Govt supports prosecution of Subramanian Swamy for promoting hatred between Hindus, Muslims

[darksider]

Swami is sneaky. Others - not so much. I think he is planning to go on a direct assault on some pillars of Islam.

He cannot do anything to pillars of Islam. Many tried get buried in darkness of history.no one even remember their name now.
But yeah you guys good with lynching so keep lynching helpless Muslims.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

He cannot do anything to pillars of Islam. Many tried get buried in darkness of history.no one even remember their name now.
But yeah you guys good with lynching so keep lynching helpless Muslims.

They tried with the sword in a time when Islam was a winning force. Now Islam has been on the decline for 300 years. Besides he will not affect Pakistan. What's your issue?

 

[TopCat]

They tried with the sword in a time when Islam was a winning force. Now Islam has been on the decline for 300 years. Besides he will not affect Pakistan. What's your issue?

Islam was never in decline as a faith.....

 

[darksider]

They tried with the sword in a time when Islam was a winning force. Now Islam has been on the decline for 300 years. Besides he will not affect Pakistan. What's your issue?

you use word Islam which not limited to india only.
instead should say he will gather mob and will lynch indan Muslims then i will have no issue.

 

[rubyjackass]

LOL...why should the ban not be there in the Uniform civil code ? ........ that is completely illogical.

Duh!! Because the code has to be uniform and still protect freedoms already enjoyed by others.

....that is blatantly dishonest.

1. Hinduism does not have blasphemy.
Blasphemy = the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

OK let us say blasphemy is explicit offense to Gods or sacred things and just not violation of religious rules. So beef consumption is blasphemy, is it not? Why else is it punishable by death?

2. Same Gotra marriage is considered incest in many Hindu societies and hence the killing is the LAST resort to preventing incest in society and weakening the social gene pool.

It is rather obvious that it has nothing to do with "blasphemy". Again a dishonest and convoluted lie designed to play equal euqal.

See the highlighted word. The tabooness came from religion. That is the logic behind it being banned in a religion's personal law. Otherwise show me any section in IPC against incest explicitly.
Please don't quake about dishonesty and designed lies. If you do not like this example there are plenty others.

But don't lie saying there is no such thing as blasphemy in Hinduism. Lesser sins may be ignored as not blasphemy but there are hundreds of stories which say how so-and-so had sinned by insulting so and so God and receiving curses for that. The word blasphemy may be foreign but there are parallels in Hinduism.

3. Hindu is supposed to PROTECT the Cow. Preferable without killing the Killer. However killing in the DEFENCE of any other valuable life form is the last resort and is permitted. EVEN under Indian LAW.

Please quote the law where it says it is ok to kill a person in defence of any animal.

You are the dishonest one here trying to pitch cow protection as religious duty, conveniently but unsuccessfully trying to skirt the definition of blasphemy. Show me a holy text where it asks to kill all cow killers, and BTW be prepared to follow all the rules of the same text.

4. Most bans in India are Social bans, not legal. Socials and cultural bans is far more effective and powerful than legal ban. Especially since our judicial system is almost non existent.

There is no such thing as social ban. There should be simply social isolation of people who do things against basic norms of society. Unfortunately that is not happening in India. Otherwise there wouldn't be corruption or need for corruption laws. That is why Yogi Adityanath/Owaisi get MP seats and media coverage. Those are the real hate speech people. Instead harmless books like Lajja get banned here under the definition of hate speech which is meant to contain the above people.

RUBBISH !!!

Sadhvi Pagya saying SRK should be kicked into pakistan IS NOT HATE SPEECH. That is her OPINION and She is ENTITLED to her Opinion.

Kicking someone into Pakistan these days sounds like a harmless joke. Otherwise it is hate speech. I chose a bad example 'kicking into Pakistan'.

Any of you guys on Twitter?

Is there a guy called Susu Swami there.

Apparently a pretty famous parody ID that takes on Subramaniam Swami.

I am on twitter. But I don't follow Susu Swami. Swamy is generally a favourite target for mocking though.

 

[Guynextdoor2]

Expected. Once he truned Anti-Modi and began to attack him after being denied minister position, this was just a matter of time.

