India - progressive, secular and advanced compared to Pak???

[Storms]

This message is in response to sameers racist and ridiculous statement in another thread:


india's secularism is a major reason for why it is a way better place to live than pakiland


So, members of the forum… please click and read. Let's see how secular and better India is in comparison to Pakistan

1. Dalits are lynched for Cow Skinning

http://www.web.net/~acjp/attrocity%20one%20linching.htm

2. Missionary Paraded Naked !

http://www.ncccusa.org/news/99news27.html

3. Humans are Sacrificed !

http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501020729-322673,00.html

4. Witches are Burnt

http://edition.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/09/04/witchkillings.ap/

5. Hindu Wives are expected to commit suicide if their husbands die, they call it ‘Sati’

http://www.kamat.com/kalranga/women/sati/index.htm

6.. Hindu priest sacrifices a ‘low cast’ hindu by cutting off his head
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2892333.stm



Not a single person has ever been punished for these crimes

Storms

>>>>>>

[Storms]

AND if all those articles didn't do India justice, check out the following.

1. Pic from Kumbhe Mela, this guys obviously enjoying himself:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:PdXbUSi5cYoJ:66.246.62.176/~amitkulk/pics/kumbh-mela/main.jpg


2. This is a saddhu beggar in the 'advanced secular' India
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:A4atXjxN47kJ:www.asiagrace.com/photos/v/saddhu-beggar.jpg


3. This is worshippers making a dash for the ganges, in the civilised India (and yes they are naked).
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:0ZLk2rxTLR4J:www.asianart.com/exhibitions/dbrown/small/nagarun.jpg

4. Whilst these guys prefer to walk
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:t-W7JLQoZGwJ:news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1105000/images/_1106050_naga_sadhus_300.jpg


Enough already (f you wanna see more do a search in Google for 'India'),

sameer... no need for the racist ridiculous remarks

Peace all,

Storms

[Irreligious Left]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

[Storms]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

[methodman535]

Very provocative collection of snippets there storms. I can see its already got the indians running for their dictionaries in terror! :lol:

[adren@line]

your quite a dumb ass.

You found half-a-dozen or so articles that pointed out isolated incididents that probably took place in backwards villages in a country of 1 Billion people.

Its a fact of a matter that Islam stagnates the growth of a country in our modern era.

Maybe when people were still chucking spears and throwing rocks did Islam have some signficant role in the development of a country, but OBVIOUSLY, it has no place in today's modern, technological society.

Look at Pak. Look at Afghanistan/Bangladesh. Look at the most of the Middle East, and look at Africa.

Its just FACT that India > Pakistan. Theres no point in even comparing. Its like comparing the US to Mexico.

[aliG]

India - progressive, secular and advanced compared to Pak???

hey bud...you have placed cultural practices with the same context as secularism. sure they are crazy and moronic cultural practices there, but as a i pakistani, i know we are a bit behind in our secular department. we need to work on that instead of comparing ourselves with our savant niebours.

[Storms]

Hindu Youngster Marries his own grandmother in india
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040319/i/ra3162455872.jpg

Stuff like this NEVER happens in Pakistan and is widely condemned in Pakistan.

Is this your secular India???

[Irreligious Left]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

[Storms]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

Many countries in the world would like to be secular. India is one of them... but just cos you want to be secular doesn't make you secular.

India calls itself secular, but doesn't practice secularism. In the news Articles none of the hindu priests were charged for their crimes... everything was 'forgotten' about... is the state separated from religion??? I don't think so.

Also, the young lad who married his gran... once again a no no in any of the real secular countries, did the state act against him??? NO!!

8)

Storms

*Secularism doesn't mean a paragraph in your constitution that says you're secular*

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Well said Lefty - whatever happens happens - but on paper India is, and has actively endeavoured to be secular and progressive. And Pakistan is not. And until it renounces the religion which does not allow a separation of religion and state, it never will be.

Until then, women who are raped will continue being tried for adultery.

[Storms]

Well said Lefty - whatever happens happens - but on paper India is, and has actively endeavoured to be secular and progressive. And Pakistan is not. And until it renounces the religion which does not allow a separation of religion and state, it never will be.

Until then, women who are raped will continue being tried for adultery.

You really are a Hindu nutcase.

Have some of this....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1105000/images/_1106050_holymen1_300.jpg

[Hindu_Nutcase]

so what you think I'm embarassed about that or something u pathetic sh1t? I'm glad that people can do what they want in India. They are sages, who identify themselves as not the body. Not exactly my thing, and not yours, but you mussalman ask people not to cringe at Mohammed Hazrat's marriage with a six year old child (Ayesha), so I think you of all people should be able to accept that there are different standards people live by.


There are such things as nudist beaches in European countries.
, and those countries are secular. At least we have freedom of thought and don't have things like blasphemy laws.

thank you!

[Storms]

I'm out, but before I go I'd just like to point out that I've got nothing against India or Hindu's... moreso against sameers racist comments about Pakistan. I thought I'd shed some light.

Oh, would also like to point out that Hindu_Nutter is a babe... (though misguided)

Ciao all.

[Irreligious Left]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

Many countries in the world would like to be secular. India is one of them... but just cos you want to be secular doesn't make you secular.

India calls itself secular, but doesn't practice secularism. In the news Articles none of the hindu priests were charged for their crimes... everything was 'forgotten' about... is the state separated from religion??? I don't think so.

Also, the young lad who married his gran... once again a no non in any of the real secular countries, did the state act against him??? NO!!

8)

Storms

It's not simply a matter of "wanting" to be secular. India is secular because its constitution says it is. Also, India is secular because the state does not endorse any one religion over another nor is there an official state religion. These are both hallmarks of secular government.

You seem to have a much broader conception of secularism, and define it by the actions or inaction of local authorities. Just because Indian police and courts are by in large incompetent and inefficient doesn't make Indian non-secular. Further, this isn't tantamount to a endorsement of a religion. Again, the change would have to be written into the constitution.

Does't the fact the India "wants" to be secular, despite "failing" in several instances, demonstrate a commitment to spirit of secular ideals, if not necessarily to the exact letter of the law?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Lovely Shias at it as always

Reason of posting: to show the idiots that if you wanna get graphic, 2 can play that game. Ha!

http://www.documentography.com/eduardo/pictures/shia/shia_zanj_vert.jpg

[Hindu_Nutcase]

hmmm I wonder what society regularly treats women like this?

http://www.myecities.com/BIN_LADEN_RUN/cover.jpg

[methodman535]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

Many countries in the world would like to be secular. India is one of them... but just cos you want to be secular doesn't make you secular.

