Posted on 07/27/2014 4:16:56 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Twelfth-century Hindu temple breaks with tradition after Supreme Court rules against two Brahmin families who have claimed exclusive ancestral rights to choosing priests for centuries
A twelfth-century Hindu temple that attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims annually is to admit women and lower-caste men as priests for the first time.
The historic break with tradition came about after India's Supreme Court ruled against the two Brahmin families, Badve and Utpat, who had provided the temple's priests for centuries.
The court ruled against their claim to exclusive ancestral rights over the earnings and rituals at Vitthal Rukmini temple, in the town of Pandharpur in Maharastra state.
The Hindu Newspaper described the decision as: "The 900-year-old place of worship... challenging the entrenched tradition of patriarchy and casteism in one stroke."
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
that’s in Mizoram. I think it is 97% baptist
Yes. Only one temple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.