Question To Indians Who Want Uniform Civil Code - How Do You MORALLY Justify Beef Ban?

[sensible-indian-fan]

I know a ton of Indians want uniform civil code and get rid of the religious nonsense in our country.

So how do you MORALLY justify supporting Beef Ban?

Sure you may say Muslims get concessions so Hindus must too. Well that is logical but you keep saying you want to sort all religious stuff.

If that's the case, then why do you support an act that will muddle the stuff up more?

Reg beef ban - I don't get your logic at all.

That religious sentiment argument is fine if you don't want uniform civil code and stuff. But if you want it...how can you use the same argument for supporting something when you are opposing the argument ELSEWHERE?

I am talking about the moral aspect here. Don't bring constitution technicality.

Small note: Guys who want to turn this into an Indo-Pak fight can BUGGER OFF. Others (whoever it may be)...please respond.

 

[Ottoman]

& they call themselves Secular?

 

[Robbie]

First I am not in support of Beef ban.. in an ideal situation it shouldn't be a discussion. This is another kind of bull.. which religion brings.

But..

Suppose there exists a perfect secular society.. i.e. respects every religion and is mindful of all the things that offends each and every religion, ..will it ban books by authors such as Salman Rushdie and tasleema nasreen?..yes, cause it hurts Muslim sentiments.. should it happen? No..
Will the society ban pictures or cartoon that offends a religion ..yes..should it happen?? No..
Will the society ban cow slaughter that offends a religion? Yes.. should it happen?? No..

We should just curse our society that thrives to be secular instead of atheism. That's the issue

 

[desi_launda]

& they call themselves Secular?

Yes India is not secular.Certain sections of society enjoy undue benefits

 

[90MPH]

Yes India is not secular.Certain sections of society enjoy undue benefits

Spit it out Mr diplomat.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Beef Ban is a small

 

[Ottoman]

Yes India is not secular.Certain sections of society enjoy undue benefits

Then why u portray yourself as a biggest secular Nation on earth. Why my friend, when you can't even protect & provide basic necessity food to minorities.

 

[hafeezrocks]

Beef Ban is a small issue . India's secularism became a joke the moment Modi went on to become the country's PM . India had an ideal chance to solidify its Secularism by punishing Modi which could have given a message to everyone that no single person is above the Land of the Law and its Secular Principles . However that did not happen due to either corrupt or incompetent Indian judiciary and Modi escaped scot-free .

I personally support Secularism in Pakistan but not the Indian version of Secularism where a Mass Murderer can get away with punishment just because he belongs to the majority community.

 

[Robbie]

And I dont understand these religious fanatics..

Why these Hindu groups don't show the same empathy to these cows when they live in the worst conditions, roam around the city roads blocking everything, they also have to eat from the city dumps.. why don't they take care of them why don't they install cow shelter in every city if they are so concerned about them? And to rub salt in their wounds doubt they know india exports cows in one form or another?

And why these Muslim groups have a problem in that? It's not as if Quran has ordered them to eat beef otherwise they would burn in hell instead of having fun with the hoors. There are lots of goats, chicken, fish, ducks, turkeys in the world to feast. And these are healthier options to beef. Out of all people in the world I thought Muslims will be least interested in this. Cause I have seen more Christians eat beef than a average Muslim. And guess what no Christian group has raised any voice

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Then why u portray yourself as a biggest secular Nation on earth. Why my friend, when you can't even protect & provide basic necessity food to minorities.

The same minorities gets a lot of extra benefits too (separate marriage acts and stuff) bro.

India is secular but reg this issue its been a mess.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Our form of secularism is to appease everyone.

But then that's not the point of this thread.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

And the same question to Pakistanis too.

As a secular nation,

India shouldn't have been beef ban and stuff. Same way you all support uniform civil code too right (in India considering we are called secular)?

Let the debate begin.