India calls itself secular, but doesn't practice secularism. In the news Articles none of the hindu priests were charged for their crimes... everything was 'forgotten' about... is the state separated from religion??? I don't think so.

Also, the young lad who married his gran... once again a no non in any of the real secular countries, did the state act against him??? NO!!

8)

Storms

It's not simply a matter of "wanting" to be secular. India is secular because its constitution says it is. Also, India is secular because the state does not endorse any one religion over another nor is there an official state religion. These are both hallmarks of secular government.

You seem to have a much broader conception of secularism, and define it by the actions or inaction of local authorities. Just because Indian police and courts are by in large incompetent and inefficient doesn't make Indian non-secular. Further, this isn't tantamount to a endorsement of a religion. Again, the change would have to be written into the constitution.

Does't the fact the India "wants" to be secular, despite "failing" in several instances, demonstrate a commitment to spirit of secular ideals, if not necessarily to the exact letter of the law?

OK fine. Then india is secular on paper then correct? Basically thats all that you are saying, as if its the be all and end all of the secularity of a nation state. Step back from that pretty picture and take a look at the ruling Bharat Janata Party. They were involved in mass conversions of muslims back to hinduism after they won, stating that hinduism was the ancestral religion of indian muslims and now that mughal rule is over they should all convert back. Does that sound secular? Does that sound like someone who does not favor one religion over another? Also...look at all the hindutva fanatics on this message board itself. Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion. Doesnt sound all that secular to me. To the casual observer, after considering the previous, it would seem that secularity in India is hanging by a thread when it comes to religion yet all of you indians seem pretty high on yourself when you talk about india being secular "on paper". Anywasy...on with the pissing contest.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

Many countries in the world would like to be secular. India is one of them... but just cos you want to be secular doesn't make you secular.

India calls itself secular, but doesn't practice secularism. In the news Articles none of the hindu priests were charged for their crimes... everything was 'forgotten' about... is the state separated from religion??? I don't think so.

Also, the young lad who married his gran... once again a no non in any of the real secular countries, did the state act against him??? NO!!

8)

Storms

It's not simply a matter of "wanting" to be secular. India is secular because its constitution says it is. Also, India is secular because the state does not endorse any one religion over another nor is there an official state religion. These are both hallmarks of secular government.

You seem to have a much broader conception of secularism, and define it by the actions or inaction of local authorities. Just because Indian police and courts are by in large incompetent and inefficient doesn't make Indian non-secular. Further, this isn't tantamount to a endorsement of a religion. Again, the change would have to be written into the constitution.

Does't the fact the India "wants" to be secular, despite "failing" in several instances, demonstrate a commitment to spirit of secular ideals, if not necessarily to the exact letter of the law?

OK fine. Then india is secular on paper then correct? Basically thats all that you are saying, as if its the be all and end all of the secularity of a nation state. Step back from that pretty picture and take a look at the ruling Bharat Janata Party. They were involved in mass conversions of muslims back to hinduism after they won, stating that hinduism was the ancestral religion of indian muslims and now that mughal rule is over they should all convert back. Does that sound secular? Does that sound like someone who does not favor one religion over another? Also...look at all the hindutva fanatics on this message board itself. Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion. Doesnt sound all that secular to me. To the casual observer, after considering the previous, it would seem that secularity in India is hanging by a thread when it comes to religion yet all of you indians seem pretty high on yourself when you talk about india being secular "on paper". Anywasy...on with the pissing contest.

oh shut up about the BJP, they're pure softies. When did they say Muslims should convert back to Hinduism - they never have. There may be some individuals (just like some individuals connected to the Republicans believe the world should become Christian) - doesn't make the USA not secular u dimwit. The BJP have many Muslim members. Last week 300 Muslims joined their ranks. They're every bit as secular as the Christian democrats.

Seriously get over the fact that India is going somewhere and the Islamic world is not. Thank you.

[Irreligious Left]

Do you even know what "secularism" means?

yes, i do.

Now Will you explain in detail why India isn't secular?
(OR why it is, if that's what you think)

Secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution, therefore it's a secular country. Secularism, moreover, is a specific, official position that a government takes with respect to religion.

The incidents you posted, if anything, make India a fucked-up place. They, however, don't make India non-secular. A change in the constition would be needed for that to happen.

Many countries in the world would like to be secular. India is one of them... but just cos you want to be secular doesn't make you secular.

India calls itself secular, but doesn't practice secularism. In the news Articles none of the hindu priests were charged for their crimes... everything was 'forgotten' about... is the state separated from religion??? I don't think so.

Also, the young lad who married his gran... once again a no non in any of the real secular countries, did the state act against him??? NO!!

8)

Storms

It's not simply a matter of "wanting" to be secular. India is secular because its constitution says it is. Also, India is secular because the state does not endorse any one religion over another nor is there an official state religion. These are both hallmarks of secular government.

You seem to have a much broader conception of secularism, and define it by the actions or inaction of local authorities. Just because Indian police and courts are by in large incompetent and inefficient doesn't make Indian non-secular. Further, this isn't tantamount to a endorsement of a religion. Again, the change would have to be written into the constitution.

Does't the fact the India "wants" to be secular, despite "failing" in several instances, demonstrate a commitment to spirit of secular ideals, if not necessarily to the exact letter of the law?

OK fine. Then india is secular on paper then correct? Basically thats all that you are saying, as if its the be all and end all of the secularity of a nation state. Step back from that pretty picture and take a look at the ruling Bharat Janata Party. They were involved in mass conversions of muslims back to hinduism after they won, stating that hinduism was the ancestral religion of indian muslims and now that mughal rule is over they should all convert back. Does that sound secular? Does that sound like someone who does not favor one religion over another? Also...look at all the hindutva fanatics on this message board itself. Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion. Doesnt sound all that secular to me. To the casual observer, after considering the previous, it would seem that secularity in India is hanging by a thread when it comes to religion yet all of you indians seem pretty high on yourself when you talk about india being secular "on paper". Anywasy...on with the pissing contest.

The Indian government and constitution are greater than one single party in a ruling coalition.

And what's with the last line? Are you somehow above it all? You're down in the muck with the rest of us.

[methodman535]

http://www.ratedesi.com/images/members/19041_thumb.jpg


hot damn :D


and oh, i heart boobies :D

Dont get so hot damned over her. Its probably another DeZi. Most chics here dont give a fuck about politics or history. :lol:

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Methodman...the logic you use really does show you up to be a bitter twisted lemon.

This is something you said:

Also...look at all the hindutva fanatics on this message board itself. Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion.

