Yohan wrote:secularmindedhindu wrote:LTTE was not fighting for the cause of the Hindus. They were fighting for the cause of the ethnic Tamils in Sri Lanka. LTTE had many Christians in its ranks and files.
Not all Maoists are Hindus. In Orissa it has been estimated that about 70% of the Maoists are Christians.
Tamils are atleast 95% Hindu, so are the Maoists! The claim was Hindus do not create terrorists. That claim is wrong.
The Tamils in Sri Lanka and the Maoist does not have any adgenda related to Hinduism. Their goal has got nothing to do with Hinduism. Their activities are not religious in character but political in nature.
Yohan wrote:Nathusam Godse who killed Gandhi was once a member of RSS. But he left RSS at one point of time. When he killed Gandhi he was not a member of RSS. So you cannot link RSS with the assassination of Gandhi. Remember, that in RSS was banned 3 times for political reasons. But the ban had to be revoked after a brief period. As of today, RSS in a legitimate organisation. It is operating legally in India. None of the inernational bodies and western countries have declared their activities as illegal. So if you want to criticise RSS, please provide justification for the same.
"His (Godse's) ties to the Hindu right-wing organisation, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) led to its ban soon after Gandhi's assassination. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to this day deny any connection with Godse and dispute the claim that he was a member."
No link between RSS and assasination of Gandhi has ever been established. Supreme Court of India has dismissed all allegation against RSS for their alleged involvement in assasination of Gandhi.
Check below what Justice Kapur Commission report has to say about it.
"...RSS as such were not responsible for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi, meaning thereby that one could not name the organization as such as being responsible for that most diabolical crime, the murder of the apostle of peace".
"It has not been proved that they (the accused) were members of the RSS which shows that they (the accused) were believers in a more violent form of activities..."
Kapur Commission Report, Vol. 1, Page 165
Yohan wrote:The way you write seems to convey that you defend Hindu hardliners in all instances, while claiming 'secular'. Typical Hindu lie I presume.
I am willing to tolerate and even respect any other faith if they are willing to do the same to mine. Thats why I believe that I am secular.
Yohan wrote:More of it was evident in your denial of ties between Sikhism and Islam, but not Hinduism, in another thread. Even when concrete proof was presented, and what everyone else knows well, and when others jolted you on this, you simply walked away. You seem to suffer from too much Hinduism. Such a one can't be 'secular'.
I have already provided enough evidence to backup my statements. This thread is not meant to debate on the ties between Sikhism and Hinduism.
Yohan wrote:I have never seen a Hindu marrying his/her first cousin. The first cousin is almost regarded as similar to own brother or sister.
If your information about Hindu customs is based upon what you have seen, you have seen nothing yet. You just don't get the complexities of a vast and deep religious culture you are defending here. Actually that is evident from many of your posts here.
Take this task as a home work and report back, so you may learn about your own religious culture better. Clue: 1955 Hindu marriage act prohibited first cousin marriage except in communties with such practises. In this particular community, the practise has diminshed greatly now.
That is why wrote that I have never seen it. I didn't say it never happens. But I can say for sure, marriage between cousins is not common among the Hindus.