 

[Ottoman]

The same minorities gets a lot of extra benefits too (separate marriage acts and stuff) bro.

India is secular but reg this issue its been a mess.

Its their right bro, do you think a Hindu wedding according to Islamic laws is a possibility here.
Every where in the world marriage acts are according to the customs and laws of the minorities but the Governments make rules to regulate or register them so that no confusion should arrive.

There are so many issues where Indian's have preferred Hinduism.

 

[Robbie]

The same minorities gets a lot of extra benefits too (separate marriage acts and stuff) bro.

India is secular but reg this issue its been a mess.

Why do you think India's narrative as a secular country is contradicted by the beef ban?? I wanna know which religion's sentiments are hurt by this ban. I don't think this ban insults Quran. Does it?

 

[par]

I don't support uniform civil code.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Why do you think India's narrative as a secular country is contradicted by the beef ban?? I wanna know which religion's sentiments are hurt by this ban. I don't think this ban insults Quran. Does it?

Any decision that is taken based on faith goes against secularism.

Its not about whether a community will get offended or not.

Its their right bro, do you think a Hindu wedding according to Islamic laws is a possibility here.
Every where in the world marriage acts are according to the customs and laws of the minorities but the Governments make rules to regulate or register them so that no confusion should arrive.

There are so many issues where Indian's have preferred Hinduism.

Which western country has different religion based laws for marriage, property sharing and all that stuf?

Hindus can have only 1 legal wife.

Muslims can have more.

Its their right (in the context of a secular society)?

That was just an example.

Why should a secular society discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion? That's the EXACT opposite of secularism.

If you are supporting secularism, you should support uniform civil code and remove influence of religion in all walks from the country and make the laws the same for all citizens.

That's true secularism.

 

[CricketCartoons]

I don't support uniform civil code.

Uniform Civil Code is actually Hindu Civil Code in disguise. Imposing rules acceptable to Hindus over other minorities.

 

[Ottoman]

Any decision that is taken based on faith goes against secularism.

Its not about whether a community will get offended or not.



Which western country has different religion based laws for marriage, property sharing and all that stuf?

Hindus can have only 1 legal wife.

Muslims can have more.

Its their right (in the context of a secular society)?

That was just an example.

Why should a secular society discriminate between citizens on the basis of religion? That's the EXACT opposite of secularism.

If you are supporting secularism, you should support uniform civil code and remove influence of religion in all walks from the country and make the laws the same for all citizens.

That's true secularism.

You should check the definition of 'secularism'

In a secular country, it is the duty of the state to provide such an environment so that no religion holds upper hand in the society & every citizen is free to practice his own faith and religion.

Laws & Statues are basically made to avoid fights among the people & with state. All these Marriage & Inheritance laws are based on the religion of the person aggrieved so no Government can impose other laws on such people.

 

[endymion248]

First I am not in support of Beef ban.. in an ideal situation it shouldn't be a discussion. This is another kind of bull.. which religion brings.

But..

Suppose there exists a perfect secular society.. i.e. respects every religion and is mindful of all the things that offends each and every religion, ..will it ban books by authors such as Salman Rushdie and tasleema nasreen?..yes, cause it hurts Muslim sentiments.. should it happen? No..
Will the society ban pictures or cartoon that offends a religion ..yes..should it happen?? No..
Will the society ban cow slaughter that offends a religion? Yes.. should it happen?? No..

We should just curse our society that thrives to be secular instead of atheism. That's the issue

It's funny to see how eager supporters of the beef ban are to equate it with caricatures. Eating beef has nothing to do with Hindus, billions of people do it and many have never heard of hinduism. The finality of caricatures is muslims. A secular society can and will ban hate speech since there is no such thing as ''the right to offend''. A secular society will not impose the belief of the few to police behaviours that have nothing to do with them. A caricature is 100% about muslims, eating beef is 0% about hindus.

