Historic Hindu Temple Inaugurated in India on site of Mosque

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

It seems you guys don't fucking get it, so let me explain it.



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.

It seems you don't fucking get it. I can comprehend situations even if I've never been in them personally. I guess you can't, but for most people this is a relatively easy thing to do. We can go further, and even relate it to other subjects that might be more familiar. I could ask Jewish NSers how they feel about the idea of tearing down the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding their temple, and whether that would be the right thing to do. Or various Pagan/indigenous temples that were Christianized or destroyed. Or ask Christians about the Hagia Sophia being a Mosque. It's not a totally unrelatable situation. It even bares a little similarity to the current trend of tearing down statuary of questionable historical figures, and the question of what, if anything, should replace them. It's possible to think about this stuff. And that's what the OP asked us to do. So we did.

Further, I realize that you may have only learned about this 10 minutes ago. But some of us who pay more attention to global affairs have known about this for a while. Some of us even remember when the Mosque was destroyed.

no, you really can't. 99% of nsg cannot imagine three thousand people dying over a mosque.

Neat! You have an opinion you formed in less than ten minutes from thirty years ago!

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

I don’t think the current conversation has much to do with the Hindu Temple

lol, you were ranting about VIRTUE SIGNALLERS earlier. don't give me shit.

[Ethel mermania]

I wasn't talking about the wiki, I was talking about your comment



Ooooh you insulted me by calling me bro.. I'm skared

How the fuck did I "insult" you? And I wasn't quoting myself.

Edit. Got the wrong one. Will change again

viewtopic.php?p=37494166#p37494166

(Thats better).

See that last paragraph there under the wiki quote.

I believe That was yours. And when you point to what you wrote it is called quoting yourself.

[Australian rePublic]

This is getting ridiculous. Can we please ignore Munkcestrian RepubIic's bitching and moaning and get back to the topic

[Eitoan]

Ram Mandir Bhoomi Pujan: PM Modi offers prayers to Ram Lalla, performs 'sashtang pranam'

Basically, in an event that has largely been overshadowed in the news by coronavirus and the Lebanon explosion, a historic temple to the Hindu deity Lord Rama has been inaugurated in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama and one of the holiest sites in Hinduism.

For context, a massive shrine to Lord Rama had existed there for centuries, in 1527, Mughal conqueror Babur conquered Ayodhya, and as a symbol of his victory over the Kingdoms of India, he tore down the shrine to Rama and built a Mosque known as the Babri Masjid, burying the idols of the former shrine under the steps of the Mosque so they would have to be trampled when entering. Ever since, it has been a Hindu dream to one day rebuild the shrine to Lord Rama, however, this was not possible as for centuries, Hindus were second class citizens and oppressed by the Mughals and Sultanates of India.

In 1992, rioters forcefully tore down the Babri Masjid, sparking months of riots and communal violence in India between Hindus and Muslims. A court case arose which had not been resolved until early this year, when the High Court of India ruled in favour of the Hindus, but allowed the Muslims to build a Mosque nearby.

Today, the building of the historic temple has been commissioned in a ceremony known as Bhoomi Pujan, where the shrine of Lord Rama, which had been torn down in 1527, is finally being rebuilt. However, this has not come without controversy, a Hindu organization in America, which had bought a Times Square slot for people in NYC to see the inauguration of the temple in public, was revoked it’s slot due to activism from Islamist groups in the US, which the World Hindu Council has denounced.

What is your opinion on this issue?

I think this is an amazing day, and it is going to go down in the history books of India. It cannot be stressed enough how big this is for Hindus not just in India, but Hindus around the world. This is akin to the Jews rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem.

Why shouldn't the Hindus build it? India's a free country, a democracy. It's not harmful to others.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Actually several of us had heard of this before. This controversy has been going on a while.

see my "saw it on the news thirty years ago and formed your opinion in less than ten minutes then" reply.

Nice if you to assume everyone but you is ignorant though.

You could've called me ignorant, you know, I don't report people to the jannies or anything.

And actually we do have some relevant and somewhat similar experiences, as was brought up, such as debates over monuments and sometimes vigilante groups attacking them.

LOL no, 3,000 people don't die over a Confederate memorial.

So actually both your premises are wrong. But even if they were right, you would still be wrong because the whole “just because you do not live in a place means you cannot talk about it” is still a thought terminating cliche. Thus this is fractal wrongness. Wrong at every level.

Now do you want to contribute to the debate? Or just shit post?

Fractal definition of "shit post".

[Eitoan]

Hi Ethel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJofODuHbco

[Novus America]

This is getting ridiculous. Can we please ignore Munkcestrian RepubIic's bitching and moaning and get back to the topic

True, responding to shit posting only begets more shit posting.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

How the fuck did I "insult" you? And I wasn't quoting myself.

Edit. Got the wrong one. Will change again

See that last paragraph there under the wiki quote.

I believe That was yours. And when you point to what you wrote it is called quoting yourself.

