Personal Representative Affidavit A Covered Individual: Fill & Download for Free

Why are gun owners so defensive when no one is trying to take away their guns? We just want criminals to not have guns. Shouldn’t gun owners be on our side?From They are coming for your guns by Murphy BarrettGun Banners often claim that nobody is trying to take guns away from anybody. They’re lying. Why do I say this? Well, let’s look at their past performance.Because:Gun control advocates keep pointing to places like the UK or Australia as examples, places in which confiscation has occurred beforeSome jurisdictions in the US have attempted outright confiscation beforeReading gun control laws, it is clear that:The people writing them know very little about gunsThat they are clearly meant to restrict as many guns as possibleThe eventual goal is a total banGun control advocates have outright lied in the past about guns to get them bannedGun control creep keeps making more and more things illegalThen, there’s what they’ve had to say on the matter themselves.Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1995 DISARM THE CITIZENRY. BUT NOT YET.Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic -- purely symbolic -- move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States“Only the police should have handguns.”“When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it. That’s what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we’re going to have weapon sweeps” Enough is Enough, MTV, April 19, 1994Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator from California“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” Associated Press, November 18, 1993“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” I would have done it.” 60 Minutes, CBS, February 5, 1995“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”Howard Metzenbaum, former U.S. Senator“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.”Charles Pashayan, U.S. Representative from California“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” United Nations Conference on Small Arms, 2001Pete Stark, U.S. Representative from California“If a bill to ban handguns came to the house floor, I would vote for it.” Town Hall Meeting, June 1999, Fremont, CaliforniaWilliam Clay, U.S. Representative from Missouri” …we need much stricter gun control, and eventually should bar the ownership of handguns”Joseph Biden, Vice President of the United States“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.”John Chafee, Former U.S. Senator from Rhode Island“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” In View of Handguns’ Effects, There’s Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992, at 13AJan Schakowsky, U.S. Representative from Illinois“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” Tape recorded on June 25, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp at the Chicago Gay Pride ParadeMajor Owens, U.S. Representative from New York“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”Bobby Rush, U.S. Representative from Illinois“My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don’t have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that’s the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation.” Chicago Tribune, December 5, 1999Nelson T. “Pete” Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (Originally named “The National Council to Ban Handguns”)” …. the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976“Yes, I’m for an outright ban (on handguns).” 60 Minutes interview“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.” New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53Sarah Brady, Chairperson for Handgun Control, Inc. (now the Brady Campaign)“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” Handguns in America, Hearst Newspapers Special Report, October 1997“We would like to see, in the future, what we will probably call needs-based licensing of all weapons. …Where it would make it much more difficult for anybody to be able to purchase handguns….” Sarah Brady speech to the Women’s National Democratic Club, Sept. 21, 1993“To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes.” Tampa Tribune, Oct 21, 1993Jim Brady“[Handguns] For target shooting, that’s okay. Get a license and go to the range. For defense of the home, that’s why we have police.” Parade Magazine, June 26, 1994Elliot Corbett, Secretary, National Council for a Responsible Firearms Policy“Handguns should be outlawed.”Bernard Parks, Chief of Police, L.A. California“We would get rid of assault weapons. There would not be an assault weapon in the United States, whether it’s for a show or someone having it in a collection.” Reuters, June 9, 2000Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center“ … immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act … [which] would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns.” Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999Patrick V. Murphy, former New York City Police Commissioner“We are at the point in time and terror where nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people.” Testimony to the National Association of Citizens Crime CommissionsAmerican Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” Board of Directors in September 1976 – see national ACLU policy #47Rosie O’Donnell, TV talk show hostess“I think there should be a law — and I know this is extreme — that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns.” Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999“I don’t care if you want to hunt, I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say, sorry, you are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.” The Rosie O’Donnell Show April 19, 1999Violence Policy Center (VPC)“[gun] Licensing systems are very expensive to administer … licensing and registration in America would have little effect on the vast majority of gun violence.”