 

[CricketCartoons]

All this talk of Uniform Civil Code is actually to mock the Muslims, who are accused of being backward and reactionary and not progressive like the Hindus who want Uniform Civil Code. There is a reason that BJP and Shiv Sena are the biggest champions of Uniform Civil Code.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

You should check the definition of 'secularism'

In a secular country, it is the duty of the state to provide such an environment so that no religion holds upper hand in the society & every citizen is free to practice his own faith and religion.

Laws & Statues are basically made to avoid fights among the people & with state. All these Marriage & Inheritance laws are based on the religion of the person aggrieved so no Government can impose other laws on such people.

Secularism is the separation of religion from state.

So what laws do western nations follow?

Do they have separate laws for different religions?

Appeasement secularism (which is understandable) isn't true secularism.

Hindus can't talk true secularism while supporting beef ban.
And Muslims can't talk about true secularism while not supporting uniform civil code and stuff.

 

[WC-Passion]

Honestly the beef ban isn't as big of a problem as people make it out to be.

 

[enkidu_]

First I am not in support of Beef ban.. in an ideal situation it shouldn't be a discussion. This is another kind of bull.. which religion brings.

But..

Suppose there exists a perfect secular society.. i.e. respects every religion and is mindful of all the things that offends each and every religion, ..will it ban books by authors such as Salman Rushdie and tasleema nasreen?..yes, cause it hurts Muslim sentiments.. should it happen? No..
Will the society ban pictures or cartoon that offends a religion ..yes..should it happen?? No..
Will the society ban cow slaughter that offends a religion? Yes.. should it happen?? No..

We should just curse our society that thrives to be secular instead of atheism. That's the issue

Drawing offensive cartoons of religious figures is not a ritualistic imperative in any religion AFAIK, while cow sacrifice has been a religiously-motivated traditional exercise of Muslims from all around the world since aeons.

A better comparison wouldn't be banning controversial caricatures, but, let's say, if Muslims ask for banning Hindu idols or Christian cross because they find it "offensive to their religious sensibility".

 

[Garuda]

There should not be any ban based on religion sentiment. Period.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CricketCartoons]

Ban-ana Republic

 

[PCP_1]

SIF, dude stop using "and stuff' in every argument. It portrays you presenting your point of view in a very unarticulate manner and is frankly quite annoying to read.

Thanks and stuff.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

SIF, dude stop using "and stuff' in every argument. It portrays you presenting your point of view in a very unarticulate manner and is frankly quite annoying to read.

Thanks and stuff.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Ok

 

[Yatoo]

It's funny to see how eager supporters of the beef ban are to equate it with caricatures. Eating beef has nothing to do with Hindus, billions of people do it and many have never heard of hinduism. The finality of caricatures is muslims. A secular society can and will ban hate speech since there is no such thing as ''the right to offend''. A secular society will not impose the belief of the few to police behaviours that have nothing to do with them. A caricature is 100% about muslims, eating beef is 0% about hindus.

+1

 

[endymion248]

SIF, dude stop using "and stuff' in every argument. It portrays you presenting your point of view in a very unarticulate manner and is frankly quite annoying to read.

Thanks and stuff.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

SIF will make you stuff your advice where nobody will ever find it.

 

[Stallion__]

One thing with regards to countries practicing secularism (not talking about India in particular), is that they don't allow polygamy because they think that it will lead to violation of human rights of your spouse.

But at the same time, there is no regulation of extra-martial or illegal relationships which by same principle are violation to the same human rights.

Most of the Muslims, even in India won't be effected with single marriage act, since multiple marriages although are allowed in Islam, they are not encouraged or binding on the followers to do so. Specially in this age, when even majority of Muslims prefer to have a single wife.

But then again, if you want to have multiple relationships, its better to have it in a legal way rather than illegal one. So even one marriage act don't sound like a best solution.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Well I like him as a poster and wanted to give him some constructive criticism.

