I need to know what I am trying to disprove
-a bunch of signs saying outsiders not allowed, and women walk here. ok. (is this against outsiders or hindus?)
-cows slaughtered in front of temple (ok, this one is to frighten the hindus I suppose)
-hoisting flag with chappals (protest against govt, party, or is this still hindus?)
-nothing opens without permission from local muslim bodies. ok fair enough. again, is this like reserving for a particular religious community. or against hindus. or outsiders?
mostly my point is that the "slave" media is not reporting this because there is nothing to report
If this is your point of view, then perhaps you don't deserve to live in this country in the first place. I don't know who you are trying to appease or who made you a mod, but may be an electrical shock only can open the channels of empathy in you and ability to rise beyond this cowardice you are trying to show as "intellect".
Here's more that you missed.....
news said:
The Hindu community is a scared lot because of the ever growing Islamic extremism in the district.
The villagers are still in a state of shock as some Muslim youth slaughtered a cow in front of the Muneeswarankoil Temple.
According to Kuppuramu, nearly 50 per cent of the business establishments in Ramanathapuram are owned by members of the Musilm community. “A Hindu can launch his business only if he gets approval from the Muslim community. This is an unwritten rule in the district,” said Kuppuramu. He said his efforts to meet the superintendent of police ended in futile as the officer was busy most of the time.
He said the DMK, the Congress and the AIADMK, in order to appease the minorities look the other way when Islamic fundamentalists unleash a reign of terror.
During the DMK regime in 2008, some Muslim youths hoisted the national flag with chappals at Vethalai village. The case was hushed up by Hassan Ali, the then MLA of the Congress,” said Kuppuramu.
This is very similar to what is happening in Kashmir. Perhaps you are alien to the definition or context of "outsider" here or you are simply and very pathetically trying to be politically correct and trying to show how "secular" you are. Oh, yes Muslim youths hoisted the national flag with chappals, a cow killed in front of temple, open display of Islamic terrorism, control of business, banning of things and our @Anorion Baba opines that there is nothing to report!
Further, it would be really nice if you can somehow with determined hardwork can make your brain register the origins of the word "hindu" and hindustan or perhaps learn to respect SC's verdict shown and debated sometime back. But still....
Supreme Court[SIZE=2 said:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_[/FONT][/SIZE][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]December 11, 1995[/FONT]]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the case of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo the Supreme Court bench dealt with the meaning of the word "Hindutva" or "Hinduism" when used in election propaganda. The court came to the conclusion that the words "Hinduism" or "Hindutva" are not necessarily to be understood and construed narrowly, confined only to the strict Hindu religious practices unrelated to the culture and ethos of the People of India depicting the way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people. Unless the context of a speech indicates a contrary meaning or use, in the abstract, these terms are indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and are not confined merely to describe persons practicing the Hindu religion as a faith" (Emphasis supplied). This clearly means that, by itself, the word "Hinduism" or "Hindutva" indicates the culture of the people of India as a whole, irrespective of whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc. The Supreme Court Bench has further observed that "the mere fact that these words (Hindutva or Hinduism) are used in the speech would not bring in within the prohibition of sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123. It may well be that these words are used in the speech to promote secularism and to emphasize the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticize the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant. Whether a particular speech in which a reference is made to Hindutva and or Hinduism falls within the prohibition under sub-section (3) or (3A) of Section 123 is therefore a question of fact in each case" (Emphasis supplied).
[/FONT]
This is beyond Hindu or Muslim in the first place which you have dissected the whole disturbing report into, with a mentality "Oh, if this somewhere speaks about Hindu, then only will my brains will start to work". I believe all the mods of all the forums in India should have high qualifying levels of patriotism sown deep down in their genes through all the possible science known or unknown!
: , 
