2006-11-23 14:00:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What is wrong with it???? The question should be what is RIGHT with it. Are you really trained to see your wife and children as your property instead of thinking individuals with feelings, emotions, intelligence, and potential? Do you honestly think it's ok to burn a person alive after a relative dies? Guess what? It's 2006. Men today KNOW that women have rights, women today know they have rights, and women stand up for those rights. There is a big difference between a woman using her God given rights and feminism. Feminism seeks to destroy families and homes, while women standing up for their rights contribute to the home and help in the success of it.
If your wife was burned alive, who would raise your children? Don't you think they would hate you as they became older for murdering their mother?
2006-11-23 14:05:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Now that both men and women have equal rights, first make sure whether Hindu widowers agree to be burned alive with the dead body of thir wives. Do you enjoy the thought of being burned to death while you are conscious and experienceing the pain? First burn your fingers, feel the agony and then your will understand what is wrong with burning live widows.
2006-11-23 14:09:48 · answer #2 · answered by rams 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In bad times after winning fights, winners used to take away women of the losing side. It happened in most parts of the world. In some brave communities of India women prefered to die than to get enslaved. This tradition was called Sati. Vedas & Puranas promoted Swadhrma, under which women were always respected. Times have changed but the tradition of Sati is still respected in those brave communities. Sati tradition is no more prevalent.
2016-03-29 07:09:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
"bring it back"? Sati is still practiced in the more rural parts of India. the widow is suppose to desire to be burned to death as a show of complete dependency on and loyalty to her husband. the fact that a used and unhusbanded woman ends up as a burden to whatever family members she may have left if she isn't exactly willing she's "encouraged" to throw herself into the flames.
what's wrong with the practice? if you have to have that explained to you then you'll not understand the explanation.
2006-11-23 14:22:56 · answer #4 · answered by nebtet 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good idea.
It'll save a lot on social budgets.
Maybe the widows wouldn't like it - but in this world money comes first.
So I think it's a brilliant concept that should be introduced everywhere.
But of course I will demand sexual equality.
2006-11-23 14:05:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with preventing women from every being self-sufficient. They're burned so that a male relative can inherit instead of her. If you don't see what's wrong with that then I have nothing further to say to you.
2006-11-23 16:25:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Burning widows????
How 'bout NOT?
2006-11-23 14:05:27 · answer #7 · answered by MyPreshus 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
May your god comfort your disturbed mind and bring you the peace you need to feel harmony with all of your god's creatures.
2006-11-23 14:10:40 · answer #8 · answered by Brah Man 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the widows were all that keen on it.
2006-11-23 16:40:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
what about burning men when women die.if u r a guy people should burn u when ur wife is dead
2006-11-23 14:07:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