Didn't know his fan girls would get so offended.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Don't think endymion is my fangirl. So I am not sure what he means with his comment.

Your advice is well taken. I was shocked at how many times I used it here. I then went in checked all my work related pieces to see if I have been making this mistake all these years. Thankfully I didn't find any instance except one small case.

Phew.

Thought I had a Robin Scherbatsky moment (but ummm).

 

[PCP_1]

But then again, if you want to have multiple relationships, its better to have it in a legal way rather than illegal one. So even one marriage act don't sound like a best solution.

So you're saying it's OK to have multiple partners if you have the approval of the government and/or religion?

No one should decide that other than you and the person/s involved.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[PCP_1]

I am like the biggest fan of [MENTION=76058]cricketjoshila[/MENTION] and pointed out that he should use a space after his periods, don't think it worked.

Try telling him that it is something all Pakistanis do. That should resolve the matter.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Stallion__]

So you're saying it's OK to have multiple partners if you have the approval of the government and/or religion?

Not at all.

I am saying that legally restricting someone from having more than one marriages is not the solution to the problem.

No one should decide that other than you and the person/s involved.

To me something on similar lines seems more appropriate.

The decision of remarrying should be taken with consent of all parties involved including already wed spouse of the person.

 

[PCP_1]

Not at all.

I am saying that legally restricting someone from having more than one marriages is not the solution to the problem.




To me something on similar lines seems more appropriate.

The decision of remarrying should be taken with consent of all parties involved including already wed spouse of the person.

Yes, although they also shouldnt have to marry or remarry just to have the approval and blessing of government and religion. They shouldn't have an official seal of any kind. They should expect able to just live together and work it out themselves.

If they choose to do so or otherwise is another matter.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[Lurker_Ind]

There should be uniform civil code. May be India can borrow it from US or UK.

India should let everyone eat and follow any rituals behind closed doors. No loud speakers, no processions allowed.

A better way is to ban religion from public places.

 

[the Great Khan]

Morality in secularism is subjective. Today a beef ban. Tomorrow a religious marriage ban. And so forth.

Coming onto a uniform code, as a Muslim I am against it like the Prophet pbuh was. it's uncivilised.

 

[the Great Khan]

There should be uniform civil code. May be India can borrow it from US or UK.

India should let everyone eat and follow any rituals behind closed doors. No loud speakers, no processions allowed.

A better way is to ban religion from public places.

Like I said uncivilised and intolerant. It's against human nature hence ultimately unworkable.

 

[Ottoman]

Secularism is the separation of religion from state.

So what laws do western nations follow?

Do they have separate laws for different religions?

Appeasement secularism (which is understandable) isn't true secularism.

Hindus can't talk true secularism while supporting beef ban.
And Muslims can't talk about true secularism while not supporting uniform civil code and stuff.

Wrong bro. Secularism gives right to every citizen to practice its own religion but it didn't give right to the state to force its citizen to practice and follow other laws which are against their religion belief.

Western countries are following old customs which they have given a form of written laws now. But they cannot force a muslim couple to get married without Nikkah.

But they can make rule that after Nikkah the couple have to register it with the Government.

Same way they can not order a muslim family how to distribute their inheritance (they will do it according to Sharia) but they can order them to register it according to their own rules and regulations.

 

[QazzarFan]

And I dont understand these religious fanatics..

Why these Hindu groups don't show the same empathy to these cows when they live in the worst conditions, roam around the city roads blocking everything, they also have to eat from the city dumps.. why don't they take care of them why don't they install cow shelter in every city if they are so concerned about them? And to rub salt in their wounds doubt they know india exports cows in one form or another?

