Comments on: ‘theetu’ http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/ tHE RaNTS oF a pOOr sOUl StuCK oN ThE WRONG!!! rOCK OrBiTiNg tHE fIreBaLL bY a cRUel tWiSt oF fAtE.... Tue, 20 Dec 2011 11:46:55 +0530 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: cafm http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/comment-page-1/#comment-47 cafm Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:28:58 +0000 http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/#comment-47 shalom! :) shalom! :)

]]> By: Sreejith Unnikrishnan http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/comment-page-1/#comment-46 Sreejith Unnikrishnan Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:18:50 +0000 http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/#comment-46 Of course it would have hurt many. What I meant was, even if we wait for time to heal and help, there would still be many who are dissatisfied. Happy to know that you too believe that, ultimately the rule needs to be changed. It's only on the time of execution that we differ It can be 1) as u said l8r; when the nxt generation takes over. But thing is you wud have denied justice to a small number who neednt be alive even then 2) or it can be done immediately. delivering justice to all but wud certainly be trampling a few people's beliefs Each has its own merits and demerits. Peace for now :-D Of course it would have hurt many. What I meant was, even if we wait for time to heal and help, there would still be many who are dissatisfied.
Happy to know that you too believe that, ultimately the rule needs to be changed. It’s only on the time of execution that we differ
It can be
1) as u said l8r; when the nxt generation takes over. But thing is you wud have denied justice to a small number who neednt be alive even then
2) or it can be done immediately. delivering justice to all but wud certainly be trampling a few people’s beliefs
Each has its own merits and demerits. Peace for now :-D

]]> By: cafm http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/comment-page-1/#comment-45 cafm Mon, 25 Jun 2007 10:10:26 +0000 http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/#comment-45 Hi There, Yes the act in 1936 paved way for its acceptance, but can you say that it did not hurt the sentiments of a lot of people. I dont know you see people who opposed it (or in your words people who had access)....see they are not "bad" people. they are just constrained by the world in which they grew up. In their world "the fact" was that, lower caste people should not enter the temple. From where we are standing this might seem to be an egregious or wicked thing, but it is not for them. They were brought up like that and their faith is linked to that. And I for one believe that we do not have the right to take away their faith from them. We can create awareness and when our generation comes, it would become "unnatural" thing and get removed but till them its better to wait. Hi There,
Yes the act in 1936 paved way for its acceptance, but can you say that it did not hurt the sentiments of a lot of people.
I dont know you see people who opposed it (or in your words people who had access)….see they are not “bad” people. they are just constrained by the world in which they grew up. In their world “the fact” was that, lower caste people should not enter the temple. From where we are standing this might seem to be an egregious or wicked thing, but it is not for them. They were brought up like that and their faith is linked to that.

And I for one believe that we do not have the right to take away their faith from them. We can create awareness and when our generation comes, it would become “unnatural” thing and get removed but till them its better to wait.

]]> By: Sreejith Unnikrishnan http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/comment-page-1/#comment-44 Sreejith Unnikrishnan Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:39:22 +0000 http://www.martiangeek.com/2007/01/11/theetu/#comment-44 as u had commented in my blog, i agree that it's small baby steps that we need to take initially.. but tht should be only regarding creating initial awareness and discussion. After that when the rule has to be changed it has to be done in one quick stroke. You urself have written in ur nlog, "Like an majority of the old generation Brahmins would have revolted at the idea of a shudras entering a temple, but now you don’t find that much people revolting, at least not openly. slowly as time progress the 'general opinion' will turn in favor of the other side of the rule and it may be allowed". When Temple Entry Act of 1936 was brought in, the majority of those who had access to temples then were against it.. but nw the situ has changed nd have accepted the law.. so i dont believe in waiting for the majority to turn around, tday "matter of faith" applies not only to the priveleged (those who have temple access now) but also to the less fortunate.. so nothing wrong in choosing the right path. as u had commented in my blog, i agree that it’s small baby steps that we need to take initially.. but tht should be only regarding creating initial awareness and discussion. After that when the rule has to be changed it has to be done in one quick stroke. You urself have written in ur nlog, “Like an majority of the old generation Brahmins would have revolted at the idea of a shudras entering a temple, but now you don’t find that much people revolting, at least not openly. slowly as time progress the ‘general opinion’ will turn in favor of the other side of the rule and it may be allowed”. When Temple Entry Act of 1936 was brought in, the majority of those who had access to temples then were against it.. but nw the situ has changed nd have accepted the law.. so i dont believe in waiting for the majority to turn around, tday
“matter of faith” applies not only to the priveleged (those who have temple access now) but also to the less fortunate.. so nothing wrong in choosing the right path.

]]>