And you cite this as an example of why India isn't secular. What an utter idiot! In the USA you get the Ku Kluz Klan. That doesn't change the fact that the country IS SECULAR and supports freedom of religion.

Your point is even less valid than calling the USA un-secular because of a few Christian fundamentalists, because the vast majority of posters on this message board are not Indian citizens...so how the hell can what they say have ANY bearing on whether India is secular or not.

Seriously need to sort out your arguments!

[methodman535]

Methodman...the logic you use really does show you up to be a bitter twisted lemon.

This is something you said:

Also...look at all the hindutva fanatics on this message board itself. Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion.

And you cite this as an example of why India isn't secular. What an utter idiot! In the USA you get the Ku Kluz Klan. That doesn't change the fact that the country IS SECULAR and supports freedom of religion.

Your point is even less valid than calling the USA un-secular because of a few Christian fundamentalists, because the vast majority of posters on this message board are not Indian citizens...so how the hell can what they say have ANY bearing on whether India is secular or not.

Seriously need to sort out your arguments!

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!


Now lets take a look at your seemingly bulletproof example of the US not possibly even being close to non secular in actuality whilst being secular in text(constitution). Well prior to 1960 the US had the exact same constitution for around 150 years. Yes...that secular constitution, the same one everyone defends here today. Well, while that document was the law of the land negros were not even granted the right to share public facilities with whites. Do you call that secular? From its creation to today the US has always been secular on paper. And dont bring up frivolous points such as constitutional amendments. Its all about interpretation and actions, not just words!

So if the US can go one way with a secular constitution then india can very easily go the other. So you misquoted me and gifted me an example that actually negates your own argument. :lol: I think the utter idiot is you not I!

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.


Now lets take a look at your seemingly bulletproof example of the US not possibly even being close to non secular in actuality whilst being secular in text(constitution). Well prior to 1960 the US had the exact same constitution for around 150 years. Yes...that secular constitution, the same one everyone defends here today. Well, while that document was the law of the land negros were not even granted the right to share public facilities with whites. Do you call that secular? From its creation to today the US has always been secular on paper. And dont bring up frivolous points such as constitutional amendments. Its all about interpretation and actions, not just words! So if the US can go one way with a secular constitution then india can very easily go the other. So you misquoted me and gifted me an example that actually negates your own theory. I think the utter idiot is you not I!

First of all "secular" and "non-racist" do not have to intertwine. You can't go around endowing secularism with all kinds of virtues. Secularism is separation of religion and state policy. So I think u are getting your issues confused.

Secondly, I was referring to the USA today. The USA today is a democratic, secular country. The fact that there are still religious fundamentalists of all hews residing in the USA and vocal too does not stop the country from being secular. You not being able to argue the point dcide to bring some totally next sh1t into your post, to flood and dilute the argument.

Thirdly - there are islamic missionaries and christian missonaries in India ~(for much longer than Hindu missionary activity) - and nobody ever questioned their activities in the name of secularism. Why does Hindu missionary activity all of a sudden become a mortal sin against secularism.

twat :)

[methodman535]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.



Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist. :roll:

Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

[Irreligious Left]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.



Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist. :roll:

Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

FYI, I'm not Hindu. My moniker pretty much sums up my religious outlook, or lack thereof.

[methodman535]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.



Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist. :roll:

Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

FYI, I'm not Hindu. My moniker pretty much sums up my religious outlook, or lack thereof.

Were your parents hindu? Are you any other religion? Cuz you may very well still be hindu by default and that would still make you hindu at heart.

[Irreligious Left]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.



Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist. :roll:

Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

FYI, I'm not Hindu. My moniker pretty much sums up my religious outlook, or lack thereof.

Were your parents hindu? Are you any other religion? Cuz you may very well still be hindu by default and that would still make you hindu at heart.

Yes, they are, but they're quite non-religious themselves. Religion is a matter of conviction and faith, and I don't have any. I'm more of a secular humanist. I don't follow any religion.

You seem to be conflating religion with ethnicity.

[methodman535]

I didnt cite that as an example of why India isnt secular. I mentioned that to illustrate the differences between a constitution being secular in text, and the actual manifestation of those principles amongst the government and citizenry. You just twisted my words around and claim that I used that as some sort of "logical building block" of my argument when I am just using it as an example of how nasty and racist most of the "secular" hindu indians on this message board are. Good job in trying to bury that observation though I can see you are a crafty nutcase!

Um....being tired of millennia of atrocities perpetrated by Muslims, and seeing the roots of these atrocities firmly within Islamic doctrine doesn't make a person nasty and racist. If most Indians would like Muslims to re-integrate with a broader culture - and I don't think most Indians do - that is not nasty or racist. Such opinions have the right to exist, unless by "secular" you mean that opinions and feelings that arise from the course of world events do not have the right to exist.



Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist. :roll:

Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

FYI, I'm not Hindu. My moniker pretty much sums up my religious outlook, or lack thereof.

Were your parents hindu? Are you any other religion? Cuz you may very well still be hindu by default and that would still make you hindu at heart.

Yes, they are, but they're quite non-religious themselves. Religion is a matter of conviction and faith, and I don't have any. I'm more of a secular humanist. I don't follow any religion.

You seem to be conflating religion with ethnicity.

I am making an association between the political feelings of a religious hindu for example....and the political feelings of an ex-hindu who is now humanist/agnostic/secularist or just plain non religious. No Im not confused about definitions, keep the dictionary closed.

[methodman535]

http://www.ratedesi.com/images/members/19041_thumb.jpg


hot damn :D


and oh, i heart boobies :D

Dont get so hot damned over her. Its probably another DeZi. Most chics here dont give a fuck about politics or history. :lol:


you are right. *her* name is raju, and i dont know much about desi names, but i do know thats obviously a guy's name.

well, i dont care if *she* is another dezi. i said hot damn to the girl in the picture; she's definitely worth a second look :D

This looks funnier now. :yikes:

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist.

Well to begin with - whatever disdain somebody has for Islam - is an opinion that has the right to exist provided they abide by the law. You request that these atrocities should not be considered as being perpetrated by "Muslims". Well sorry we don't all need to stoop to such pathetic levels of political correctness to be considered decent people/citizens. From what I know about Mohammed Hazrat's life, the theoretical basis for most of the atrocities of which I'm talking about can be found there. I will study this further, but everything so far makes me look to Islam as providing the theortetical basis. But how does that make a person Xenophobic. Secularism entails the right to utterly despise a religion or despise religion as a whole. That was its very genesis - the riht to question. Unless you are asking for secularism to mean that we can't critically examine a doctrine?


Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

What a severe exaggeration! There are very few Hindus who totally hate Muslims or who have written so on this website. Of course we are going to get pissed of at STUPID people like AliG who continually posts insulting Hindus and India, but come on - thats fair enough, doesn't make us fascist or hatemongers or anything. You're just applying a stupid standard and making sweeping generalisations.


You are a dimwit who obscures debate. You raise a point, you're proved wrong and you raise another point, you're proved wrong and raise another point ... and so on. Never caring to acknowledge. That is the indication of a bigot.

If you notice - I've made an effirt to answer your points instead of switching to some other exotic accusations - which is your tactic.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

I notice how although this thread is intended to be a vulgar India and Hindu bashing thread, as soon as a Hindu speaks up, the likes of Method Man immediately start making all kinds of accusation to who ever dares speak up for their culture. Its as if people like you think that a Hindu must stay shut up when being abused otherwise they are xenophobic racists. Really makes me sick.

I guess this is your definition of a non-racist Hindu:

1) honours as his own heroes all those invaders and crusaders who demolished his temples, desecrated the images of his Gods and Goddesses, burnt his Shãstras, humiliated his holy men, dishonoured his women, pillaged his property, massacred his countrymen en masse, sold his children into slavery, trampled upon every symbol of his religion and culture, and coerced his co-religionists to swear by an aggressive and intolerant dogma glorified as the Kalima;

2) shows reverence for an ideology which throughout history has consistently led to the above behaviour as the religion of peace and fraternity and liberation

3) pays homage to all those pretenders, scoundrels, and hoodlums which this ideology presents as its sufis, saints and heroes;

4) practises patience and tolerance towards those who vow openly and work ceaselessly to destroy his religion and culture, and to take forcible possession of his homeland; and

5) is always prepared to surrender everything he possesses or cherishes in order to avoid violence and bloodshed.

[methodman535]

Millenia of atrocities perpetrated by "muslims". Right there I see a flaw in your historical perspective. I assume you are speaking of incidents such as the nadir shah quota based mass behedings perhaps. Why blame it on "islam"? Why not on persians, or shiite islam, or middleasterners, or semites, or 'those mongols'. You place the blame of his atrocities centuries ago on the heads of the current desi smokers of that particular opiate of the masses, aka islam, justifying your hatred and then turn around and say it doesnt make a person nasty and racist.

Well to begin with - whatever disdain somebody has for Islam - is an opinion that has the right to exist provided they abide by the law. You request that these atrocities should not be considered as being perpetrated by "Muslims". Well sorry we don't all need to stoop to such pathetic levels of political correctness to be considered decent people/citizens. From what I know about Mohammed Hazrat's life, the theoretical basis for most of the atrocities of which I'm talking about can be found there. I will study this further, but everything so far makes me look to Islam as providing the theortetical basis. But how does that make a person Xenophobic. Secularism entails the right to utterly despise a religion or despise religion as a whole. That was its very genesis - the riht to question. Unless you are asking for secularism to mean that we can't critically examine a doctrine?



Thats what I thought. Lets forget about all the atrocities that brahmin hindus committed against the native indian population. Lets forget about the massacres of millions of indians in the indus valley by the vedic hordes of Indra. Lets forget about the millions slaughtered when Bharata followed up a century later with his Vedic invasion into the Ganges. Lets forget all about Krishna too, we need ignore the fact that the holy hindu book that idolized him is a practical war manual and glorifies war! And you have the audacity to point the finger at the quran and pretend all indians just used to sit on their mats and chant ooooooooooooooooom whenever they felt aggressive and thats why "the muslims" conquered "the hindus"?

The truth of the matter is nutcase, that the atrocious native hindus got their warlike religion overturned by a new invader. Just because someone is conquered doesnt mean that they were hippee flower children. It just means they got their ass kicked because they were not as good at war as the victor.



Anyway back to my original point, which was just a cynical observation about the proud and secular indians who brag about the piece of paper that commits them to secularism. Most of these "secularity touting" hindus seem to be racist and xenophobic hindutva fanatics with a gripe against anything that looks, talks or walks like a muslim. Thats what it seems like on this forum for sure. I think its ironic to see them brag about a written rule that they themselves dont follow in spirit and would like to see destroyed. I dont see any tolerant "secular" hindu indians in this thread at all. Do you understand the irony in my original observation now you nitwit? The secular hindu who bases his hatred of muslims using his own subconscious religious feelings....and then brags about his secular constitution.

What a severe exaggeration! There are very few Hindus who totally hate Muslims or who have written so on this website. Of course we are going to get pissed of at STUPID people like AliG who continually posts insulting Hindus and India, but come on - thats fair enough, doesn't make us fascist or hatemongers or anything. You're just applying a stupid standard and making sweeping generalisations.


You are a dimwit who obscures debate. You raise a point, you're proved wrong and you raise another point, you're proved wrong and raise another point ... and so on. Never caring to acknowledge. That is the indication of a bigot.

If you notice - I've made an effirt to answer your points instead of switching to some other exotic accusations - which is your tactic.

Fine just make a list of all the points that I "lost" and I will either take them up again or give you a cookie for winning an argument. Happy now? Oh yeah....speaking of bigotry dont forget to address the point I made in this post above since you so nobly address all of my points as you say.

[Storms]

This is turning into a hindu v's muslim debate thanks to the Hindu Nutcase.

OK, back to the Pak v's India thing. In my view both are as bad as each other. BUT there are subtle differences.
This is what the Bollywood actress URMILA had to say:
Urmila: "I think Pakistani men are great-looking. Now I know where all the good looking men in the sub-continent are hiding!"

Check out the full article:
http://movies.indiatimes.com/articleshow/352884.cms

Question:
Top 10 Boys and Girls (in the top 50 list on RD) are mostly muslims/pakistani, are Pakistani's just genetically better looking than their 'South Asian' counterparts?

Storms

*Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - is not an argument!!*

[adren@line]

Many of the vocal ones support expelling muslims who dont convert out of islam and they also label islam an alien and western religion

No I do not.

I support a limit to there power.

And many Hindus DO NOT want to take the chance of giving Muslim's power in India due to the fact that they could very well start demanding their own country, and with the large size of the Muslim population, it could very well happen.

You may cry foul, but you know damn well that Muslims in South Asia like living with other Muslims (the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh are prime examples of this).


So its either

1. The Indian Government limits the power but still gaurantees the basic safety and human rights (which hasnt been goin' to well lately).

or.

2. We give the Muslim population equal power within the Indian government with the risk that they will start demanding a seperate state.

[adren@line]

Top 10 Boys and Girls (in the top 50 list on RD) are mostly muslims/pakistani, are Pakistani's just genetically better looking than their 'South Asian' counterparts

Or maybe more muslims are on this site?

[adren@line]

Thats what I thought. Lets forget about all the atrocities that brahmin hindus committed against the native indian population. Lets forget about the massacres of millions of indians in the indus valley by the vedic hordes of Indra. Lets forget about the millions slaughtered when Bharata followed up a century later with his Vedic invasion into the Ganges. Lets forget all about Krishna too, we need ignore the fact that the holy hindu book that idolized him is a practical war manual and glorifies war!

:P

Man... Krishna is a mythological figure. Your acting like there is any proof that he existed. Since when does mythology count as historical fact?

I suppose your going to start bitching about how Oedipus boinked his mother! :P

The "atrociticies" that the Brahmins commited are overplayed majorly. Most of the anti-Brahmin websites are run by , you guessed it, non-Brahmin seperatists (such as Dalit groups) who overplay the significance of Brahmins in Indian history.

Yes, the Brahmins did do some nasty things, but it has been overplayed. You cant accept propaganda from one source and reject it from another.

In fact, overall, Brahmins are one of the poorest groups in India right now.

[Storms]

Man... Krishna is a mythological figure. Your acting like there is any proof that he existed. Since when does mythology count as historical fact?

What?? :shock:

You speak such sense!!
BUT you're a hindu dude... do you realise that 99% of hindu's would condemn you as being a non-hindu for such a statement??

Hindu_Nutcase, can you back me up on this??

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Thats what I thought. Lets forget about all the atrocities that brahmin hindus committed against the native indian population. Lets forget about the massacres of millions of indians in the indus valley by the vedic hordes of Indra. Lets forget about the millions slaughtered when Bharata followed up a century later with his Vedic invasion into the Ganges. Lets forget all about Krishna too, we need ignore the fact that the holy hindu book that idolized him is a practical war manual and glorifies war! And you have the audacity to point the finger at the quran and pretend all indians just used to sit on their mats and chant ooooooooooooooooom whenever they felt aggressive and thats why "the muslims" conquered "the hindus"?

The truth of the matter is nutcase, that the atrocious native hindus got their warlike religion overturned by a new invader. Just because someone is conquered doesnt mean that they were hippee flower children. It just means they got their ass kicked because they were not as good at war as the victor.

Your stuff is based on pure conjecture. You talk about ONE hotly disputed version of events that happened several thousands of years ago and pass them of as undisputable fact. Whereas the Islamic atrocities are documented by contemporary Muslim chroniclers. As for the holy book of the Hindus being a practical war manual - that is ridiculous, and betrays your bitterness at Hindus. Even a cursory reading of the Mahabharata would tell you that there were an untold number of peace attempts before war went ahead. Krishna himself was a peace envoy on numerous occasions.

About brahmin atrocities, the facts should come out on the table. However the facts should be attempted to be reconstructed accurately. Right now there are a lack of solid facts as to what political power the brahmins ever wielded. They appear to have been quite a poor bunch - respected but not wielding significant power.


But in the equations between the communities hierarchy is not clear. If the
brahmins were to be accepted as the highest community then other communities
would have no hesitation in giving their daughters to the brahmins. But in
reality they do not. The Rajputs consider the brahmins to be other-wordly
or plain beggars; the traders consider the brahmins to be impractical; and so
on. In classical Sanskrit plays the fool is always a brahmin. In other words,
each dierent community has internalized a dierent outlook on life but these
outlooks cannot be placed in any hierarchical ordering. The internalized images
of the other must, by its very nature, be a gross simplication and it will never
conform exactly to reality.

Regarding the "massacres of millions of Indians in the Indus Valley" - please I have not heard more child-like stuff. How can you, clearly not a historian, attempt to put numbers to hazy evebts that even progessional historians hesitate to reconstruct. Even the school of historians who believe in an outside origin for Aryans now have changed the story that Aryans migrated rather than invaded, and that there was no war. The oldest most colonial and truly discarded version is that which you quote like an undisputable fact. Man you really are pathetic. You just read history that makes you feel comfortable.

To make an example of how outdated your history is I mention the Sarasvati River - which is the main river hymned in the Vedas - which dried up about 4,000 years ago and has been located by sattelite. Along it numerous settlements have been found - many more than the Indus valley civilisation (which appears as a later development of the Sarasvati). If the Vedas talk about Sarasvati - it indicates they were probably written in India.


Finally - I'm concerned about Islamic atrocities only as much as they affect the present. If they were in the past only then I couldn't truly care less. But come on lets get real - islam has never called of its offensive against Hindus or the world in general, as we see on a regular basis.

Only a naive idiot would not raise there voice.

[adren@line]

Well lets look at it like this:

The majority of Hindus in India are fairly uneducated working-class, (or sub working class people)...

The same thing can be said with people in any developing country, such as Pakistan (with its numerous backwards tribal areas).

These people are entwined with old traditions that beliefs that go back many many centuries (such as the self-mutilation of the Shia Muslims).

They use these stories and practices and such as a basis for their belief and to make the abstract concepts of Hinduism (or the particular brand of Hinduism that is practiced in their area) more understandable.

They also believe in that many of the figures in these stories actually existed, regardless of proof or not.

At the highest levels or philosophical Hinduism, one does not need idols or stories, or any physical point of focus. Most people cannot reach this level (including me...but im trying)...

This isnt to say that every villager Hindu is at a low spiritual level, as some of the HOLIEST sages and sunayyasans can be found and are from villages and remote areas.

[adren@line]

The fact is that Indian History in general is suspect, there are many clashing and unrealiable sources from which people get thier information.

And the Vedas are ONE Hindu book. There are many, many holy books in Hinduism, as it is not a homogenous religion.

Even the school of historians who believe in an outside origin for Aryans now have changed the story that Aryans migrated rather than invaded, and that there was no war

The invasion theory is VERY old and VERY outdated. I cant believe people still believe that crap.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Man... Krishna is a mythological figure. Your acting like there is any proof that he existed. Since when does mythology count as historical fact?

What?? :shock:

You speak such sense!!
BUT you're a hindu dude... do you realise that 99% of hindu's would condemn you as being a non-hindu for such a statement??

Hindu_Nutcase, can you back me up on this??