 

[rubyjackass]

It is a taboo, not blasphemous.

Take Muslim personal laws for example, it expects you to adhere to Shariah, not following Shariah doesn't make you a blasphemer.

But OK, let us call it simply a sin then. Not blasphemy because it doesn't insult God directly.

Shariah is supposed to be a law book with punishments for sins including blasphemy. Shariah can brand you a blasphemer. Muslim personal law cannot; because it follows our constitution and only follows Shariah for marriage and succession.

 

[raktaka]

Duh!! Because the code has to be uniform and still protect freedoms already enjoyed by others.

Duh...that would mean muslims will continue to enjoy the freedom to have 4 wives ?

UCC grants some feedom, takes away others.

OK let us say blasphemy is explicit offense to Gods or sacred things and just not violation of religious rules. So beef consumption is blasphemy, is it not? Why else is it punishable by death?

Wrong. Hinduism do not condone capital punishment except in wars.

Under certain circumstances (those in which death has resulted or was likely to result.) murders can be killed but the jurisprudence is always with the king, not with the Brahmins because the scriptures do not allow for killing. The reglion or Dharma itself preach Non Violence.

Beef consumption has NOTHING to do with "god". Cow is not GOD.

Hinduism asks people to avoid killing ANY creature to consume its flesh as it bad karma and against Dharma. IF you kill and eat any flesh then you partake in "sin" and you will pay for it eventually. There is no escaping that. The less sin you do, the better it is.

See the highlighted word. The tabooness came from religion. That is the logic behind it being banned in a religion's personal law. Otherwise show me any section in IPC against incest explicitly.
Please don't quake about dishonesty and designed lies. If you do not like this example there are plenty others.

Rubbish. The taboo comes from social practice. The Hindu scriptures make no specific mention of incest or against it since Hinduism does not tell people what to do or how to behave.

Nothing is "banned" in Hinduism, you only pay the price what whatever it is that you choose to do.

Here is the LAW: Marriage between 1st cousins illegal, says HC - The Times of India

But don't lie saying there is no such thing as blasphemy in Hinduism. Lesser sins may be ignored as not blasphemy but there are hundreds of stories which say how so-and-so had sinned by insulting so and so God and receiving curses for that. The word blasphemy may be foreign but there are parallels in Hinduism.

LOL.... people get cursed by gods. Not killed by people

Your own example proves there is no blasphemy in Hinduism.

Please quote the law where it says it is ok to kill a person in defence of any animal.


You are the dishonest one here trying to pitch cow protection as religious duty, conveniently but unsuccessfully trying to skirt the definition of blasphemy. Show me a holy text where it asks to kill all cow killers, and BTW be prepared to follow all the rules of the same text.

Are you talking about Hindu Dharma or Indian Law ? both are different.

Cow protection is a Hindus Dharma, it has nothing to do with blasphemy. The texts ask people to PROTECT the cow not kill others .......what did I ever say otherwise ? Do you know how to read english ?

The act of Protection can be a violent action. Death can result.

There is no such thing as social ban. There should be simply social isolation of people who do things against basic norms of society. Unfortunately that is not happening in India. Otherwise there wouldn't be corruption or need for corruption laws. That is why Yogi Adityanath/Owaisi get MP seats and media coverage. Those are the real hate speech people. Instead harmless books like Lajja get banned here under the definition of hate speech which is meant to contain the above people.

More Rubbish. Inter - Caste marriages do not happen due to social ban. Inter linguistice marriages do not happen due to social ban. Same for inter-race marriages.

Hinduism encourages people to question things and debate issues so in a Hindu society there can be no isolation of people who say things against basic norms.

Doing things can make you unpopular and certain social ostracism. Speaking up for or against it is not hate speech. That is freedom of opinion and freedom to express that opinion.

If lajja get banned, under the same logic, Media should be banned. Not the people who say things. The Author of lajja is not banned.

Kicking someone into Pakistan these days sounds like a harmless joke. Otherwise it is hate speech. I chose a bad example 'kicking into Pakistan'.

I agree its a bad example. Make a better one and we can debate that.