Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I agree with the Hindus for below reason:
“We will not allow a statue of Jesus to be erected at Kapalabetta. They are trying to make it a Christian land just like Pakistan is a Muslim state,” he added.
So we are talking about a statue being erected on private land.
Ah yes, because protesting against the imposing of a religion that's not your own makes you an "extremist". What rubbish.
So are you proposing Hindu statues should not be allowed on private lands in non-Hindu countries?Of course the website - The Christian Post - is biased. And while that single village might be Christian majority, Karnataka itself is 84.2% Hindu.
Hey, do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. Or make baseless accusations of what is or isn't "consistent" of me. Ad Hominem isn't really the greatest way to start a discussion, daniel.So are you proposing Hindu statues should not be allowed on private lands in non-Hindu countries?
If you are you are still calling for the end to pluralism and coexistence with all the downsides of such a call but at least that would be consistent of you
Go on then, what was the relevance of saying the state is 84.2% Hindu if I wasn’t spot on in what I saidHey, do me a favor and don't put words in my mouth. Or make baseless accusations of what is or isn't "consistent" of me. Ad Hominem isn't really the greatest way to start a discussion, daniel.
Actually proposing that the majority get to dictate the religious usage of private land is to - in practice - oppose pluralism and coexistence.The fact that the majority of the state is not Christian, and opposes a 114 foot tall statue of Jesus. Point being that the Hindus are not the extremists in this incident, and rather the article should be titled "Christian Extremists plan to erect imposing statue". What happens in other countries is neither here nor there to this discussion, so your red herring / strawman is absolutely invalid. Nor have my views ever been to oppose pluralism and coexistence, so your ad hominem is baseless and unwarranted.
It's really sad when logical fallacies get thrown out this early in a discussion/debate, yet here we are.
India is hostile to non-HIndu religions. It needs to pick up on the idea of religious freedom as an aspect of modern democracy. This statue is to be on private land. If it were a statue of Khali they would have no problem. 'Nuff said.So we are talking about a statue being erected on private land.
I don’t see the problem.
Firstly, the Archdiocese does not legally own the land. Land Records show that the area in which the statue is proposed to be built is designated as grazing lands owned by the state. The Archdiocese has simply used the land for centuries, but this does not make it theirs.Actually proposing that the majority get to dictate the religious usage of private land is to - in practice - oppose pluralism and coexistence.
You're assuming on my standards, and the divergence of this red herring is irrelevant to the discussion currently. If you'd like to start another thread on the topic, be my guest. But I won't be entertaining it further here.The relevance of what goes on in other countries is to see if you would have your own standards applied consistently even in situations where such standards would go against you.
Uh, no. You said that opposing pluralism and coexistence would be "consistent for me". An odd accusation, as I can't remember the last time we've interacted, and it's been months if not a year since I've been really active on this forum, daniel. So all in all it's a baseless, blindly shot character attack not relevant to any argument I've made. Try again. Or better yet, don't.Ad hominem is a character attack and I have not attacked your character, only what I perceive to be your arguments.
India is hostile to non-HIndu religions. It needs to pick up on the idea of religious freedom as an aspect of modern democracy. This statue is to be on private land. If it were a statue of Khali they would have no problem. 'Nuff said.
I've not met any Indian Jews. But the persecution of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) is well known. Wikipedia has an entire page devoted to the persecution of Christians by Hindus.Your first sentence surprises me, coming from a Jewish person. Haven't you ever met any Indian Jews.?
I've not met any Indian Jews. But the persecution of Muslims by Hindus (and vice versa) is well known.
But it makes them lawful tenants with the right to decorate as they see fit. The owner knew they were allowing a church to be there.Firstly, the Archdiocese does not legally own the land. Land Records show that the area in which the statue is proposed to be built is designated as grazing lands owned by the state. The Archdiocese has simply used the land for centuries, but this does not make it theirs.
Decorating is not building a 114 foot tall statue.But it makes them lawful tenants with the right to decorate as they see fit. The owner knew they were allowing a church to be there.