“[We are] the largest national gun control advocacy group seeking a ban on handgun production.” Politics, paranoia fuel war of words over guns, The Times Union, October 18, 2004Alan M. Dershowitz, Lawyer and Frankfurter Professor of Law“The Second Amendment has no place in modern society.” The Crimson Daily, April 9, 2003Michael Gardner, President of NBC News“There is no reason for anyone in this country … to buy, to own, to have, to use a handgun …The only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.” USA Today, January 16, 1992“In fact, only police, soldiers — and, maybe, licensed target ranges — should have handguns. No one else needs one.” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 1991Editorial, Los Angeles Times“Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safe.” Taming the Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Dec. 28, 1993“…The Times supports a near-total ban on the manufacture and private ownership of handguns and assault weapons, leaving those guns almost exclusively in the hands of law enforcement officials.” Taming the Monster: The Guns Among Us, Dec. 10, 1993Jack E. White, Time Magazine national correspondent“Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one.” Washington Times, May 8, 1999Gary Wills, syndicated columnist“Every civilized society must disarm its citizens against each other.” Philadelphia Inquirer, May 17, 1981George Napper, Atlanta public-safety commissioner“If I had my druthers, the only people who would have guns would be those who enforce the law.” U.S. News and World ReportJanet Reno, former U.S. attorney general“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” Addressing a 1984 B’nai B’rith gathering in Coral Gables, Florida, per affidavit written by Fred Diamond of MiamiMarion Barry, former mayor, Washington D.C.“Our neighbors in Virginia are just as responsible for these killings as the criminals are because they won’t pass strong gun [control] legislation.” This Week With David Brinkley, ABC TV, March 19, 1989 (Ed: The claim being that citizens of Virginia were responsible for murders committed in Washington D.C.)Should we not take them at their word? When they consistently admit total bans are the goal, supported by increasingly draconian laws that fail to get guns out of the hands of criminals, what other purpose can gun control serve?Obviously it can’t be “keeping guns out of the hands of criminals”, because that’s not what gun control does. It can’t be “making sure no innocent people get murdered”, because nothing in human history has put a stop to that, we have only one end state ever explicitly sought by gun controllers. A total ban on private ownership of firearms.Source Gun Facts | Quotes Concerning Gun ControlAnd here are some gems from Quora itself.Of course this question is anonymous.And in a move that shocks no one, a Californian wants to straight out ban “assault weapons”, and steal the ones you already, under the guise of a “buyback”.Swalwell on why he says we should ban & buy back assault weaponsLook, Swalwell is a fucking moron. Buyback? Fuckoff.The guns were never owned by the Feds to begin with. You cannot “buy back” something you never owned in the first place.“Buying” something is a voluntary exchange, where one party exchanges goods or services with another, for money. Holding a gun to people’s heads and taking their property involuntarily, even if you compensate them monetarily, is NOT buying, it’s robbery.Further, there is no goddamn fucking way for such a program to actually pay anything even remotely close to market value for 300 million odd guns. Which means the “compensation” will be naught but a cruel joke.“Semi-automatic assault weapons”? Screw guns, I’m going to beat this idiot to death with a dictionary.“A child’s right to learn without fear and to come home after school and to live is greater than any other right…” You know what, asshat? I actually agree with you. Which is why I want big angry men with real machine guns ready to protect our kids from some malefactor who wants to murder them. But your plan? Your “Gun Free Zones”? Is this.“I don’t accept the premise that an assault weapon is covered by the second amendment” Holy fucking Christ, I agree with this moron again. Because “assault weapons” are not a goddamn thing that exist. Define for me, in specific technical detail, what makes an “Assault Weapon”, and how it is different from every other rifle. How do I make what? What caliber, muzzle velocity, muzzle energy, accuracy, what operating mechanism? Define the goddamn thing as something other than “Whatever gun I want to ban this week”. So you’re right, fucknuts, “Assault Weapons” aren’t covered, just like unicorns aren’t. But any and all actual arms that exist are, and I don’t give a unicorn’s fart if you “don’t accept” that, it’s written in plain if archaic English. Learn to fucking read! Maybe you should go back to school and retake English Comprehension.The only good thing that can possibly come from this idiocy, is that we have a shining golden shit of an example that They are coming for your guns. Really.Other gems.Go on. Tell me again that nobody is trying to ban guns. Look me right in the eye and lie to my face.Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target's belief.”-Gaslighting - WikipediaOn Gunsplaining and GaslightingFor further reading:Bearing ArmsGun Control, de-facto bans, Common Sense, and TrustJust One LifeFirst Guns, then KnivesAlways One More

