Indian Temple Admits Women for First Time in 900-Year History

The Telegraph ^ | 27 Jul 2014 | Abigail Frymann Rouch

[Mrs. Don-o]

"As long as those practices are not seen as conflicting with the constitution & the laws of the land."

Oh, to be sure. And as long as the constitution does not conflict with Natural Law. Because: all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these are the Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and it is to secure these rights that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

I don't see how government seizure of a temple of religion, and the re-writing of their rituals, doctrines and customs, accords with Natural Law.

Certainly positive law -- the laws of the state --- cannot be supreme. That is the premise of totalitarianism.

[cold start]

“Because: all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”

That is an American viewpoint, the Indian constitution & the arms of the state are not guided by the belief that rights flow from a “creator”. Those rights, for Indians, flow from the constitution. Considering that Indian religions of Hinduism, Buddhism & Jainism have a strong atheistic streak (Hinduism has the streak, the other two are openly atheistic), most people have much less problem with that than they would in the U.S.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course I understand that “All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” is an American viewpoint --- after all, I'm quoting the American founding text -- but its twin roots are a Christian view of human nature, and NaturaL Law. Anyone who accepts this proposition would also reason that it applies to everybody, since we are all human.

There's no doubt that this is debatable, since it has historically sparked great debates through the centuries.

However, as far as I know, all the great religions promote the Golden Rule, at least in its negative form: "Do not do to others, what you would not have them do to you." So, by implication, if you don't want the State to take over some ancient indigenous institution which you revere, without a vote, without compensation--- and which is far older than the State --- redefine it, and then presume tell you the meaning of life (which is what religion does) --- then don't do that to somebody else.

Do you want the State to run your religion? Fine. But others wouldn't be so foolish to subordinate the older, more foundational institution to the necessarily transient gang of guys with guns known at the State.

[cold start]

I agree with what you have said generally but the case here is a bit more nuanced. The state does not interfere in private bodies running temples, only those where there is no such body or where the rights to run the temples by those private bodies have been successfully challenged in a court of law. When passed into state control, customs that previously were used do not stand. That would be the case here.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As you probably know more of the details, you would be right. It all depends on who has a right to run this particular Temple. If the original families who ran this temple were proven to be illegitimate, then I suppose the law may provide for it to pass into some form of public conservatorship.

Perhaps analogous to what happened in the Western Ukraine, when the USSR handed over all the Catholic Ukrainian Churches to the Orthodox during the Stalin era. The Orthodox at that point were the sole licensed liturgists for the State. That was their argument --- that the Catholic Church was not the legitimate owner-operator of these churches. But I think that was a usurpation by the State.

[cold start]

“Perhaps analogous to what happened in the Western Ukraine, when the USSR handed over all the Catholic Ukrainian Churches to the Orthodox during the Stalin era. The Orthodox at that point were the sole licensed liturgists for the State. That was their argument -— that the Catholic Church was not the legitimate owner-operator of these churches. But I think that was a usurpation by the State.”

This was a stand alone case making its way through the judicial system for nearly 4 decades before it was finally ruled on by India's Supreme Court. Hardly a simple case of usurpation by the state.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I guess I would understand better if I knew anything about the case, which I admittedly don’t. Am I correct that this involves just one temple?

[Cronos]

that’s in Mizoram. I think it is 97% baptist

[cold start]

Yes. Only one temple.