And why these Muslim groups have a problem in that? It's not as if Quran has ordered them to eat beef otherwise they would burn in hell instead of having fun with the hoors. There are lots of goats, chicken, fish, ducks, turkeys in the world to feast. And these are healthier options to beef. Out of all people in the world I thought Muslims will be least interested in this. Cause I have seen more Christians eat beef than a average Muslim. And guess what no Christian group has raised any voice

It's hypocrisy plain and simple. It's like a wife yelling at her husband but when someone else yells at her husband she responds by saying, who the hell are you to call my husband a fat b.astard...he's my fat b.astardand only I can call him that.

 

[tempus123]

Drawing offensive cartoons of religious figures is not a ritualistic imperative in any religion AFAIK, while cow sacrifice has been a religiously-motivated traditional exercise of Muslims from all around the world since aeons.

A better comparison wouldn't be banning controversial caricatures, but, let's say, if Muslims ask for banning Hindu idols or Christian cross because they find it "offensive to their religious sensibility".

Are you fine with usual (not derogatory) cartoon or comedy clip/movie made on Prophet Mohammad sahab ?

 

[tempus123]

There is one more thing I want to bring about India's pseudo secularism.. the subsidy given to Muslims going for Hajj. Why does Govt. help them with this, when it doesn't do the same to Hindus ? Any experts who can throw light on it as I am not aware of the whole logic here ?

Also why Temples are Govt. property and Mosques not ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Wrong bro. Secularism gives right to every citizen to practice its own religion but it didn't give right to the state to force its citizen to practice and follow other laws which are against their religion belief.

Western countries are following old customs which they have given a form of written laws now. But they cannot force a muslim couple to get married without Nikkah.

But they can make rule that after Nikkah the couple have to register it with the Government.

Same way they can not order a muslim family how to distribute their inheritance (they will do it according to Sharia) but they can order them to register it according to their own rules and regulations.

Brother you have a slightly wrong notion about secularism.

1. Secularism is about no religion above anything. Its ALSO about separating state from religion.

2. Secularism doesn't destroy the rituals. muslims will have Nikkah..Hindus will have their rituals. Marriage will be registered as per the law of land.

3. Secularism is about having same laws for all citizens (with preference given to no religion). Inheritance, marriage, divorce, etc. Allowing polygamny for one community and not for others is appeasement secularism (Indian secularism). But its not real secularism as known in the world.

4. People can practice their own religious laws they want but in the court, ONLY THE LAW OF LAND would work.

See Hafeezrocks post where he says Modi escaped due to Indian secularism.

That's wrong on all levels.

Modi escape (if you say) could be for several reasons - poor investigation, destruction of evidence but it sure ain't secularism unless some law helped him cos he is Hindu.

Secularism is about laws.

My initial point stands bro.

 

[RWAC]

In an ideal scenario, there would be a UCC and no bans on any food, drink, books, cartoons, paintings.

But if UCC is not going to be implemented due to opposition from other religious groups, and there is a long history of concessions being granted under the pretext of 'religious accomodation", then I see no moral qualms about supporting the claim of Hindus who want to get things banned to prevent "hurting" their sentiments.

Whether beef or beer or bacon is banned is beyond the point.

 

[par]

Uniform Civil Code is actually Hindu Civil Code in disguise. Imposing rules acceptable to Hindus over other minorities.

True. That's why I am not for Uniform Civil Code.

 

[Yatoo]

Some experts here confusing Right to freedom and speech with Uniform Civil Code.

 

[cricketworm]

You can't have uniform civil code in countries run and being voted on religions. You are asking people to be an atheist. you can't have taking care of sentiments on particular religion either. It's a mess!

Correct me if i was wrong, wasn't beef ban there even before BJP came?

I am all in for Beef ban for environment purpose all over earth, but then we extinct all the animal that we don't need, so I want humans to be interested in Beef as well. It's a mess!

 

[tempus123]

It's funny to see how eager supporters of the beef ban are to equate it with caricatures. Eating beef has nothing to do with Hindus, billions of people do it and many have never heard of hinduism. The finality of caricatures is muslims. A secular society can and will ban hate speech since there is no such thing as ''the right to offend''. A secular society will not impose the belief of the few to police behaviours that have nothing to do with them. A caricature is 100% about muslims, eating beef is 0% about hindus.