“What is Sanders’ plan for dealing with insurance company jobs and stockholders wealth if private health insurance is abolished? This is a serious question about his plan. Insults or praises of Sanders will not really answer my question.”SEC. 301. PROVIDER PARTICIPATION AND STANDARDS.(a) In General.—An individual or other entity furnishing any covered service under this Act is not a qualified provider unless the individual or entity—(1) is a qualified provider of the services under section 302;(2) has filed with the Secretary a participation agreement described in subsection (b); and(3) meets, as applicable, such other qualifications and conditions with respect to a provider of services under title XVIII of the Social Security Act as described in section 1866 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc).(b) Requirements In Participation Agreement.—(1) IN GENERAL.—A participation agreement described in this subsection between the Secretary and a provider shall provide at least for the following:(A) Services to eligible persons will be furnished by the provider without discrimination, in accordance with section 104(a). Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed as requiring the provision of a type or class of services that are outside the scope of the provider’s normal practice.(B) No charge will be made to any enrolled individual for any covered services other than for payment authorized by this Act.(C) The provider agrees to furnish such information as may be reasonably required by the Secretary, in accordance with uniform reporting standards established under section 401(b)(1), for—(i) quality review by designated entities;(ii) making payments under this Act, including the examination of records as may be necessary for the verification of information on which such payments are based;(iii) statistical or other studies required for the implementation of this Act; and(iv) such other purposes as the Secretary may specify.(D) In the case of a provider that is not an individual, the provider agrees not to employ or use for the provision of health services any individual or other provider that has had a participation agreement under this subsection terminated for cause.(E) In the case of a provider paid under a fee-for-service basis, the provider agrees to submit bills and any required supporting documentation relating to the provision of covered services within 30 days after the date of providing such services.(2) TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT.—(A) IN GENERAL.—Participation agreements may be terminated, with appropriate notice—(i) by the Secretary for failure to meet the requirements of this Act; or(ii) by a provider.(B) TERMINATION PROCESS.—Providers shall be provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct deficiencies before the Secretary terminates an agreement unless a more immediate termination is required for public safety or similar reasons.(C) PROVIDER PROTECTIONS.—(i) PROHIBITION.—The Secretary may not terminate a participation agreement or in any other way discriminate against, or cause to be discriminated against, any covered provider or authorized representative of the provider, on account of such provider or representative—(I) providing, causing to be provided, or being about to provide or cause to be provided to the provider, the Federal Government, or the attorney general of a State information relating to any violation of, or any act or omission the provider or representative reasonably believes to be a violation of, any provision of this title (or an amendment made by this title);(II) testifying or being about to testify in a proceeding concerning such violation;(III) assisting or participating, or being about to assist or participate, in such a proceeding; or(IV) objecting to, or refusing to participate in, any activity, policy, practice, or assigned task that the provider or representative reasonably believes to be in violation of any provision of this Act (including any amendment made by this Act), or any order, rule, regulation, standard, or ban under this Act (including any amendment made by this Act).(ii) COMPLAINT PROCEDURE.—A provider or representative who believes that he or she has been discriminated against in violation of this section may seek relief in accordance with the procedures, notifications, burdens of proof, remedies, and statutes of limitation set forth in section 2087(b) of title 15, United States Code.SEC. 302. QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROVIDERS.(a) In General.—A health care provider is considered to be qualified to provide covered services if the provider is licensed or certified and meets—(1) all the requirements of State law to provide such services; and(2) applicable requirements of Federal law to provide such services.(b) Minimum Provider Standards.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish, evaluate, and update national minimum standards to ensure the quality of services provided under this Act and to monitor efforts by States to ensure the quality of such services. A State may also establish additional minimum standards which providers shall meet with respect to services provided in such State.(2) NATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS.—The national minimum standards under paragraph (1) shall be established for institutional providers of services and individual health care practitioners. Except as the Secretary may specify in order to carry out this Act, a hospital, skilled nursing facility, or other institutional provider of services shall meet standards for such a provider under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.). Such standards also may include, where appropriate, elements relating to—(A) adequacy and quality of facilities;(B) training and competence of personnel (including continuing education requirements);(C) comprehensiveness of service;(D) continuity of service;(E) patient satisfaction, including waiting time and access to services; and(F) performance standards, including organization, facilities, structure of services, efficiency of operation, and outcome in palliation, improvement of health, stabilization, cure, or rehabilitation.