The morons said to the court that the petitioners' case is based upon Valmiki, Kamban, Tulasi Ramayana, Skanda Purana, MBT and the like - which are only mythology without history - therefore baseless. (This is exactly their stand in Ram Janma Bhumi case too - 'Since No Rama, what Rama-janmabhumi?')
What the morons forget is that the petitioners are only showing that since ages, Indians have BELEIVED the structure to be of religious importance. the end.
I am happy that center is taking such foolish and self-destructive stand in the court. SC will see the light I hope.
09-12-2007, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 09-13-2007, 03:23 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Shambhu+Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM-->QUOTE(Shambhu @ Sep 12 2007, 06:34 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/sep/12ram.htm
Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram
----------------------------------------
How came none of our people can say right away to these people"There still is no evidence to prove Jesus existed either, but they still do not go around destroying Nazareth"[right][snapback]73014[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->In fact, there's actually no comparison between Nazareth and Ramar Sethu (as K Elst explains sensibly in (2) below).
(1) There could never have been any 'jeebus the christian saviour of Nazareth' as christo liars keep whining on about. There was no Nazareth as any place to live in in alleged jeebus' time: http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2a.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Since Nazareth did not exist until the 2nd century</b>, when the gospels were being written, this also demonstrates conclusively that the Jesus myth is exactly that, a myth and not based upon reality. From: Are the Gospels True? A look at the nativity/infancy teachings<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> http://www.atheists.org/christianity/ozjesus.html
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>...archaeological excavations at present-day Nazareth -- ...carried out by Franciscan monks and priests... -- have failed to show the remains of a single building credibly datable to the first century B.C.E. or the first century C.E. The oldest buildings found seem to date from the last half of the third century</b>, and there is no information to indicate what the inhabitants of those buildings called their village.
Before the second or third century C.E. -- going back to the Middle Bronze Age -- the site now occupied by Nazareth was a necropolis, a city of the dead. The hillside underlying part of the present city is riddled with tombs and natural caves which for over a thousand years were used for burials. Since Jewish law prohibited cemeteries from being in the midst of inhabited sites, we can be quite sure that there was no Jewish city at the present site in the days when a supposedly Jewish Jesus is supposed to have been running loose there.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) All the 'christian holy sites' in the 'holy' ME region of the christians are well-known to be huge frauds - see Koenraad Elst's writings below. And then he makes the only point that needs to be made about Ayodhya (same is applicable to Ramar Sethu):
A book well worth reading for those engaged in controversies over sacred sites, in particular concerning Christian churches in South India, is Christians and the Holy Places by <b>Joan Taylor, a historian from New Zealand.2 It shows that the places where Christians commemorate the birth and death of Jesus have nothing to do with Jesus, historically.</b>
<b>The Nativity Church in Bethlehem was built in the fourth century A.D. in forcible replacement of a Pagan place of worship, dedicated to the God Tammuz-Adonis.</b> Until then, it had had no special significance for Christians, who considered pilgrimages to sacred places a Pagan practice anyway: you cannot concentrate in one place (hence, go on pilgrimage to) the Omnipresent. The concept of "sacred place" was introduced into Christianity by converts, especially at the time of Emperor Constantine's switch to a pro-Christian state policy.
<b>The Christian claim to Bethlehem as Jesus's birthplace was a fraud from the beginning, as Cambridge historian Michael Arnheim has shown</b>: through numerous contradictions and factual inaccuracies, the Gospel writers betray their intention to locate Jesus's birth in Bethlehem at any cost, against all information available to them.3 The reason is that they had to make Jesus live up to an Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah was to be born there.
(My statement: Just like the late gospel fibbers didn't bat an eyelid when insinuating Nazareth into their fable, Bethlehem was just as foolishly inserted. Lying about real Gods would be bad, but lying for non-existent gawd is pathetic. <- Now why is it so easy to swap 'pathetic' with 'christianism'?)