Clearly what you call as "right to offend", we call it as "right to express". The offense is your reaction to the creative art, which is completely avoidable only if you were not so 'sensitive' or hung up on 'religious sentiments'.

See where it's getting to ?

 

[cricketworm]

Interesting article on this!

http://scroll.in/article/755111/mea...imposed-order-was-cut-to-size-during-bjp-rule

 

[JaDed]

If a uniform code is applied then i don't support meat ban.But since uniform code can never happen i'm all for meat ban.
But the issue here is this i was consuming meat for first 20 years of my life and then i gave up and it was my own decision whereas when someone tries to force you to do the same it will end up enraging the person and he/she would probably consume it even more just because he is annoyed. Govnt is going about it all wrong they should had tried to create awareness regarding the conditions of the animals kept in poultry farm and how they are cut instead they are forcing it and making it sound silly!

 

[Yatoo]

Cow Slaughter is a criminal offense. Reason: It tramples upon the religious sentiments of a COMMUNITY.
Drawing "offensive" cartoons also is a criminal offense.
Uniform Civil Code is a set of codes which govern the "civil" affairs of an INDIVIDUAL.

These are unrelated.

 

[CricketCartoons]

Uniform Civil Code is just another name for Islamophobia.

 

[Moh@n]

There is no end to this debate basically.

As an analogy, let's take the example of the censor board that we have for our movies. Why do we need it? Why should a group of 4-5 people decide what we should watch?

 

[Moh@n]

Its their right bro, do you think a Hindu wedding according to Islamic laws is a possibility here.
Every where in the world marriage acts are according to the customs and laws of the minorities but the Governments make rules to regulate or register them so that no confusion should arrive.

There are so many issues where Indian's have preferred Hinduism.

Sorry which secular Muslim minority country in this world apart from India allows polygamy and uses it's taxpayers money to sponsor their Haj trips?

 

[Yatoo]

Sorry which secular Muslim minority country in this world apart from India allows polygamy and uses it's taxpayers money to sponsor their Haj trips?

Govt spends not even a cent on kumbh mela or jaganath puri temple festivals.

 

[King Cobra]

India is too diverse and getting more diverse with time , no chance of an ideal secularism ever in the country. Anyway who knows it might be impossible to ever implement ideal secualrism in any country.

 

[Bullet Drive]

Absolute joke!

 

[endymion248]

Clearly what you call as "right to offend", we call it as "right to express". The offense is your reaction to the creative art, which is completely avoidable only if you were not so 'sensitive' or hung up on 'religious sentiments'.

See where it's getting to ?

Your point is right for cartoons but not caricatures since, by definition, they will be made to cross whatever personal line someone holds.

 

[Swanny]

Off topic but can we ban heterosexual marriages to abolish patriarchy ?

 

[Sandeep]

Please officially name sif 'drama queen' of PP

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[eradicator]

Please officially name sif 'drama queen' of PP

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Tapatalk

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

People need to read the thread as well as comments properly.

I ask questions to both sides.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Uniform Civil Code is just another name for Islamophobia.

Why do you say so?

 

[Yatoo]

People need to read the thread as well as comments properly.

I ask questions to both sides.

A person can ask for UCC and Beef Ban, both, and there is no inconsistency in it.
You should understand that people ask UCC because they "think" that religious laws are archaic, discriminatory and backward.
People ask for beef ban because it's "allegedly offensive".

There is apparently no moral inconsistency in it

 

[Swanny]

Also off topic but can we have legalize the world's oldest buissness ?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

A person can ask for UCC and Beef Ban, both, and there is no inconsistency in it.
You should understand that people ask UCC because they "think" that religious laws are archaic, discriminatory and backward.
People ask for beef ban because it's "allegedly offensive".

