Historic Hindu Temple Inaugurated in India on site of Mosque

[Australian rePublic]

I know jack shit about Indian Property law, but how would the Hindus own it? Who gave it to them? The court?

Apparently yes, the court gave ownership to them. It had been subject to a legal dispute stretching back a very long time. And the court finally made the final ruling that it belongs to Hindus.

As to the details of the law I really do not know. Indian property law is not my forte.

Fair enough

[Neanderthaland]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Republic's bullshit, so here it is again

The mosque was destroyed 28 years ago
We're about 20 years or so too late to have a discussion about whether or not it should have been torn down. What's done is done. Now it's a matter of what should be built there. Considering that part of the reason that mosque was put there was to spite Hindus, I'm on team temple

Given that there's apparently no religious building that can be built there that won't be perceived as spiting someone, I recommend they don't build one.

Let it be a park. Let it be a nice park. With a memorial indicating the area's significance. A visitor's center with some related information. And a few communal areas where religious groups can congregate that aren't explicitly mosques or temples.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Dang the history of the site is terrible.

You will never be in such a situation. You are incapable of comprehending such a situation. Statements like "yeah!! go Hindus!! about time!!" or "noooo!! i want the mosque back!!" are completely meaningless, especially when you have literally never heard of this place before and have formed your opinion in less than ten minutes.

??? The death of thousands is a terrible tragedy no matter the cause. I am merely pointing out that fact. I mean, this tragic conflict is surprisingly even worse than the 1998 Indonesian revolution, where racist murderous thugs attacked the Chinese-Indonesian population and a bunch of them had to hide in my parent's dorm in Jakarta for days. Literally my core opinion is that the bickering over a mosque and temple < the potential chaos and death, which I sincerely hope doesn't trigger.

I know jack shit about Indian Property law, but how would the Hindus own it? Who gave it to them? The court?

Apparently yes, the court gave ownership to them. It had been subject to a legal dispute stretching back a very long time. And the court finally made the final ruling that it belongs to Hindus.

As to the details of the law I really do not know. Indian property law is not my forte.

Afaik, the Supreme Court ordered all the 2.77 acres of land to be handed over to a trust to build the Hindu temple. It also ordered the government to give an alternative 5 acre land to the Sunni Waqf Board to build a mosque, which the government allotted in Dhannipur

[The Hindustani State]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Republic's bullshit, so here it is again

The mosque was destroyed 28 years ago
We're about 20 years or so too late to have a discussion about whether or not it should have been torn down. What's done is done. Now it's a matter of what should be built there. Considering that part of the reason that mosque was put there was to spite Hindus, I'm on team temple

Given that there's apparently no religious building that can be built there that won't be perceived as spiting someone, I recommend they don't build one.

Let it be a park. Let it be a nice park. With a memorial indicating the area's significance. A visitor's center with some related information. And a few communal areas where religious groups can congregate that aren't explicitly mosques or temples.

How is a temple being built there spiting Muslims?

[The Two Jerseys]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Republic's bullshit, so here it is again

The mosque was destroyed 28 years ago
We're about 20 years or so too late to have a discussion about whether or not it should have been torn down. What's done is done. Now it's a matter of what should be built there. Considering that part of the reason that mosque was put there was to spite Hindus, I'm on team temple

Given that there's apparently no religious building that can be built there that won't be perceived as spiting someone, I recommend they don't build one.

Let it be a park. Let it be a nice park. With a memorial indicating the area's significance. A visitor's center with some related information. And a few communal areas where religious groups can congregate that aren't explicitly mosques or temples.

From what I understand though, the site itself is scared to Hindus but of no special significance to Muslims, building a mosque there was basically just a de-Hindufication thing.

[Neanderthaland]

Given that there's apparently no religious building that can be built there that won't be perceived as spiting someone, I recommend they don't build one.

Let it be a park. Let it be a nice park. With a memorial indicating the area's significance. A visitor's center with some related information. And a few communal areas where religious groups can congregate that aren't explicitly mosques or temples.

From what I understand though, the site itself is scared to Hindus but of no special significance to Muslims, building a mosque there was basically just a de-Hindufication thing.

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

[Ethel mermania]

From what I understand though, the site itself is scared to Hindus but of no special significance to Muslims, building a mosque there was basically just a de-Hindufication thing.

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

Because it is OK with them to have destroyed the temple to put up the mosque. Now a mosque is there and tearing it down was a desecration of a mosque. Now to be fair to them, they may not really think much about the temple, it hasn't been there for a few hundred years. But the Hindus do think about it, and want what was once theirs back.

It would be nice if we were all bigger than that, but we are not.

[Neanderthaland]

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

Because it is OK with them to have destroyed the temple to put up the mosque. Now a mosque is there and tearing it down was a desecration of a mosque. Now to be fair to them, they may not really think much about the temple, it hasn't been there for a few hundred years. But the Hindus do think about it, and want what was once theirs back.

It would be nice if we were all bigger than that, but we are not.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Sundiata]

That's an egregious violation of religious liberty and blatantly disrespectful to Indian citizens who don't practice Hinduism.

[Aureumterra]

That's an egregious violation of religious liberty and blatantly disrespectful to Indian citizens who don't practice Hinduism.

Why?

[-Astoria-]

tyranny of the majority: better?

Did anyone say that?

