True face of the lady who tried to enter Sabarimala Temple

[Staysafebro]

6 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

I know... the mockery is beyond belief... youtube lo I saw many videos where a guy goes into villages and talks to poor people asking them to convert to christianity and projects the Hindu Gods as satans and devils... Im all up for secularism and respecting other religions but whats happening in the root level is beyond belief

They target poor people man. Who wants to talk to poor and uneducated people? They will give them food and teach Christianity on the pretext of giving education to kids. Mokka ayyi vanganidhi maanayyi vanguna annatu, they target kids and the vulnerable people in the society. Once that is done, they have their numbers to run their agenda. 

[Android_Halwa]

I recently saw a video, where the folklore were playing Bathukamma, dedicated to ‘yesayya’

[uttermost]

7 minutes ago, chittimallu2 said:

Nenu general ga peddha ga pattinchukonu but this incident is in my head all the time... maa babai oka guru swamy, he goes to sabarimala every year but he stopped doing that now due to age and health... I have so many memories of the pooja, bhajanalu, etc the day before he leaves to sabarimala... I know and I have seen many Ayyappa Swamies who do the penance with utmost discipline and devotion... I even respect the fact that in mecca there are two separate roads and only one of them leads to their holy place and only muslims are allowed to take that one.. its not discrimination to me and I wil happily respect their religion and their tradition.... Its totally bizarre and unfortunate that in the name of secularism and stupid feminism people are trying to do nasty stuff like this and instigate hindus and eventually cry foul on them when they retaliate and declare India as intolerant.

you have to see the legal side of this case. the temple which is in govt's control means that govt cant discriminate. I'm sure the argument for allowing women is somewhere close to that. I haven't read the judgement.

you should read it if you are so passionate. This is not about secularism or faminism or anything. They are not powerful forces at all. SC in India is definitely not anti-hindu.

the issue is much deeper than this. This is about control of worship places of Hindus in the hands of the govt. and what needs to be done to take it back. 

ofcourse, one can also make the case that Modi directed this drama so he can benefit from the polarization. but I'm just guessing, because I'm not really reading any stuff out of India these days, beyond what's written in this db.

[boeing747]

1 minute ago, chittimallu2 said:

oorlallo ghoram ga undi le.. maa ammamma valla oorlo every street has 2 churches and im not even exaggerating... friday vasthe speakers petti gatti gatti ga gundelu baadhukunta edustharu... they wont even reduce the volume... edo oka pandaga ki pedthe ok but this happens every single week... avi kakunda like you mentioned, songs everyday motham colony ki vinapade laaga.. I know some temples also does this song playing but they should ban all speakers in all religious places... 

mana state lo ee church's situation is beyond repair...root level lo oka range lo penetration ellipoindi and those who wanted this to happen succeeded..no wonder its a huge votebank

[boeing747]

2 minutes ago, Android_Halwa said:

I recently saw a video, where the folklore were playing Bathukamma, dedicated to ‘yesayya’

mana telugu states ni combined ga Assam train ekkiddam baa

[Staysafebro]

14 minutes ago, uttermost said:

stupid fcukface. why did you mention me?

piece of garbage. show me one instance where I mocked Hindu gods or the religion. I mock people like you. worthless pieces of garbage, spouting bullshit that you can't back up.

I'm not a militant atheist. In fact I hate most atheists, even when I'm atheist myself for the utter contempt they show towards religious people.

tag atheists in this db, who have been strangely silent on this issue. tag that idiot luciferstar or some sh1t. don't tag me like a moron. 

Neeku hindu kanna turak veshalu ekkuvavunnayi antunnara lafoot.

[uttermost]

2 minutes ago, Staysafebro said:

Neeku hindu kanna turak veshalu ekkuvavunnayi antunnara lafoot.

tag enduku chesaav antey sollu chepthunnav. When i don't care about the religion I was born into, why would I care about another one?lol

I just have the decency to shut my trap about the things I dont know. unlike you.

[kevinUsa]

5 minutes ago, boeing747 said:

mana state lo ee church's situation is beyond repair...root level lo oka range lo penetration ellipoindi and those who wanted this to happen succeeded..no wonder its a huge votebank

converted ku 1000 rs per month vastadi  anduke  converting bro 

[kevinUsa]

 

[kevinUsa]

Watch her series 

[chittimallu2]

12 minutes ago, uttermost said:

you have to see the legal side of this case. the temple which is in govt's control means that govt cant discriminate. I'm sure the argument for allowing women is somewhere close to that. I haven't read the judgement.

you should read it if you are so passionate. This is not about secularism or faminism or anything. They are not powerful forces at all. SC in India is definitely not anti-hindu.

the issue is much deeper than this. This is about control of worship places of Hindus in the hands of the govt. and what needs to be done to take it back. 

ofcourse, one can also make the case that Modi directed this drama so he can benefit from the polarization. but I'm just guessing, because I'm not really reading any stuff out of India these days, beyond what's written in this db.

How is it discrimination, its not like no woman is allowed into any temple in India, its not like woman are not at all allowed into sabarimala at all... its considered that Ayyappa Swamy in Sabarimala is a Brahmachari and thats the only temple where he is in Brahmachari form in India and hence he doesnt want women of mensturating age around him... in your fav feminist language, it is "NO Means NO" for Ayyappa Swamy and one has to respect his decision... how simple is that

[chittimallu2]

15 minutes ago, uttermost said:

you have to see the legal side of this case. the temple which is in govt's control means that govt cant discriminate. I'm sure the argument for allowing women is somewhere close to that. I haven't read the judgement.

you should read it if you are so passionate. This is not about secularism or faminism or anything. They are not powerful forces at all. SC in India is definitely not anti-hindu.

the issue is much deeper than this. This is about control of worship places of Hindus in the hands of the govt. and what needs to be done to take it back. 

ofcourse, one can also make the case that Modi directed this drama so he can benefit from the polarization. but I'm just guessing, because I'm not really reading any stuff out of India these days, beyond what's written in this db.

Also what is the deeper issue you are talking about... how many temples in India have restrictions to people entering them .. there are literally lakhs of temples and not even a handful of them have any special restrictions on devotees... Why does the govt need to take it back? what stupidity is that? Is the indian govt a hindu republic just like islamic countries to have power of religious worship places... 

[chittimallu2]

also @uttermost I have no plans to read the judgement, dont ask me to do that as you have done that thrice already in different threads. I dont care about the judgement, I just dont want those changes and "equality" BS, thats not even the case here

[uttermost]

Just now, chittimallu2 said:

How is it discrimination, its not like no woman is allowed into any temple in India, its not like woman are not at all allowed into sabarimala at all... its considered that Ayyappa Swamy in Sabarimala is a Brahmachari and thats the only temple where he is in Brahmachari form in India and hence he doesnt want women of mensturating age around him... in your fav feminist language, it is "NO Means NO" for Ayyappa Swamy and one has to respect his decision... how simple is that

yeah.. all that is fine. but it cant be used as an argument, when govt is controlling the temple.

the reason govt took over temples is because dalits were not allowed in. And they used the excuse that govt property is for everybody to allow everyone. same logic applies here. again, I'm just guessing. I havent read the judgement.

I'm pretty sure the judgement is not about feminism or secularism, but about property rights.

'No means No' is not even close to this. I mean, brahmacharis do not have the right to tell women to stay a mile away from them. anyway, that's not the line of argument to defend the tradition.

the only way to defend it is, to take control of the temples, so private rules can be enforced. I think. legally, the judgement is probably sound.

[Rushabhi]

1 hour ago, Idassamed said:

Naaku FB/insta accounts levu

News lo kooda coming ga