There is apparently no moral inconsistency in it

I don't know what your personal opinion is but your answer based on technical defintiions isn't convincing one bit.

UCC is asked for SECULARISM.

Common laws. No one person above anyone else.

But beef ban goes against it.

It puts one community's wishes above others.

For eg - just cos Christians find gays offensive doesn't make banning gay marriages right.

That's dumb logic and a weak argument.

When two ideas clash (Christian views and gays), the one where the party does something in its own capacity without physically affecting the other one...gets more importance.

Gay marriages being allowed and Christians asked to zip up is considered a fair opinion by all.

Even neutrals can see it. How can such a simple logic be so complicated for people?

But when it comes to UCC, beef ban and secularism - I see massive inconsistencies by Indians and Pakistanis (except a few who have consistent views no matter what their choice).

 

[CricketCartoons]

A person can ask for UCC and Beef Ban, both, and there is no inconsistency in it.
You should understand that people ask UCC because they "think" that religious laws are archaic, discriminatory and backward.
People ask for beef ban because it's "allegedly offensive".

There is apparently no moral inconsistency in it

There is truly no inconsistency. The biggest supporters of UCC are Shiv Sena and BJP. The biggest supporters of beef ban, again, are the usual suspects. Both are aimed to target the Muslim population.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

Beef ban certainly makes no sense since we are one of the largest exporters of beef in the world. Not just that it is assuming that a lot of Hindus are so religious that they wouldn't even try a bit of beef. Which is not true at all. As far as Uniform civil code is concerned, I think it's high time we implemented it and removed religion completely from the public sphere.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

There is truly no inconsistency. The biggest supporters of UCC are Shiv Sena and BJP. The biggest supporters of beef ban, again, are the usual suspects. Both are aimed to target the Muslim population.

You wanted beef ban too naa?

We had a discussion. You said Hindus were a community that has majority population but bends backwards for others. Kya nation hai yaar - Something like that.

Your views look different in this thread bro.

 

[Nikhil_cric]

There is truly no inconsistency. The biggest supporters of UCC are Shiv Sena and BJP. The biggest supporters of beef ban, again, are the usual suspects. Both are aimed to target the Muslim population.

How is beef ban targeted at the Muslims? Are you saying only Muslims eat beef or that Muslims only eat beef?

 

[CricketCartoons]

How is beef ban targeted at the Muslims? Are you saying only Muslims eat beef or that Muslims only eat beef?

Muslims are not the only ones who consume beef, but neither are they the only ones who practice polygamy, or get state subsidy. But they are exclusively singled out for these things by the Hindu Right Wing, who is the main supporter of both UCC and beef ban.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Beef ban certainly makes no sense since we are one of the largest exporters of beef in the world. Not just that it is assuming that a lot of Hindus are so religious that they wouldn't even try a bit of beef. Which is not true at all. As far as Uniform civil code is concerned, I think it's high time we implemented it and removed religion completely from the public sphere.

There are Hindus who want to eat beef.

There are Muslims who want proper divorce laws and inheritance laws.

Why should people be assumed to be religious?

Ridiculous really.

Whether India can be a truly secular nation or not is another topic. I agree.

 

[DW44]

First I am not in support of Beef ban.. in an ideal situation it shouldn't be a discussion. This is another kind of bull.. which religion brings.

But..

Suppose there exists a perfect secular society.. i.e. respects every religion and is mindful of all the things that offends each and every religion, ..will it ban books by authors such as Salman Rushdie and tasleema nasreen?..yes, cause it hurts Muslim sentiments.. should it happen? No..
Will the society ban pictures or cartoon that offends a religion ..yes..should it happen?? No..
Will the society ban cow slaughter that offends a religion? Yes.. should it happen?? No..