I believe strongly that Krishna existed. The following is a series of articles as an example of my reasons for that.

http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/navaratnarajaram/sfthkp1.html

Also the Bhagavad Gita is my favorite book, and I believe in the divibity of Krishna.

however - i sincerely believe that to be a Hindu a person can believe whatever they wish, or not believe anything at all. I mean - somebody may not believe in certain things that most Hindus would hold dear - yet would still believe other parts, and still care about Hindus/India as a civilisational entity, which would make them Hindu. Veer Savarkar (the so called founder of Hindu Nationalism) was an example of this. Nobody could classify him as non-Hindu!

[methodman535]

Thats what I thought. Lets forget about all the atrocities that brahmin hindus committed against the native indian population. Lets forget about the massacres of millions of indians in the indus valley by the vedic hordes of Indra. Lets forget about the millions slaughtered when Bharata followed up a century later with his Vedic invasion into the Ganges. Lets forget all about Krishna too, we need ignore the fact that the holy hindu book that idolized him is a practical war manual and glorifies war!

:P

Man... Krishna is a mythological figure. Your acting like there is any proof that he existed. Since when does mythology count as historical fact?



He was probably real just as jesus was also a person although probably not a "god". Anyway you can deny that he was a mass murderer but you cannot deny that the holy hindu scripture devoted to him speaks gloriously of war and victory and conquest and vanquishing one's enemy militarily can you? If you dispute this I am sure I can google up some food for thought.

Anyway you are skirting the point and the point is that nutcase is pointing this finger at islam being a religion of war and genocide while he paints the picture of hindus being members of this peaceful religion where they all sit like flower children and chant mantras peacefully like innocent sheep while the big bad muslim wolves sneak up on them chanting war songs out of the quran. I think thats absolutely ridiculous and I have seen other hindus do it as well and frankly its getting really old.

Im just going to do the exact same thing with the hindu scriptures now, thats the only reason I brought krishna up. Now hindus will also become the big bad wolf in this thread, lets have a change in perspective shall we? :lol:

[Hindu_Nutcase]

This is turning into a hindu v's muslim debate thanks to the Hindu Nutcase.

Actually - its turned into a Hindu - Muslim thing thanks to the idiot who created this stupid thread. You start a thread like this, intending it to be a vulgar Hindu/India bashing session, and when a Hindu argues back it is the Hindus fault, lol!

I guess you too subsribe to the following view of the character of the ideal Hindu:

1) honours as his own heroes all those invaders and crusaders who demolished his temples, desecrated the images of his Gods and Goddesses, burnt his Shãstras, humiliated his holy men, dishonoured his women, pillaged his property, massacred his countrymen en masse, sold his children into slavery, trampled upon every symbol of his religion and culture, and coerced his co-religionists to swear by an aggressive and intolerant dogma glorified as the Kalima;

2) shows reverence for an ideology which throughout history has consistently led to the above behaviour as the religion of peace and fraternity and liberation

3) pays homage to all those pretenders, scoundrels, and hoodlums which this ideology presents as its sufis, saints and heroes;

4) practises patience and tolerance towards those who vow openly and work ceaselessly to destroy his religion and culture, and to take forcible possession of his homeland; and

5) is always prepared to surrender everything he possesses or cherishes in order to avoid violence and bloodshed.
_________________

[Storms]

lets have a change in perspective shall we? :lol:

Agreed.

No one commented on the Urmila thing.

[methodman535]

lets have a change in perspective shall we? :lol:

Agreed.

No one commented on the Urmila thing.

Actually I think adreneline did. He said most of RDers are probably paki and/or muslim as opposed to hindu hence the stats of the top 50.

[Hindu_Nutcase]

He was probably real just as jesus was also a person although probably not a "god". Anyway you can deny that he was a mass murderer but you cannot deny that the holy hindu scripture devoted to him speaks gloriously of war and victory and conquest and vanquishing one's enemy militarily can you? If you dispute this I am sure I can google up some food for thought.

Anyway you are skirting the point and the point is that nutcase is pointing this finger at islam being a religion of war and genocide while he paints the picture of hindus being members of this peaceful religion where they all sit like flower children and chant mantras peacefully like innocent sheep while the big bad muslim wolves sneak up on them chanting war songs out of the quran. I think thats absolutely ridiculous and I have seen other hindus do it as well and frankly its getting really old.

Im just going to do the exact same thing with the hindu scriptures now, thats the only reason I brought krishna up. Now hindus will also become the big bad wolf in this thread, lets have a change in perspective shall we? :lol:


We Hindus do have a martial component in our religion - but not a genocidal one like in Islam. Come on there is no comparison. Islam eveb divides the world into Dar-ul-Islam (land of islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (house of war). That says it all. There are no Hindu concepts that support a constant war on the world.

There is not point when I've claimed that Hindus were peaceful innocent sheep - I challenge you to find a place where I've implied that. I'm just commenting that Hindus have got every reason to be suspicious with Islam - and this STUPID thread was intending on being a vulgar Hindu bashing session to begin with.

If we really look at this thread we'll see who has been playing the victim!

FOOL

[methodman535]

Thats what I thought. Lets forget about all the atrocities that brahmin hindus committed against the native indian population. Lets forget about the massacres of millions of indians in the indus valley by the vedic hordes of Indra. Lets forget about the millions slaughtered when Bharata followed up a century later with his Vedic invasion into the Ganges. Lets forget all about Krishna too, we need ignore the fact that the holy hindu book that idolized him is a practical war manual and glorifies war! And you have the audacity to point the finger at the quran and pretend all indians just used to sit on their mats and chant ooooooooooooooooom whenever they felt aggressive and thats why "the muslims" conquered "the hindus"?

The truth of the matter is nutcase, that the atrocious native hindus got their warlike religion overturned by a new invader. Just because someone is conquered doesnt mean that they were hippee flower children. It just means they got their ass kicked because they were not as good at war as the victor.

Your stuff is based on pure conjecture. You talk about ONE hotly disputed version of events that happened several thousands of years ago and pass them of as undisputable fact. Whereas the Islamic atrocities are documented by contemporary Muslim chroniclers. As for the holy book of the Hindus being a practical war manual - that is ridiculous, and betrays your bitterness at Hindus. Even a cursory reading of the Mahabharata would tell you that there were an untold number of peace attempts before war went ahead. Krishna himself was a peace envoy on numerous occasions.

About brahmin atrocities, the facts should come out on the table. However the facts should be attempted to be reconstructed accurately. Right now there are a lack of solid facts as to what political power the brahmins ever wielded. They appear to have been quite a poor bunch - respected but not wielding significant power.