<b>The Holy Cross Church in Jerusalem was built in forcible replacement of a temple of the fertility Goddess Venus</b>, at the personal initiative of Emperor Constantine. His mother had seen in a dream that Jesus had died at that particular place, though close scrutiny of the original Christian texts shows that they point to a place 200 metres to the south. Constantine had the Venus temple demolished and the ground searched, and yes, his experts duly found the cross on which Jesus had died. They somehow assumed that their forebears of 33 A.D. had a habit of leaving or even burying crucifixion crosses at the places where they had been used, quod non. <b>The Christian claim to the site of the Holy Cross is based on the dream of a gullible but fanatical woman</b>, and fortified with a faked excavation.4
<b>Remember the Ayodhya debate, where Hindu scholars were challenged to produce ever more solid proof of the traditions underlying the sacredness of the controversial site? Whatever proof they came up with was automatically, without any inspection, dismissed by the high priests of secularism as "myth" and "faked evidence". It was alleged that there was a "lack of proof" for the assumption that Rama ever lived there. But in the case of the Christian sacred places, we do not just have lack of proof that the religion's claim is true, but we have positive proof that its claim is untrue, and that it was historically part of a campaign of fraud and destruction.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Terrorist ideologies will destroy all. (The truth means nothing to them. In fact, they consider truth to be their worst enemy. Hence they try to murder truth wherever they find it: by falsifying records, or through use of a media blitz to spread what's no more than mere claims, or media's strategic silence on any factual evidence presented, and by blatantly doing away with the only actual evidence like they are now trying to do with the Ramar Sethu, and the other techniques of the lying ideologies.)
As the dastardly Dark Helmet says to the hero Lone Star in the parody-comedy 'Spaceballs': "Now you know why Evil always wins. Because Good is dumb."
Yeah, tolerance for intolerance (which is also the mindset expressly inculcated by psecularism, itself the puppet of christoislamicommunism) will crown terrorist ideologies king.
09-12-2007, 08:31 PM (This post was last modified: 09-13-2007, 03:26 PM by Husky.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Sep 12 2007, 07:51 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Sep 12 2007, 07:51 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If there was no Ram Setu, there was no Sabri , no Valmiki also. Is there any Lanka?[right][snapback]73019[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Here you've illustrated what the christo (which includes colonialist) argument has always been. They've ever contended that India was a late invention - that it never existed, precisely because they dismiss anything we have in terms of history and literature as false. Not that they treated just us in that way, but certainly, the fact that we are still an unconverted country makes them feel better at treating Hindu India like a doormat. So far we've still not rolled over and died, much to their chagrin.
Funny how the west brainwashed by christoism has lied and lied and continues to lie again about itself (recent constructs of 'Europe' and 'west' and of 'Oryans', of connections with ancient Greece and Rome as if these were historically part of any Europe when no notion of any Europe even existed at their time; not to forget the lies about jeebus and the other stuff in the bible being presented as true).
All while they cannot ever believe that other civilisations are <i>not</i> compulsive liars (as opposed to how they've been conducting themselves): http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch46.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->No serious historian would ignore the Exodus narrative simply because it also contains unhistorical episodes like the Parting of the Sea and the voice from the Burning Bush.
Experience should also make us skeptical towards the knee-jerk skepticism displayed by historians when confronted with ancient historiography. <b>Thus, the king-list of the Chinese Shang dynasty (16th-12th century BC) was dismissed as âobviously mythicalâ, but when in the 1920s the Shang oracle bones were discovered, all the kings were found to be mentioned there: the âmythicalâ dynastic list proved to be correct to the detail.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->About the mention of 'Exodus' made in the above quoteblock. It seems the following Israeli archaeologists - presumably later than Elst wrote the above - discovered that the Exodus could not have taken place: http://freetruth.50webs.org/B2d.htm
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts</b> by Neil Asher Silberman and Israel Finkelstein - online summary.
The authors, who are directors of archaeological institutes, are authorities concerning the archaeology of early Palestine.
The book discusses how <b>archaeology has shown that there is no evidence for the existence of:</b>
- Abraham and any of the Patriarchs
- Moses and the <b>Exodus</b>
- The period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Doubting the Story of Exodus - L.A. Times News, April 13, 2001
The modern archeological consensus over the Exodus is just beginning to reach the public.
...
In a new book this year, "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the <b>Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the 7th century BC--600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 BC</b>--as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(2) The irrelevant spiel about 'no proof' for Rama:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Centre says no evidence to prove existence of Ram<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Oh, the desperate christoterrorists. Well, why don't they iterate in the same loud voice how there <i>is</i> evidence that <i>jeebus never existed</i>. In other words, <i>not</i> absence of evidence for jeebus the christian man-gawd-who-never-was, but how in fact there <i>is</i> evidence he could not have been.
"Jeebus of Nazareth" - and other such inane impossibilities. Says it all really.
We all know other myths Gurnanak, jesus, Mohamad .....
Lets see how ASI will hide Dwaraka evidence and after ten years will call it myth.
Do Congress know their own parents, had they done DNA, who knows who created them?? Their mother may be lying to them or they may be stolen property.
<b>Sethusamudram: Centre denies historical, scientific existence of Rama </b>
New Delhi, Sept 12: The controversy over the Sethusamudram project took a fresh twist Wednesday with the Centre telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical and scientific evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.
In an affidavit, the Centre stated that the contents of the Valmiki Ramayana, Tuslidas`s Ramcharitmanas and other mythological texts cannot be a historical record to prove the existence of the characters mentioned in the book.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>No record of Rama, says ASI; Blasphemy: BJP </b>
Press Trust of India / New Delhi September 12, 2007
In the midst of a political controversy over the Sethusamudram project, the central government today told the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejected the claim of the existence of the Ramsetu bridge in the area where the project was under construction.
The project proposes to provide a shorter sea route from Rameshwaram to Sri Lanka.
Referring to Ramayana, the affidavit said there is no "historical record" to incontrovertibly prove the existence of the character, or the occurrences of the events, depicted therein.
<b>Govt affidavit on Ramsetu blasphemous: BJP
BJP today accused the Congress-led UPA government of "blasphemy" by telling the Supreme Court that there was no historical evidence to establish the existence of Lord Rama or the other characters in Ramayana.
"This is sheer blasphemy," BJP leader Vijay Kumar Malhotra said reacting to an affidavit filed by ASI rejecting the claim of the existence of Ramsetu or Adam's bridge in the area where the Sethusamudram project was under construction.</b>
"It's an insult to Hindu faith. We also wonder why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress chief Sonia Gandhi have been going for the Dussehra festival if their government does not believe in Lord Rama's existence," he said.
BJP and other constituents of the Sangh Parivar are opposing the Sethusamudram project saying it would damage an undersea bridge believed to be built by Lord Rama.
"Today, the government in its affidavit says there is no evidence to prove the bridge was built by Lord Rama or that Lord Rama ever existed. This is an attack on Hindu sentiment - a ferocious one," Malhotra said.
Meanwhile, Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) activists staged protests across the country against the project.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Govt says no proof of Ramâs existence, BJP on boil</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Leader of Opposition LK Advani sought to speak Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the BJP angrily condemned the governmentâs stand. BJPâs Ravi Shankar Prasad said, <b> âIt is a crude attempt to insult our culture, civilisational heritage and Hindu sentiments, and is a case of practice of appeasement politics.â </b>Advani spoke later to PMâs media adviser, Sanjaya Baru, to convey his anguish.
.....
