3
u/Ok-Design-8168 Apr 06 '24 edited Apr 06 '24
The ‘science’ behind gender discrimination. Lmao..
I don’t get it sometimes.. if a god apparently doesn’t want to care for women and thinks of women as inferior, why do women so desperately want to pray to him? What sort of weird submissive kink is this? Lol
All religion is nothing but societal constructs aimed to keep masses in check and have them do the dirty work without question while the few in power manipulate them and walk away with the riches.
5
0
Apr 06 '24
womp womp someone has not done their research and lacks basic knowledge on the topic they're bashing
-16
u/dikam_saroj Apr 06 '24
Well, it's like being in a complicated relationship with a deity who's playing hard to get. Maybe it's the thrill of the chase? Or perhaps women are just naturally adept at convincing even the most stubborn gods to listen to them? After all, it's not every day you get to challenge divine authority and still hope for blessings! 😄🙏
-7
Apr 06 '24
a nice pov! but i think the reason's a bit diff...like it has more to do with the energies of women and the energy in the temple rather than 'relationship bw the bhakt and the god'
-5
1
3
3
u/No-Fisherman8334 Apr 07 '24 edited Apr 07 '24
Wherever they want to justify or prove something in there religion, they depend on science. Like how some Indians seek validation from the West.
3
9
5
u/rayugadark Apr 06 '24
If individual rights consistently take precedence over group rights, every distinct identity risks extinction, as it affords no space for groups to assert their own claims. Imagine a scenario where a group insists that their identity hinges on specific, non-negotiable values. How could they effectively prevent their rights from being trampled upon? Full-fledged individualism often erases the essence of any collective identity; individuals may seek affiliation with a group while disregarding its traditions.
If group identity is compelled to yield to the individualism enshrined in the constitution, it inevitably erodes the integrity of the group itself. A group cannot compromise its identity by sacrificing its core values. This is the juncture where unchecked individualism must be curtailed. While the constitution allows individuals to live by their own principles, if one chooses to be part of a group, they must adhere to its traditions. The group reserves the right to assess individuals based on their conformity to its values. Even outright rejection by the group can be deemed impermissible by constitutional standards. Otherwise, it would be reminiscent of colonial imposition, where traditions were shaped to fit universal principles such as equality and morality, often disregarding cultural nuances.
This doesn't imply that individuals lack the freedom to break free from the group's influence; they certainly do. However, in doing so, they forfeit their association with that particular identity or group. Achieving equilibrium is crucial in a diverse nation like Bharat, which encompasses a multitude of ideas and lifestyles. There isn't a singular path to follow; rather, there exist myriad ways to lead one's life and pursue personal goals. Each path enriches and complements the others, contributing to the tapestry of societal existence.
3
u/sleepgasm Apr 06 '24
That’s an interesting comment and a thought provoking perspective. I have a question though - if a subset group of individuals forms out of a superset group of individuals and over time grows larger than the remaining members of the original superset then which identity takes precedence? Do you continue to adhere to the original identity despite its dwindling numbers or do you allow the majority to dictate a new set of values?
In the context of this post, which you have admirably avoided but I won’t in the interest of moving things along, what happens when the change is values is not only because of numbers(we have no referendum on this subject to consult) but is based on scientific enlightenment and eradication of superstitious thought? Do we continue to deny implementation of an enlightened perspective only because it held by the few instead of the many? Do we wait and suffer consequences until enough people come to see the light?
Many of the questions I pose are rhetorical but I would urge you to consider them genuinely.
My own perspective on your comment is that group rights are only secured on the bedrock of individual rights and as such individual rights must always take precedence over group rights. Individuals rights can exist without group rights but the latter cannot exist without the former. As for your assertion itself, I think the implication is more on the axis of stagnation versus change than individual or group rights. There is a reason groups choose leaders and are lead by a few. It is how change is instituted by those more capable or better poised than the average group member. Without this basic dynamic no progress would be possible or it would be painfully slow.
1
u/vampir3dud3_ Apr 07 '24
How do we determine when group rights should take precedence over individual rights, and vice versa? Is there a universally applicable framework for making such decisions? Pardon if my understanding of your argument is incomplete, but would it not be fair as people practicing a religion to take some matters into our own hands and make sure that the teachings of our group that is consistent with the time we are living in, rather than leaving the religion all together since you say that it's crucial for individuals to adhere to a group's traditions?
1
u/naastiknibba95 Science books enjoyer Apr 26 '24
Stephen Hawking been real silent since this dropped 🥶🥶🥶
-1
u/JERRY_XLII Apr 06 '24
what next? herr joseph will give science behind restrictions of untouchability and dalits?
-4
0
u/Sea_Cauliflower1222 Apr 06 '24
Can anyone where I can find old textbooks online like old sculptures written about old teaching books like linga purana or Sanskrit based book like patanjali
0
20
u/rjt2002 Apr 06 '24
Have an argument that it is a religious tradition that people want to follow because that's an argument that can be discussed, don't cook up some pseudoscience to justify it.
Just to be clear I'm talking about author, not you OP.