Lets not get sidetracked too much here. You know full well that the reason I dug up all this dirt on hindu history and religion is to counter you sliming of islam, so dont dispute frivolous inconsistencies. Not that I am religious at all, this is just a broader stab-back in response to your original jab about all followers or associates of islam being conquest minded expansionist soldiers based on the only possible interpretation of the quran and the life of the prophet. :roll:

You are using a very common and annoying trick of hindutva fanatics that paints the picture of the peaceful hindu as the eternal victim of a muslim opressor. I've seen this countless times here and I think is absolute rubbish. And it can be contested easily using modern history or ancient history. You call the quran a book of war but do you deny that the hindu scriptures glorify war? Do they not glorify military victory? Do they not praise warriors repeatedly? Do they not exalt military victors to the position of nobility? How can you be so audacious as to claim that the quran encourages savage military expansionism while hinduism is a total contrast when hindu scriptures prove that to be false? How? :x

[methodman535]

We Hindus do have a martial component in our religion - but not a genocidal one like in Islam. Come on there is no comparison. Islam eveb divides the world into Dar-ul-Islam (land of islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (house of war). That says it all. There are no Hindu concepts that support a constant war on the world.



This is just plain ridiculous. You are actually stating that the quran encourages genocide? Point that out. I dont study the quran but I know rubbish like this must have been debunked many a time. You've turned this into a contest between holy scriptures now which nobody always follows anyway but just for kicks...show me where in the quran you discovered this secret message that all muslims know about where they are supposed to massacre the rest of the world?

Oh and I suppose NOTHING comparable to that would exist in hindu scriptures correct?

[Irreligious Left]

Urmila: "I think Pakistani men are great-looking. Now I know where all the good looking men in the sub-continent are hiding!"

Feel-good flattery perhaps? I don't if you've ever been to a rock concert, but usually the leader singer makes a comment that women in (insert the name of city where the concert is) are the hottest in America/the world/wherever. This "observation" is then repeated in every single venue that the band plays. It's like catnip for local consumption.

Who knows? Maybe she would make the same comment in Nepal, Fiji, the U.S, or wherever else there are subcontinentals. Whatever. Talk about a tangent.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Haha the moment i saw that ID "Hindu_Nutcase" i knew we have another hindutva retard amongst us.

[paulie walnuts]

yeah i guess defending Hinduism makes one a hindutva retard.

what an insult!

[NumbaOneStunna]

Read her/his moronic comments. It proves he/she is a hindutva bastard.

[paulie walnuts]

Read her/his moronic comments. It proves he/she is a hindutva bastard.

I read it, but i dont get the association you people always make between proud Hindus and Hindutva.

It might seem like a cool little quip to make, but it just eats at your (or whoever else) credibility.

Hindutva is a very specific political movement, not a code for Hindus.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Read her/his moronic comments. It proves he/she is a hindutva bastard.

I read it, but i dont get the association you people always make between proud Hindus and Hindutva.

It might seem like a cool little quip to make, but it just eats at your (or whoever else) credibility.
Well read again

[paulie walnuts]

Read her/his moronic comments. It proves he/she is a hindutva bastard.

I read it, but i dont get the association you people always make between proud Hindus and Hindutva.

It might seem like a cool little quip to make, but it just eats at your (or whoever else) credibility.
Well read again

Ok, I read it again. Now what?

You "accused" me of the same thing in another thread. Read it.

As far as this thread is concerned, I have read that hindus were involved in massive campaigns to convert muslims, and I have seen a muslim (of all fucking people) mocking the cultural practices of sadhus and indian villagepeople.

That in itself is reason enough to laugh.

A paraplegic should never make fun of a man with a sprained ankle.

[adren@line]

Anyway you are skirting the point and the point is that nutcase is pointing this finger at islam being a religion of war and genocide while he paints the picture of hindus being members of this peaceful religion where they all sit like flower children and chant mantras peacefully like innocent sheep while the big bad muslim wolves sneak up on them chanting war songs out of the quran. I think thats absolutely ridiculous and I have seen other hindus do it as well and frankly its getting really old

Your comparing Hindu scripture to Muslim practice

Why not compare Hindu practice to Muslim practice in a historical perspective???

Historically, and relative to other cultures, Hindus have been very peacefull people. I am speaking of what is historical fact here, not mythology or outdated Aryan invasion theories.

[adren@line]

btw Hindutva has little to do with the Hindu religion and is moreso a nationalistic movement.

[NumbaOneStunna]

Hindutva is more anti-islam than it is pro-hindu

And paulie if i called you a hindutva bstard then it must hve been for some asinine comment of yours. I am very careful while chosing said title 8)

And yeah even if after reading it twice you still cant find the reason why i called him/her a hindutva bstard then that just shows me how deeply seeped in hindutva ideology you are tht you cant notice it even when it hits you smack in the face.

[methodman535]

Ok if someone can find up with a better derrogative term for "wacked out racist hindu fanatic maniacal zealot" than hindutva is then I will stop wearing out that word....anyone?

[paulie walnuts]

Ok if someone can find up with a better derrogative term for "wacked out racist hindu fanatic maniacal zealot" than hindutva is then I will stop wearing out that word....anyone?

how about a WOHRF (pronounced woarf). you'll just have to do with the omission of "maniacal zealot".

[indian-boy]

Storms you fucking idiot LOL

All you did was post a load of crap. Yes stuff like that does happen in india but it is RARE. Fucked up stuff happens everywhere. You didn't prove anything.

You wont like this but India IS waaaaaay more advanced than pakistan and that is a fact no one can deny. When you first came here I was under the impression that you were reasonably intelligient. Yet this post dismisses that.

I could just have easily posted a few pics of my old pakistani neighbours one of which is married to his own sister and say "stuff like this never happens in india". you're just pissed because you know India has better nightlife, it is more advanced, the literacy rate is higher, it gets more tourists, there is more to do in terms of entertainment and sightseeing, the population groth rate is lower, the percentage of people living in poverty is lower etc etc etc. Post me some REAL facts bitch!


What the fuck is pakistan? no disrespect but I dont hold back and be PC all the time, I'll say whats on my mind. The bottom line is that India is in a different league to pakistan. Pakistan is no where near as advanced/developed as india is and that's a fact. Pakistan was created for south asia's muslims (yes the INVADORS). Make sure you memorize that fact. Pakistan should belong to india anyway. Why the fuck should the indigenous peoples of india give up their land. Hell we already lost pakistan, bangladesh and part of Kashmir.


I'll go into Storms mode now: I know loads of pakis who have married their own sisters and even have kids with them. Thats nasty, stuff like that never happens with indian people.

Now do you realize how stupid you sound?

