Should his statue even exist anywhere?

The post has been moved here

Advertisements
Posted in Wierd. 5 Comments »

5 Responses to “Should his statue even exist anywhere?”

  1. Krish Says:

    Not just oppressed classes. He is responsible for the suppression of women too.

  2. Thiagan Says:

    26/07/07

    There are two stattues of Mohammed – one in the US Supreme Court and one in London Bailiff Court. The authorities have refused to remove them.

    If Mohammed, the original cause of terrorism, can have his statues, why not Manu?

  3. Polite Indian Says:

    Krish,

    Yes women too. I just don’t understand the point of putting that statue and even weird is the fact that the case is being postponed because of it being a sensitive issue. I want to know who is so sensitive about Manu?

    Thiagan,
    Why does everything you say revolve around Muslims? For argument sake if I concede that everything that you say about them is 100% correct, does it mean that I cannot talk about anything else in the world? If there is one injustice somewhere, can I not talk about it unless I talk about every other injustice in the world? Are you so consumed by your hatred towards Muslims that you cannot think an any other issue in isolation?
    Having said that. I think there is no place for any statue of religious figure in any court. So yes, Mohammed’s statutes should also not exist in those courts.

  4. Thiagan Says:

    27/07/07

    PI

    I wish to make the following submissions:

    > The statue is there because he was the earliest law giver; the same is the reason for Mohammed also. It is not religious.
    > The practice started with the British and the statues of many like Atistotle adorn the higher courts worldover.
    > I find your reaction almost panicky
    > Why Krish is not debating with me on UCC or Is Islam violent? Let him come and I will come out with more startling revelations.

  5. Polite Indian Says:

    My reaction is more out of frustration than panic. The frustration comes from the fact that all the talks with you lead only to Islam/Muslims/Mohammed be it about Manu, about reservations or about anything else. I would hope you would stick to topic at hand.

    regarding Krish, I think you better ask him.

    As for Mohammed being a law giver that is only one aspect and you cannot separate him from being a religious figure. He is considered a prophet after all. So In my view he is more a religious figure than anything else. His statues in the courts should not be there. similarly I wouldn’t want Jesus or Buddha statue in courts unless of course you are living in a theocracy.

    Now for the topic in hand, even though Manu was the earliest law giver, the laws he gave concerning women, shudras or avarnas are nothing to be proud of. I fail to understand the reasoning behind putting that person’s statue who has caused so much misery to so many men and women.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: