http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/09/28/india.ayodhya.backgrounder/index.html?hpt=Sbin Muslim conquerors seem to have this intentional plans to always build their Mosques on top of other people's religious holy site. The Al Aqsa Mosque was build on top of Jews holy site Temple of Solomon, Muslim Turks after they conquered Constantinopole they converted Christian basilicas to Mosques.
The Christians have a long track record of building churches on former holy sites of pagans, along with co-opting traditional customs and holidays. Why point the finger just at Muslims?
The muslims built a mosque on his birthplace? Sounds like the mosque was a symbol of islamic oppression on other religions that the muslims who are so ready to cry out oppression rioted over. (*)(*)(*)(*) it, it's hindu holy land, it was INVADED by the muslims. The only reason those muslims rioted over it is because they want to dominate hinduism, this is clearly a situation where the hindus should win.
Because this article and thread is about Hindus and Muslims, not how Christians did things hundreds of years ago, but what is happening in the here and now. Either stick to the topic at hand or stop posting, those are the forum rules, are they not?
As was pointed out it is about Hindu and Islam but to answer your question, Christianity have not build churches on Hindu holy sites even though England a suppossedly Christian nation rule India for centuries from 1856 -1947. The same when the Middle East was under European powers both England and France did not attempt to re-introduce Christianity especially in Saudi Arabia by building many churches.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11435240 A true Solomon ruling, split it up and share it. One can imagine if it is a Muslim majority nation or a Muslim nation, ruling would have definitely go against the Hindus.
I dunno about this. I mean, it's probably the best ruling that could've been made in this situation, but still, holy land disputes rarely go well with just splitting it up; every group is going to want the whole thing because, heck, it's their holy land, they shouldn't have to split it up in their mind. Hopefully, in this day and age, people can take this ruling and realize the optimized fairness of it, instead of getting all crazy about it like they did in 1992.
About a hundred million if you regroup all variation togheter (wiccan, native, aboriginals etc, etc...)
I'm claiming the land as my holy right of control, under the Constitution, further backed by state law. The land I claim is the property of my home, and here I am in control. Of course, I'm agnostic so maybe that's why.
Just keep them taxes/payments current and you can claim anything you want, but you share the land with at least one, maybe more entities than yourself. 　 　 Don't know if it is still the same but in Phoenix if you drank a beer on your front porch you could be cited for public intoxication. In Scottsdale basically across the street, if you informed the police you were going to have a "garden" party, they would patrol the area to make sure nobody bothered you while you drank your beer on your front porch. 　 　 Much like the open container laws in many states now, where if you are sitting in the back seat drinking a beer you can be cited, but if you are a rich guy sitting in the back of a limo you can drink as much as you want from a fully stocked wet bar. 　 　 One man’s pleasure is another man’s crime!!
It would be funny if atheists claimed Jerusalem as their holy ground and started promoting a three-state solution.
What they can't have an opinion?? If two siblings were fighting over something the other wanted wouldn't the responsible adult step in and tell them neither could have it until they learned how to share? Wait, isn't that what the courts decided??
The problem is that Islam do not believe in separation of Mosque and State, they do beleive that other religion should have a separation of religion and State. Islam believe and practice that Islamic law supercede any State law or constitution. THis ruling maybe be fair for now but for Muslims it will never be acceptable because they donot recognize State law over Islamic law and their Islamic law say that land belongs to Muslim in fact for them all lands belong to Muslims. Already the lone third Muslim judge rule in favor of the Muslims base on religion not India's constituion. Fr. Zakaria Botos said it more clearly about Islam and Muslims, who knows better than none Muslim Arabs who have live with Muslims for hundred of years, they know the Muslim agenda and ambition, they know what Islam is. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irD1_ubP2VY&feature=related"]YouTube - Father Zakariah Botros with Michael Coren - Part 2[/ame]
