--1--It's a centuries-old tradition. --I've read that it exists only since 1995.
--2--It appears to stand on a firm religious motive. --How so? Which religious text says so?
--3--Lawyers haven't abandoned the tradition of a black coat. --Illogical jump. No connection at all.
--4--There are temples that allow only women. --Not aware of case-specific details. Subject to such details, if men demand to be allowed there, they should be allowed there too.
--5--These rules have been framed by temple mgmts and are needed to govern them. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain color or kaste should be disallowed.
Re: Article Summary, with My Views
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 02:26 PM
(...Continued)
--6--These rules have been based upon convention and belief. --When fundamental right to practice religion is being violated, even the conventions and beliefs are questionable.
--7--The rule doesn't persecute or physically harm or mentally torture anyone. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of physical harm is an illogical diversion.
--8--The Temple Mgmt is only exercising their right to Freedom of Religion. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
--9--The rule is based on some people's beliefs (in Ayyappa's shyness, Ayyappa's respect for women, etc) --What about other people's beliefs? Those who want to allow the women? Why shouldn't those views be considered?
--10--It doesn't take away women's rights of contesting in elections and availing govt benefits. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of right to contest elections is an illogical diversion.
--11--Sports events segregate based no gender. --That's done to keep contests fair and even.
--12--There are clubs such as Press Clubs that segregate based on gender. ---Club membership isn't a fundamental right. So this is ok.
--1--It's a centuries-old tradition. --I've read that it exists only since 1995.
--2--It appears to stand on a firm religious motive. --How so? Which religious text says so?
--3--Lawyers haven't abandoned the tradition of a black coat. --Illogical jump. No connection at all.
--4--There are temples that allow only women. --Not aware of case-specific details. Subject to such details, if men demand to be allowed there, they should be allowed there too.
--5--These rules have been framed by temple mgmts and are needed to govern them. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain color or caste should be disallowed.
Re: Summary, and My Comments
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 02:26 PM
(...Continued)
--6--These rules have been based upon convention and belief. --When fundamental right to practice religion is being violated, even the conventions and beliefs are questionable.
--7--The rule doesn't persecute or physically harm or mentally torture anyone. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of physical harm is an illogical diversion.
--8--The Temple Mgmt is only exercising their right to Freedom of Religion. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
--9--The rule is based on some people's beliefs (in Ayyappa's shyness, Ayyappa's respect for women, etc) --What about other people's beliefs? Those who want to allow the women? Why shouldn't those views be considered?
--10--It doesn't take away women's rights of contesting in elections and availing govt benefits. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of right to contest elections is an illogical diversion.
--11--Sports events segregate based no gender. --That's done to keep contests fair and even.
--12--There are clubs such as Press Clubs that segregate based on gender. ---Club membership isn't a fundamental right. So this is ok.
In Summary, in this article, the list of points in favor of excluding women in 10-50 group is:
--1--It's a centuries-old tradition. -----I've read that it exists only since 1995.
--2--It appears to stand on a firm religious motive. -----How so? Which religious text says so?
--3--Lawyers haven't abandoned the tradition of a black coat. -----Illogical jump. No connection at all.
--4--There are temples that allow only women. -----Not aware of case-specific details. Subject to such details, if men demand to be allowed there, they should be allowed there too.
--5--These rules have been framed by temple mgmts and are needed to govern them. -----Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain color or caste should be disallowed.
Re: Summary, and My Comments
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 02:27 PM
(...Continued)
--6--These rules have been based upon convention and belief. --When fundamental right to practice religion is being violated, even the conventions and beliefs are questionable.
--7--The rule doesn't persecute or physically harm or mentally torture anyone. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of physical harm is an illogical diversion.
--8--The Temple Mgmt is only exercising their right to Freedom of Religion. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
--9--The rule is based on some people's beliefs (in Ayyappa's shyness, Ayyappa's respect for women, etc) --What about other people's beliefs? Those who want to allow the women? Why shouldn't those views be considered?
--10--It doesn't take away women's rights of contesting in elections and availing govt benefits. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of right to contest elections is an illogical diversion.
--11--Sports events segregate based no gender. --That's done to keep contests fair and even.
--12--There are clubs such as Press Clubs that segregate based on gender. ---Club membership isn't a fundamental right. So this is ok.
In Summary, in this article, the list of points in favor of excluding women in 10-50 group is:
--1--It's a centuries-old tradition. -----I've read that it exists only since 1995.
--2--It appears to stand on a firm religious motive. -----How so? Which religious text says so?
--3--Lawyers haven't abandoned the tradition of a black coat. -----Illogical jump. No connection at all.
--4--There are temples that allow only women. -----Not aware of case-specific details. Subject to such details, if men demand to be allowed there, they should be allowed there too.
--5--These rules have been framed by temple mgmts and are needed to govern them. -----Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
Re: In Summary
by Chaitanya B on Oct 27, 2018 02:27 PM
(...Continued)
--6--These rules have been based upon convention and belief. --When fundamental right to practice religion is being violated, even the conventions and beliefs are questionable.
--7--The rule doesn't persecute or physically harm or mentally torture anyone. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of physical harm is an illogical diversion.
--8--The Temple Mgmt is only exercising their right to Freedom of Religion. --Temple mgmts authority to frame rules has its limits, remember? For example, they cannot frame rules that people with a certain skin color or caste should be disallowed.
--9--The rule is based on some people's beliefs (in Ayyappa's shyness, Ayyappa's respect for women, etc) --What about other people's beliefs? Those who want to allow the women? Why shouldn't those views be considered?
--10--It doesn't take away women's rights of contesting in elections and availing govt benefits. --A fundamental right to practice religion is being violated. Talking of right to contest elections is an illogical diversion.
--11--Sports events segregate based no gender. --That's done to keep contests fair and even.
--12--There are clubs such as Press Clubs that segregate based on gender. ---Club membership isn't a fundamental right. So this is ok.
This Sabarimala verdict is similar to Jallikattu verdict where the Judiciary interfered with a time honored tradition, that had little social impact.
Both the Jallikattu and the Sabarimala verdicts created more losers than winners. When Ram Janmabhoomi decision can be allowed for an acceptable negotiated settlement between the disputing parties, why not Sabarimala issue?
Re: Very Well written
by Sandeep Singh on Oct 27, 2018 12:38 PM
Ram Janmabhoomi and Sabrimala issues can not be equated!! Former is a major dispute between two large religious groups while the latter wasn't even ever an issue at all!!!
Re: Re: Very Well written
by ASHOK UPADHYAYA on Oct 27, 2018 12:56 PM
Now there should not be reservation for women... Parliament, Assembly , Panchayat etc...