The BJP spokesperson said, <b>âSo far, we thought it is the solo play of Transport Minister TR Baalu who wants to demolish the Ram Setu. But it is clear that the government is behind the conspiracy to denigrate the Hindu beliefs and facts. The PM must explain the move to question the existence of Ramayana. We are not against the Sethusamudram project, but we want a realignment to protect the Ram Setu.â</b>
He said, âIf the ASI has made no study, how can the government can conclude that there is no historical basis for a structure that is a matter of faith?â
Threatening to intensify the agitation, VHP leader Pravin Togadia said, âThe government are diverting to the peopleâs attention but making such claim. If it continues like this and refuses to give up the Sethusamudram project, the UPA will suffer losses in the polls in Gujarat and other states and in the event of a mid-term Lok Sabha polls. By hurting the Hindu sentiments, no party can win polls in the states or at the Centre.â<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Withdraw the Sethu affidavit, Advani tells PM</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
Senior BJP leader L K Advani on Wednesday sought immediate withdrawal of the government's affidavit before the Supreme Court in connection with the Sethusamudram case that said there was no historical evidence to establish existence of Lord Ram.
Advani said he also conveyed his protest over the affidavit to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [Images] when they were together at a dinner meeting.
<b>"I told the prime minister that the affidavit was highly objectionable. I met the law minister also and told him that it should be immediately withdrawn," </b>he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They got themselves in a trap now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are digging their own grave.
Congress should say Good Bye to Rural votes, whether upper caste or lower caste.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) rejected the claim of the existence of the Ramsetu bridge in the area where the project was under construction<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Has ASI done any kind of archaeological study in the area or they just borrowing from teachings from the hysterians who support the imported caucasian gene theory?
While we are at it, how did Hazrat bal (strand of hair belonging to PBUH) land in J & K? Any ASI studies on that?
<b>Govt playing with people's faith: Ramdev</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->He is understood to have pointed out that the Government had disputed the historicity of the characters and events figuring in Valmiki's Ramayan and Tulsidas's Ram Charit Manas, even as it admitted that the Archeological Survey of India had not conducted any enquiry into the existence of the Ram Setu.
The move gave a clear indication that the principal opposition party intends to make the Government's deliberate campaign to hurt the sentiments of the majority community a big issue and target the Congress for its unabashed pursuit of vote bank politics.
As BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad was quick to observe the affidavit had been filed by the Union Government's Ministry of Culture, which was under senior Congress leader Ambika Soni.
"So far, we thought opposition to Ram Setu was primarily from the Union Minister for Surface Transport and Shipping TR Balu, who represents the DMK in the ruling alliance," he said.
Interestingly, Balu's Ministry had already filed an affidavit in the apex court in connection with the same case on Monday.
But that affidavit confined itself to stating that there was no scientific evidence proving that Ram Setu was a man-made bridge.
The latest affidavit filed by a Ministry under the charge of Congress leader Ambika Soni went beyond this and challenged the historicity of the characters and events in the entire gamut of the Ram pantheon itself.
If it helps anything here is a version of the what was argued
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->As BJP spokesman Ravi Shankar Prasad was quick to observe <b>the affidavit had been filed by the Union Government's Ministry of Culture, which was under senior Congress leader Ambika Soni.
"So far, we thought opposition to Ram Setu was primarily from the Union Minister for Surface Transport and Shipping TR Balu, who represents the DMK in the ruling alliance," he said.
Interestingly, Balu's Ministry had already filed an affidavit in the apex court in connection with the same case on Monday.</b>
But that affidavit confined itself to stating that there was no scientific evidence proving that Ram Setu was a man-made bridge.
<b>The latest affidavit filed by a Ministry under the charge of Congress leader Ambika Soni went beyond this and challenged the historicity of the characters and events in the entire gamut of the Ram pantheon itself. </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So this was a Modernist attack and not required for the arguement against the case. The DMK was more rational.
There is an issue of attacking the core beliefs of people especially with government backing. If the Constitution says India is secular what business is it of the Govt to argue that a core belief of one religion is a historical. How does that reconcile with secularism? Why the selective attack on Hindu beliefs only?
