Related to the above.
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?P...833&SKIN=C
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>As India is a Secular Nation, Non Hindus can be employed in Temple - AP Government</b>
18/06/2009 13:42:41Â HK
Hyderabad: The Congress government in AP is pursuing their Anti Hindu agenda and Temple destructive policies and the justification for all these Policies are vested around SECULARISM!
(Can we finally get it right? It is *christianism* pursuing its anti-Hindu agenda.)
In a highly objectionable move AP Endowment Ministry is going ahead with <b>the appointment of Non Hindus in AP temple as staff.Recently Christians were employed at famous Annavaram Temple.
While responding to press Minister for Endowments, Stamps and Registration Gade Venkata Reddy said there should be no objection to employment of non-Hindus in Hindu temples as India was a secular State.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Rome when run over by the plague of christianism? No. Today's Bharatam.
But you'd be forgiven for confusing the two.
"Gade Venkata Reddy said there should be no objection to employment of non-Hindus in Hindu temples as India was a <b>secular</b> State"
What about appointing Hindus to 'manage' Vatican income, or at least all the money coming into christian churches in India? Since India is a secular state after all.
And I can then be appointed to the management of all Syrian catholic churches in Kerala and TN. <i>Trust</i> me.
The word "secular" certainly seems to have a catch-all meaning. Hence the terrorists can use it in parallel argument constructions like:
- "There should be no objection to letting afzal guru and qasab go free, since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to NLFT genociding Hindus, since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to christoterrorists massacring Hindu Swamis (like Swami Lakshmanananda, remember him?), since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to islamoterrorist attacks against India's legitimate citizens (as opposed to illegal infiltrators), since India is a secular state."
I'm confused. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Does this mean that next time some 'Hindu' says it is "secular", witnesses can just slap it and justify this with "there should be no objection, since India is a secular state"? <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hmmm. Actually, I'm starting to see that it's rather a persuasive argument. Am almost swayed, certainly tempted. Let's give it some more time to sink in, shall we, since I'm a bit slow.
http://haindavakeralam.com/HKPage.aspx?P...833&SKIN=C
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>As India is a Secular Nation, Non Hindus can be employed in Temple - AP Government</b>
18/06/2009 13:42:41Â HK
Hyderabad: The Congress government in AP is pursuing their Anti Hindu agenda and Temple destructive policies and the justification for all these Policies are vested around SECULARISM!
(Can we finally get it right? It is *christianism* pursuing its anti-Hindu agenda.)
In a highly objectionable move AP Endowment Ministry is going ahead with <b>the appointment of Non Hindus in AP temple as staff.Recently Christians were employed at famous Annavaram Temple.
While responding to press Minister for Endowments, Stamps and Registration Gade Venkata Reddy said there should be no objection to employment of non-Hindus in Hindu temples as India was a secular State.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Rome when run over by the plague of christianism? No. Today's Bharatam.
But you'd be forgiven for confusing the two.
"Gade Venkata Reddy said there should be no objection to employment of non-Hindus in Hindu temples as India was a <b>secular</b> State"
What about appointing Hindus to 'manage' Vatican income, or at least all the money coming into christian churches in India? Since India is a secular state after all.
And I can then be appointed to the management of all Syrian catholic churches in Kerala and TN. <i>Trust</i> me.
The word "secular" certainly seems to have a catch-all meaning. Hence the terrorists can use it in parallel argument constructions like:
- "There should be no objection to letting afzal guru and qasab go free, since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to NLFT genociding Hindus, since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to christoterrorists massacring Hindu Swamis (like Swami Lakshmanananda, remember him?), since India is a secular state."
- "There should be no objection to islamoterrorist attacks against India's legitimate citizens (as opposed to illegal infiltrators), since India is a secular state."
I'm confused. <!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo--> Does this mean that next time some 'Hindu' says it is "secular", witnesses can just slap it and justify this with "there should be no objection, since India is a secular state"? <!--emo&<_<--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Hmmm. Actually, I'm starting to see that it's rather a persuasive argument. Am almost swayed, certainly tempted. Let's give it some more time to sink in, shall we, since I'm a bit slow.