No, I posted something. Otherwise by your logic whenever anyone posts anything they're just quoting themselves.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

You guys still trying to pretend you don't get my point and then

Why shouldn't the Hindus build it? India's a free country, a democracy. It's not harmful to others.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

This is getting ridiculous. Can we please ignore Munkcestrian RepubIic's bitching and moaning and get back to the topic

True, responding to shit posting only begets more shit posting.

Only shit in posting here is the definition of "shitposting" covered in it because you just pulled it out of your ass.

[Ethel mermania]

Edit. Got the wrong one. Will change again

See that last paragraph there under the wiki quote.

I believe That was yours. And when you point to what you wrote it is called quoting yourself.

No, I posted something. Otherwise by your logic whenever anyone posts anything they're just quoting themselves.

One can be annoyed with original posts.

I did go back and get the right one. It is what you wrote under the wiki post.

I find it pretentious to quote yourself,and I disagree with your premise. To paraphrase Mr. Ug, we can have empathy for other positions even if we are not in those positions themselves.

[Australian rePublic]

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

[Ethel mermania]

You guys still trying to pretend you don't get my point and then

Why shouldn't the Hindus build it? India's a free country, a democracy. It's not harmful to others.

Not everyone on nationstates is an expert, are you new here? That poster is still entitled to state their opinion no matter how ill formed it is.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

No, I posted something. Otherwise by your logic whenever anyone posts anything they're just quoting themselves.

One can be annoyed with original posts.

I did go back and get the right one. It is what you wrote under the wiki post.

I find it pretentious to quote yourself,and I disagree with your premise. To paraphrase Mr. Ug, we can have empathy for other positions even if we are not in those positions themselves.

How was I fucking quoting myself? Don't call me pretentious when you're saying shit like "To paraphrase Mr. Ug".

[The Reformed American Republic]

Well, the Muslims were given another plot of land to rebuild he mosque, so well, that answers the two ANs.

Indeed. It's not like India is going to persecute the Muslims as revenge.

[Ethel mermania]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Repdestr'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

Point taken, fair I agree.

[Aureumterra]

Can we please get on topic?

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

You guys still trying to pretend you don't get my point and then

Not everyone on nationstates is an expert, are you new here? That poster is still entitled to state their opinion no matter how ill formed it is.

It's no more ill-formed than any of the others expressed, it's just more open about it.

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

Can we please get on topic?

We are discussing the validity of points made on the topic, so we are already on topic, thank you.

[Novus America]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Repdestr'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

Yes, I mentioned this earlier as well. Given that the Mosque is long gone and the courts finally ruled on ownership, that pretty much solves it.

If Hindus rightfully own it (I admit I am not an expert on Indian property law but I will assume this is correct according to Indian law) and it is and empty unused plot already, I have no problem with them building on it.

[Neanderthaland]

It seems you don't fucking get it. I can comprehend situations even if I've never been in them personally. I guess you can't, but for most people this is a relatively easy thing to do. We can go further, and even relate it to other subjects that might be more familiar. I could ask Jewish NSers how they feel about the idea of tearing down the Dome of the Rock and rebuilding their temple, and whether that would be the right thing to do. Or various Pagan/indigenous temples that were Christianized or destroyed. Or ask Christians about the Hagia Sophia being a Mosque. It's not a totally unrelatable situation. It even bares a little similarity to the current trend of tearing down statuary of questionable historical figures, and the question of what, if anything, should replace them. It's possible to think about this stuff. And that's what the OP asked us to do. So we did.

Further, I realize that you may have only learned about this 10 minutes ago. But some of us who pay more attention to global affairs have known about this for a while. Some of us even remember when the Mosque was destroyed.

no, you really can't. 99% of nsg cannot imagine three thousand people dying over a mosque.

Any of us who were alive in 9/11 can imagine 3,000 people dying in the name of religion. Most of us can imagine rioting. This is silly, and pointless to discuss. I'm not entertaining you further.

[Australian rePublic]

So I posted this earlier, but it was overshadowed by Munkcestrian Repdestr'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

Yes, I mentioned this earlier as well. Given that the Mosque is long gone and the courts finally ruled on ownership, that pretty much solves it.

If Hindus rightfully own it (I admit I am not an expert on Indian property law but I will assume this is correct according to Indian law) and it is and empty unused plot already, I have no problem with them building on it.

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

[Munkcestrian RepubIic]

no, you really can't. 99% of nsg cannot imagine three thousand people dying over a mosque.

Any of us who were alive in 9/11 can imagine 3,000 people dying in the name of religion. Most of us can imagine rioting. This is silly, and pointless to discuss. I'm not entertaining you further.

Oh, you can imagine 9/11. You just can't imagine this.

[Novus America]

Yes, I mentioned this earlier as well. Given that the Mosque is long gone and the courts finally ruled on ownership, that pretty much solves it.

If Hindus rightfully own it (I admit I am not an expert on Indian property law but I will assume this is correct according to Indian law) and it is and empty unused plot already, I have no problem with them building on it.

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.