We should just curse our society that thrives to be secular instead of atheism. That's the issue

What you're describing is NOT a perfectly secular society or even a moderately secular one. The essence of secularism is that it respects NO religion, not ALL religions. In a perfectly secular society, laws would be drafted purely on the basis of logic and scientific merit even if they offend the religious sensitivities of the followers of one or more religions. In a society like the one you described, the works of Rushdie(or even the likes of Dawkins) would be banned, as would the sale of beef and pork since they offend Hindus and Muslims respectively. In a perfectly secular society, neither beef nor pork nor books blaspheming against any religion would be banned since there is no scientific or logical merit to banning any of that stuff.

 

[Yatoo]

I don't know what your personal opinion is but your answer based on technical defintiions isn't convincing one bit.

UCC is asked for SECULARISM.

Common laws. No one person above anyone else.

But beef ban goes against it.

It puts one community's wishes above others.

For eg - just cos Christians find gays offensive doesn't make banning gay marriages right.

That's dumb logic and a weak argument.

When two ideas clash (Christian views and gays), the one where the party does something in its own capacity without physically affecting the other one...gets more importance.

Gay marriages being allowed and Christians asked to zip up is considered a fair opinion by all.

Even neutrals can see it. How can such a simple logic be so complicated for people?

But when it comes to UCC, beef ban and secularism - I see massive inconsistencies by Indians and Pakistanis (except a few who have consistent views no matter what their choice).

Let me make a simpler argument.
1: Say we have UCC in India.
2: Laws of marriage, inheritance,divorce are framed by constitution for all Indians irrespective of their religion.

Does it imply one has "Right to abuse another religion"? (What constitutes abuse is debatable).
Now parliamentarians agree (majority) that drawing cartoons of Prophet of Muslims and Slaughtering Cow is abuse of religion of Muslims and Hindus respectively. Thus a law is passed banning these practices.

Are these laws against the spirit of UCC?

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Let me make a simpler argument.
1: Say we have UCC in India.
2: Laws of marriage, inheritance,divorce are framed by constitution for all Indians irrespective of their religion.

Does it imply one has "Right to abuse another religion"? (What constitutes abuse is debatable).
Now parliamentarians agree (majority) that drawing cartoons of Prophet of Muslims and Slaughtering Cow is abuse of religion of Muslims and Hindus respectively. Thus a law is passed banning these practices.

Are these laws against the spirit of UCC?

Right to abuse obviously has to be defined (and can be debated).

But cartoons as long as they are not done in a mocking way should be acceptable in a secular society. Same way beef ban shouldn't be there as its a faith based decision.

Simple really.

 

[Yatoo]

Right to abuse obviously has to be defined (and can be debated).

But cartoons as long as they are not done in a mocking way should be acceptable in a secular society. Same way beef ban shouldn't be there as its a faith based decision.

Simple really.

Isn't then the ban on cartoon which is mocking a faith based decision?

 

[tempus123]

Your point is right for cartoons but not caricatures since, by definition, they will be made to cross whatever personal line someone holds.

You can see that people will get offended on simple cartoons too which are far from derogatory, but just comic.. I am sure people will be up in arms.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

Isn't then the ban on cartoon which is mocking a faith based decision?

No. That's not.

Its just like laws for defamation.

A person can't spout hatred over someone else or his company and then argue in court that its just the right to speech. He will be taken to the cleaners in a good judicial system.

Of course, what defines as mocking and what's perfectly fine must be defined so what is abuse must be carefully and clearly worded.

 

[endymion248]

You can see that people will get offended on simple cartoons too which are far from derogatory, but just comic.. I am sure people will be up in arms.

I don't think that comes under hate speech, even if of slightly poor taste. There shouldn't be restrictions on it, the distinction is very clear.

 

[tempus123]

Right to abuse obviously has to be defined (and can be debated).

But cartoons as long as they are not done in a mocking way should be acceptable in a secular society. Same way beef ban shouldn't be there as its a faith based decision.

Simple really.

Every cartoon mocks..