentage of religious fanaticism (say this much percentage will be radically obsessed in any religion) also, you wont see that numbers of radical elements in other religions. There's fundamental flaw in the religious preaching I'm talking about.
If SRK Has a right, How can you deny others the right of expressing their opinions? especially when you express such a controversial opinion in a public domain. With great Power (Fan Following) comes great responsibility (for eg, you cannot be a celebrity and eat in a roadside eatery , you need sacrifice certain liberties).
It was an irresponsible statement to make when you know that, country is clearly divided on partisan lines and opposition is using it to embarrass the Govt. ahead of a state elections.
BTW will one (even 10 for that matter) Flop affect SRKs career or his family's well being at this point ? His Last film was a flop too. I don't Believe Dilwale Flopped because of Social media Outcry. It is one pathetic movie; even if you read the reviews of SRK favouring critics (it is not even equally successful internationally too). SRK is using Social media hatred against his movie to cover for a flawed script etc.
BTW SRK has issued another apology that there's nothing to apologize & I'm sorry , is sheer arrogance. If you have a partisan inclinations; be transparent about it, don't indulge in influencing an electorate in a subtle way. We admire him as a great Actor, we don't admire him for his knowledge on social issues like intolerance etc. BTW how many times he criticized terrorist acts against the country (just to play safe with the sentiments of his Pak fans ) ? I think it was an irresponsible and arrogant statement for which he should have apologized in a unconditional manner.
I'm glad ( that you acknowledged) & completely agree on the fact that there's no inherent worsening of intolerance after BJP govt in the center (This is the fact I'm trying to make when i say no intolerance). But this is what the Media is trying to project & this is the discussion all about.
Coming to Sharapova incident, it'd have been equally worse reactions by respective fans had Sachin tweeted similarly about Sharapova or Beckham etc. That just proves a point that people would have anyway fought even if religions didn't exist; for one discrimination or other.
No debate on Secularism without implementation of Uniform Civil Code; completely agree.
What's wrong with religious profiling (still less unlawful than Spying) to safeguard well being of fellow country men? If you're pushed to wall , you'll have to indulge in certain preventive measures. BTW attacks like Paris & 26/11 are akin to waging a war against a country. No measure will be considered unlawful in a war.
This is the true definition of an irreligious society. Ideally all religious iconography, tokens, talismans, and public demonstrations should be banned and prohibited. This, including the tolling of temple/church bells and/or the call to Azaan. Religion is a concept which should be strictly subscribed to within the confines of ones privacy. The Nordic nations seem to be heading this way, though it is difficult to implement for the masses. Sadly this will be literally impossible for a religious drunk nation like India. Just few days back there was an uproar for bricks being sent to Ayodhya. What the heck is wrong with people. Seriously.
India is a backward 3rd World nation, with ideology residing 1-2 centuries in the past. It is like living in the dark ages. Life is different in the Tier-A cities, move to a small town. And the reality is harsh and bleak. Specially pertinent to religion. Not much can come off this.
Darth Vader
Galvanizer
Your lines reminded me.. Lyrics of this songThere is only one way mankind can be united: War against Aliens.:
We need a common enemy.....
Darth Vader
Galvanizer
lol..never heard of it. But we all knew somewhere in the back of our mind that this is fact. Until that happens, please continue to discuss about Arvind Tragediwal - New age Conman.
psyph3r
Juggernaut
^^ Secularism means that the govt does not have to give any consideration to religion for any reason while making policies. It does not have anything to do with the freedom to practice a faith/religion or with enabling the people to have such freedom.
It will not impose any religious or irreligious policy on the people, but at the same time govt does not need to provide you special considerations or make policies while catering to your religious sentiments.
Such a govt can ban clothing like burka because it makes it difficult to identify the person wearing it and if they are hiding anything and they don't have to give any consideration for the religious/cultural beliefs or traditions of Muslims or any other people who wear similar clothing. They can also ask people to stop flaunting religious symbols in govt run offices and schools. But it still does not mean that people do not have the right to practice their faith/religion. You can do so in your places of worship and your own homes and property. You can take a timeout at work at your own expense to go out and offer prayers. The office or school does not need to provide you with facilities that cater to the needs of your faith.
Freedom of choosing and practicing a religion is a lot like every other right/freedom you have none of which are have limitless applicability. For example, you have right to freedom of speech, but there is a point after which your right ceases to be protected by policy. So basically, all it means is that you can piss in your backyard all you like, but the govt does not need to let you piss in somebody else's backyard just to cater to your sentiments.
You cannot for instance offer a human sacrifice to find hidden treasure and cite your freedom of faith to get out of a criminal case. You cannot beat a non believer to death because the Quran, Torah or Bible (old testament) says so and want the govt to respect your freedom to practice your faith.
Countries like Arab enforce many polices based on Islam, so they are not secular. India is also not secular because either we have separate polices meant to cater to religious sentiments of each major religion and selectively applied or in some cases policies specifically meat to appease the sentiments of the majority religion and imposed on everyone.
It will not impose any religious or irreligious policy on the people, but at the same time govt does not need to provide you special considerations or make policies while catering to your religious sentiments.
Such a govt can ban clothing like burka because it makes it difficult to identify the person wearing it and if they are hiding anything and they don't have to give any consideration for the religious/cultural beliefs or traditions of Muslims or any other people who wear similar clothing. They can also ask people to stop flaunting religious symbols in govt run offices and schools. But it still does not mean that people do not have the right to practice their faith/religion. You can do so in your places of worship and your own homes and property. You can take a timeout at work at your own expense to go out and offer prayers. The office or school does not need to provide you with facilities that cater to the needs of your faith.
Freedom of choosing and practicing a religion is a lot like every other right/freedom you have none of which are have limitless applicability. For example, you have right to freedom of speech, but there is a point after which your right ceases to be protected by policy. So basically, all it means is that you can piss in your backyard all you like, but the govt does not need to let you piss in somebody else's backyard just to cater to your sentiments.
You cannot for instance offer a human sacrifice to find hidden treasure and cite your freedom of faith to get out of a criminal case. You cannot beat a non believer to death because the Quran, Torah or Bible (old testament) says so and want the govt to respect your freedom to practice your faith.
Countries like Arab enforce many polices based on Islam, so they are not secular. India is also not secular because either we have separate polices meant to cater to religious sentiments of each major religion and selectively applied or in some cases policies specifically meat to appease the sentiments of the majority religion and imposed on everyone.
sharktale1212
Herald
And now there is this:
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arvi...en-delhi-cricket-body-case-highlights-1260101
On one hand he keeps up his diatribe of accusing people left and right, something which he has every right to do if he has proof, but then goes on to say "We don't want fights, we want to work in Delhi" and "Don't try and malign us. It will not scare me".
http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/arvi...en-delhi-cricket-body-case-highlights-1260101
On one hand he keeps up his diatribe of accusing people left and right, something which he has every right to do if he has proof, but then goes on to say "We don't want fights, we want to work in Delhi" and "Don't try and malign us. It will not scare me".
- Status