That's the feel I'm getting from some people; who would usually say that it is bad on other threads.

[-Astoria-]

Because it is OK with them to have destroyed the temple to put up the mosque. Now a mosque is there and tearing it down was a desecration of a mosque. Now to be fair to them, they may not really think much about the temple, it hasn't been there for a few hundred years. But the Hindus do think about it, and want what was once theirs back.

It would be nice if we were all bigger than that, but we are not.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

...yet here we are.

[The Alma Mater]

From what I understand though, the site itself is scared to Hindus but of no special significance to Muslims, building a mosque there was basically just a de-Hindufication thing.

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Let them be happy the grounds remains sacred and is not turned into a pigsty or public dump or something.

[Page]

Hooray for religion, making sure that there is still violence despite everyone being distracted by a global pandemic!

[-Astoria-]

Hooray for religion, making sure that there is still violence despite everyone being distracted by a global pandemic!

At this rate, 2020's starting to run out of ideas.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Hooray for religion, making sure that there is still violence despite everyone being distracted by a global pandemic!

At this rate, 2020's starting to run out of ideas.

Haven't you see Kurzgesagt's video on solar flare?

[-Astoria-]

At this rate, 2020's starting to run out of ideas.

Haven't you see Kurzgesagt's video on solar flare?

No; anything?

[Region of Dwipantara]

Haven't you see Kurzgesagt's video on solar flare?

No; anything?

Not really, just how would a Coronal Mass Ejection impact the earth. The risk isn't really too high to be concerned about, only 1/8 chance of happening between 2012-2022 (and we missed one in 2012 by nine days). Anyways, this is off topic.

The Muslims who's mosque got torn down seem to interpret it that way.

But why ? They were not using it. They also have no problem with building a mosque at locations previously occupied by other religions - in fact, it being "sacred ground" is considered a plus when land is bought and construction plans are made.

Let them be happy the grounds remains sacred and is not turned into a pigsty or public dump or something.

Considering that there hasn't been any hard reaction to the decision, I think I'm starting to warm up to accepting the temple. My prime concern is now the continued degradation of Indian secularism. I mean, the process looks like a Hindu nationalistic gloating.

Construction of a temple honouring the Hindu deity, Lord Rama, who many Hindu nationalists believe was born at the site, has since been a key goal of the party and its supporters.

On Wednesday, Modi will lay a 40kg silver brick at the site, culminating a decades-long legal wrangle over the fate of the former Babri mosque site. The occasion, which will be broadcast live on Indian television, will also be marked with Vedic prayers.

The date, August 5th, also marks the first anniversary of another Modi accomplishment, long pined for by Hindu nationalists: The annexation of India-administered Kashmir.

[-Astoria-]

Considering that there hasn't been any hard reaction to the decision, I think I'm starting to warm up to accepting the temple. My prime concern is now the continued degradation of Indian secularism. I mean, the process looks like a Hindu nationalistic gloating.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was yet another symbolic upraised middle finger to "own" Muslims; like so.

[Bombadil]

Hooray for religion, making sure that there is still violence despite everyone being distracted by a global pandemic!

At this rate, 2020's starting to run out of ideas.

It's resorted to just blowing up cities at this point.

[Region of Dwipantara]

Considering that there hasn't been any hard reaction to the decision, I think I'm starting to warm up to accepting the temple. My prime concern is now the continued degradation of Indian secularism. I mean, the process looks like a Hindu nationalistic gloating.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was yet another symbolic upraised middle finger to "own" Muslims; like so.

And this is happening while India’s largest education board has made dramatic cuts to its syllabus in which government-run schools no longer have to teach chapters on democratic rights, secularism, federalism, and citizenship, which lie at the core of the Indian Constitution.

[The Islands of Versilia]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was yet another symbolic upraised middle finger to "own" Muslims; like so.

And this is happening while India’s largest education board has made dramatic cuts to its syllabus in which government-run schools no longer have to teach chapters on democratic rights, secularism, federalism, and citizenship, which lie at the core of the Indian Constitution.

That is a matter of grave concern and no less terrifying than the lack of such institutions and concepts found in most Islamic and undeveloped, developing countries. Without the unifying secularity, federalism and citizenship, India is no different than a typical empire. India is an empire, after all, ruling over so many different peoples. IIRC it’s hardly any less diverse than Europe, though my knowledge isn’t very in-depth I’ll admit.

[Ethel mermania]

Because it is OK with them to have destroyed the temple to put up the mosque. Now a mosque is there and tearing it down was a desecration of a mosque. Now to be fair to them, they may not really think much about the temple, it hasn't been there for a few hundred years. But the Hindus do think about it, and want what was once theirs back.

It would be nice if we were all bigger than that, but we are not.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't think they are wrong, why shouldn't they have their sacred space back?

I just think the world would be a better place if folks learned to let things slide.

[Loben III]

Given that there's apparently no religious building that can be built there that won't be perceived as spiting someone, I recommend they don't build one.

Let it be a park. Let it be a nice park. With a memorial indicating the area's significance. A visitor's center with some related information. And a few communal areas where religious groups can congregate that aren't explicitly mosques or temples.

How is a temple being built there spiting Muslims?

Well it slightly inconveniences them.

[Aureumterra]

Hooray for religion, making sure that there is still violence despite everyone being distracted by a global pandemic!

Where’s the violence?