brahma

Poppycock. You yourself said in your post that you didnt want the muslims slaughtering cows. What will your common law say about this then? Why should I as a non-Hindu not eat cows? The uppercaste Hindu would be the first to oppose a common law. A common law goes against the corner stone of Hinduism, the Manusmriti, which advocates seperate laws for people based on their birth.

... and you accuse me of being irrelevant? I think an English lesson is in order here. When you say ordinary hindu you are referring not to one Hindu, but the popular opinion of a mass of Hindus. That is what ordinary means in the context that you have used it. I was merely stating that popular mass opinion and the truth are not necessarily the same. About the black creationist being called a nigger... you lost me there.

"See English lesson above for definition of ordinary man". As an individual I do not represent any mass opinion. All the thoughts I express here are my own, not that of a group, not those that are popular. Hence I am not an ordinary man

The US goverment most definitely prosecutes to the full extent any anti-abortion group that bombs clinics. Anyway, what is the arguement here? That the US does not prosecute religious groups that commit crimes, because they most certainly do, or that the BD is not a criminal organisation, because they most certainly are.

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: brahma ]</p>

hinduwoman

If hindus pay taxes for muslims to go to haj, then they can respect hindu sentiments. If there is a common law then obviously everyone should be free to behave as they please.

What is your basis for saying that all uppercaste hindus will oppose a commonlaw because it is against Manusmriti? In hindu community itself all are legally equal and untouchabilioty officially punishable, even though discrimination remains. In other words the damage has already been done. Please do not let your bad experience prejudice you in such a way.

A hindu man thinks it is horrible that a muslim woman can be divorced by three talaqs and not be maintained beyond three months. Just because he is an ordinary devout hindu, is he wrong?

I was comparing the BD with anti-abortion groups because in both cases they are motivated by religion.

brahma

Go read the Manusmriti, you will understand the basis for my statement. The whole premise is division of persons with different laws and standards for each of the divisions. Who says all are legally equal and untouchability is officially punishable? Not the Hindu doctrines. This is stated by the courts and the laws of India, a secular country, not by Hinduism.

Fortunately I have not had many bad experiences, most of the Hindus I know are a tolerant lot. But then I suppose they are not Hindus in the real sense of the word.

hinduwoman

Of course I have read the Manusmriti and other scriptures and I know what they say about divisons of society. But it is uppercaste members of parliament as well, who passed secular laws declaring all men are equals. Many uppercaste members of judiciary, legislature, executive and police and bureaucracy implement these same rules. Those living in the city and towns ignore the rules regading caste, while those in the villages are more conservative, with exceptions in both cases. so how can you say this? Even RSS and VHP declare that they do not believe in caste.

Your friends would have been declared 'not real hindus' only if hinduism was struck on a certain set of scriptures that they were never allowed to discard. Hinduism is simply not like that, it uses and discards scriptures as the need or social situation of the times demand. That is why these books has been edited so many times. Most devout hindus has never read manusamhita because they no longer see its relevance in their lives.