BTW-India is also one of the fastest growing economies in asia. Bet you're really pissed now huh? we're advancing motherfucker! hahaha

[indian-boy]

And storms,

It is clear you do not know anything about Hindusim. You said 99% of Hindus would commend hindu nutcase for not believing in Krishna. WRONG! As I have said before, you do not have to believe in a single God to be a hindu. Hinduism is many schools of thought. It is a way of life. You stupid fucker. Learn the facts before you talk shit.


If you motherfuckers want to turn this into a Hindu vs Muslim debate then I have just one thing to say. Although I'm not Hindu (I'm Buddhist), I'm always down with my Hindu brothers, we along with sikhs and Jains are the indigenous peoples of india. ISLAM INVADED INDIA. TOOK OUR LAND. How the fuck can you complain. South asia belongs to US. Do you know what muslims have done to Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc in OUR own land?


Storms, If you're ever in the US, give me a shout. Drop by south cali and we can settle this debate. :twisted:

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Read her/his moronic comments. It proves he/she is a hindutva bastard.

Look at this thread. This thread was intended in the first place to indult Hindus and India. A Hindu comes on and argues (quite natural considering the nature of the thread)....and whoa immediately its the Hindu who's guilty of all wrong doing. In the opinion of people like you the only way a Hindu can be non-fascist is by shutting up and never arguing back no matter what insult that is hurled at you.

Seriously...grow up. If you've got a bone 2 pick about this thread - it should be directed towards the moron who started this thread, get it?

[Hindu_Nutcase]

Lets not get sidetracked too much here. You know full well that the reason I dug up all this dirt on hindu history and religion is to counter you sliming of islam, so dont dispute frivolous inconsistencies. Not that I am religious at all, this is just a broader stab-back in response to your original jab about all followers or associates of islam being conquest minded expansionist soldiers based on the only possible interpretation of the quran and the life of the prophet. :roll:

You are using a very common and annoying trick of hindutva fanatics that paints the picture of the peaceful hindu as the eternal victim of a muslim opressor. I've seen this countless times here and I think is absolute rubbish. And it can be contested easily using modern history or ancient history. You call the quran a book of war but do you deny that the hindu scriptures glorify war? Do they not glorify military victory? Do they not praise warriors repeatedly? Do they not exalt military victors to the position of nobility? How can you be so audacious as to claim that the quran encourages savage military expansionism while hinduism is a total contrast when hindu scriptures prove that to be false? How? :x

When in this thread have I painted Hindus as the eternal victims. You're projecting your prejudice about what a Hindu is going to say without even reading what I've wrote. Yes I made references to stuff that Hindus have undergone, but I never exactly dwelled on it. And what is the problem with Hindus having an awareness about the nature of Muslim rule in india? You can't exactly tell Hindus not to talk about it or immediately call them fascist or whatever.

LOOK FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME - Hindus would not care avout Islamic medieval atrocities if it had no bearing on the present. But the creation of Pakistan, the Hindus having to wear yellow armbands in Afghanistan, the Kashmir problem and the general hostility that many (not all) Muslims show towards Hindu religion and culture indicates that there is a continuation of the old hostility against Hindus by many (once again not all) subcontinental Muslims. So a knowledge of the medieval past arms Hindus with an awareness that is helpful in dealing with our present day challenges. Oh sue me if u got a problem with that.

As for miulitary expansionism - we (Hindus) don't have a concept like "Dar-ul-Islam" and "Dar-ul-Harb" which is an exhortation to intense military expansionism. We don't have anything that says you are going to get 72 virgins in heaven for dying in a holy war. The ancient figures of our religion had rules in war (like don't fight an unarmed man, when on a chariot don't fight a foot soldier, don't fight after night and seceral others). You can't compare it to Islamic war doctrine. Mohammed himself had several hundred Jews done to death and EXPELLED two jewsish tribes from medina, not to mention distributed their children and women as booty. I'm just pointing out a simple fact that war brutality preached in islam is of a different nature to that in Hindu classics. Every culture has some degree of martial ideals. That doesn't mean they preach the same thing. Like Sikhism - it is a very war orientated religion - but they preach a chivalrous code (once again unlike Islam - so you can't place them on the same footing just because they both glorify martial ideals).

[Storms]

If you've got a bone 2 pick about this thread - it should be directed towards the moron who started this thread, get it?

easy now, You've made some irrational, illogical and plain nonsensical comments in your posts... In short, you've done the hindu cause no favours. As you can see by the myriads of negative responses you're receiving from every ilk.

I'm at work right now and don't have time to formulate a detailed reply... but rest assured I will do so later.

You really are a Hindu Nutter.

Storms

[Hindu_Nutcase]

If you've got a bone 2 pick about this thread - it should be directed towards the moron who started this thread, get it?

easy now, You've made some irrational, illogical and plain nonsensical comments in your posts... In short, you've done the hindu cause no favours. As you can see by the myriads of negative responses you're receiving from every ilk.

I'm at work right now and don't have time to formulate a detailed reply... but rest assured I will do so later.

You really are a Hindu Nutter.

Storms

I haven't seen any Hindu say anything negative to what I've said - and that's what matters to me. You folk are going to be negative no matter what. Just look at the irrational psychotic response to that thread on "Indian Commandos", even my thread on "Mahabharata", so your negativity is inevitable and does not bother me.

And I repeat - you started of this thread to bash India/Hindus anyway, and then call Hindus names for daring to respond. Just admit you're a twat and it will save us all significant amounts of time.

[Gongha]

lets have a change in perspective shall we? :lol:

Agreed.

No one commented on the Urmila thing.

Actually I think adreneline did. He said most of RDers are probably paki and/or muslim as opposed to hindu hence the stats of the top 50.

Urmila went to pakistan to do some publicity for her film 'Pinjar', which was coincidentally released at that time. It dealt with issues about partition. Its purely a marketing stunt...paki men thinking that she lusts after them....and go watch her movie via dvd's etc. You fell into a rather moronic trap. As far as good looks go....paki men may or may not be good looking, but you are very ordinary in the looks department.

[Storms]

but you are very ordinary in the looks department.

How dare you??
Goddamn you, I said How dare you??
If this were Medievel times I'd slap a glove in your face and challenge you to a duel at dawn.

You should get banned for such inflammatory comments, be glad that many members don't visit 'Serious Discussions' otherwise you'd have every man and his dog on your case for that comment.

Tsk.

Storms

[dr_sinister1001]

Spell check before you post, its Medieval, plus the glove slapping didn't start till the renaissance. Not only that, by the looks of it, you'd get your ass kicked anyways so don't go around challenging people to duels.