Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

usha manohar wrote:

Actually it is only the old testament which spoke about forbidding women from entering the church while menstruating. There is no such rule now ..

Pope Gregory addressed this question in a letter to St Augustine of Canterbury 1400 years ago

A WOMAN SHOULD NOT BE FORBIDDEN to enter the Church during the times of her monthly period; for the workings of nature cannot be considered sinful, and it is not right that she should be refused admittance since her condition is beyond her control. We know that the woman who suffered an issue of blood, humbly approaching behind our Lord, touched the hem of his robe and was at once healed of her sickness. If, therefore, the woman was right to touch our Lord's robe, why may one who endures the workings of nature not be permitted to enter the church of God? And if it is objected that the woman in the Gospels was compelled by disease while these latter are bound by custom, then remember, my brother, that everything that we endure in this mortal body through the infirmity of its nature is justly ordained by God since the fall of man. 

Even if this is a fact, I know that my Christian friends even today do not visit their church during those days!

That is because Christians in India follow all the Hindu customs like caste and other traditions ..

It's because most of these so called minorities are converted from native Indians. They have basic believes somewhere back on their subconscious mind.

Yes these peoples changed their name but in all other things they like Hindus. Even some people like to tell their Hindu name. Amit Khan.

suni51 wrote:

It's because most of these so called minorities are converted from native Indians. They have basic believes somewhere back on their subconscious mind.

Of course that is a fact, that all minorities strictly follow caste norms just like HIndus and still they as well as leftist sickulars will only blame Hinduism for caste biases!

Coming to the movie "the Accidental prime MInister", I saw it today and I can say it's a superb movie. So realistic and Anupam Kher and Akshaye Khanna as Sanjaya Baru are superb. 

I have been reading all kinds of reviews , good and mostly bad. Some. Call it a blotchy film made as a propaganda. I feel that the reviews also show the political leanings of the media house..

I watched the movie on this Sunday. It was superb and realistic with good performances. It can not be called an entertainer as it was more like documentary movie. It lacked the ingredients of a good Bollywood entertainer. The movie has nothing to show which was not in News or in public domain.  

Arunima Singh wrote:

I watched the movie on this Sunday. It was superb and realistic with good performances. It can not be called an entertainer as it was more like documentary movie. It lacked the ingredients of a good Bollywood entertainer. The movie has nothing to show which was not in News or in public domain.  

Congratulation that you watched this movie. I have to wait till it telecast of TV. It is not entertainer movie. Tell it will hurt image of congress or not.

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

I watched the movie on this Sunday. It was superb and realistic with good performances. It can not be called an entertainer as it was more like documentary movie. It lacked the ingredients of a good Bollywood entertainer. The movie has nothing to show which was not in News or in public domain.  

Congratulation that you watched this movie. I have to wait till it telecast of TV. It is not entertainer movie. Tell it will hurt image of congress or not.

You can wait and watch on TV as the movie has no special audio or visual effect that would make it more enjoyable in theater. It is more like a documentary movie. I did not find anything new in the movie that will hurt Congress as it is not based on fiction but on facts which were known to country already and were out in public domain through media. They have not over dramatized anything or made it spicier. It has simple language and has many real scenes from media and news channels. 

If you really want to go for a movie in theater then URI is my recommendation. I loved the movie to the core. It can be watched several times.

Arunima Singh wrote:

anil wrote:

Arunima Singh wrote:

I watched the movie on this Sunday. It was superb and realistic with good performances. It can not be called an entertainer as it was more like documentary movie. It lacked the ingredients of a good Bollywood entertainer. The movie has nothing to show which was not in News or in public domain.  

Congratulation that you watched this movie. I have to wait till it telecast of TV. It is not entertainer movie. Tell it will hurt image of congress or not.

You can wait and watch on TV as the movie has no special audio or visual effect that would make it more enjoyable in theater. It is more like a documentary movie. I did not find anything new in the movie that will hurt Congress as it is not based on fiction but on facts which were known to country already and were out in public domain through media. They have not over dramatized anything or made it spicier. It has simple language and has many real scenes from media and news channels. 

If you really want to go for a movie in theater then URI is my recommendation. I loved the movie to the core. It can be watched several times.

It is  not possible for me to go to theater. I watched last move in theater in 1996. I watched Agni Sakshi at Rajmandir in Jaipur. So I will watch both movie on TV. I have 45" LED.