(3) TRANSITION IN APPLICATION.—If the Secretary provides for additional requirements for providers under this subsection, any such additional requirement shall be implemented in a manner that provides for a reasonable period during which a previously qualified provider is permitted to meet such an additional requirement.(4) ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES.—With respect to any entity or provider certified to provide services described in section 201(a)(7), the Secretary may not prohibit such entity or provider from participating for reasons other than its ability to provide such services.(c) Federal Providers.—Any provider qualified to provide health care services through the Department of Veterans Affairs or Indian Health Service is a qualifying provider under this section with respect to any individual who qualifies for such services under applicable Federal law.SEC. 303. USE OF PRIVATE CONTRACTS.(a) In General.—Subject to the provisions of this subsection, nothing in this Act shall prohibit an institutional or individual provider from entering into a private contract with an enrolled individual for any item or service—(1) for which no claim for payment is to be submitted under this Act; and(2) for which the provider receives—(A) no reimbursement under this Act directly or on a capitated basis; and(B) receives no amount for such item or service from an organization which receives reimbursement for such items or service under this Act directly or on a capitated basis.(b) Beneficiary Protections.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract unless—(A) the contract is in writing and is signed by the beneficiary before any item or service is provided pursuant to the contract;(B) the contract contains the items described in paragraph (2); and(C) the contract is not entered into at a time when the beneficiary is facing an emergency health care situation.(2) ITEMS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACT.—Any contract to provide items and services to which subsection (a) applies shall clearly indicate to the beneficiary that by signing such contract the beneficiary—(A) agrees not to submit a claim (or to request that the provider submit a claim) under this Act for such items or services even if such items or services are otherwise covered by this Act;(B) agrees to be responsible, whether through insurance offered under section 107(b) or otherwise, for payment of such items or services and understands that no reimbursement will be provided under this Act for such items or services;(C) acknowledges that no limits under this Act apply to amounts that may be charged for such items or services;(D) if the provider is a non-participating provider, acknowledges that the beneficiary has the right to have such items or services provided by other providers for whom payment would be made under this Act; and(E) acknowledges that the provider is providing services outside the scope of the program under this Act.(c) Provider Requirements.—(1) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any contract unless an affidavit described in paragraph (2) is in effect during the period any item or service is to be provided pursuant to the contract.(2) AFFIDAVIT.—An affidavit is described in this subparagraph shall—(A) identify the practitioner, and be signed by such practitioner;(B) provide that the practitioner will not submit any claim under this title for any item or service provided to any beneficiary (and will not receive any reimbursement or amount described in paragraph (1)(B) for any such item or service) during the 1-year period beginning on the date the affidavit is signed; and(C) be filed with the Secretary no later than 10 days after the first contract to which such affidavit applies is entered into.(3) ENFORCEMENT.—If a physician or practitioner signing an affidavit described in paragraph (2) knowingly and willfully submits a claim under this title for any item or service provided during the 1-year period described in paragraph (2)(B) (or receives any reimbursement or amount described in subsection (a)(2) for any such item or service) with respect to such affidavit—(A) this subsection shall not apply with respect to any items and services provided by the physician or practitioner pursuant to any contract on and after the date of such submission and before the end of such period; and(B) no payment shall be made under this title for any item or service furnished by the physician or practitioner during the period described in clause (i) (and no reimbursement or payment of any amount described in subsection (a)(2) shall be made for any such item or service).

Thanks, Praveen Yelleti for the questionWhat is the fuss about women entering Sabarimala temple? Why can't either groups back down from their stance and reach an amicable solution?Well, this question was asked last year and I thought not to reply as I have written so much on this topic as my answers in Quora.I was not tempted to answer this again as I have a clear stand on this and thus biased to the core. If we stand on one side of the spectrum, it's hard to pose in front of others that we are neutral and give an opinion of centrist to resolve. I am not centrist in this issue, rather strongly believe that WOMEN MUST ENTER AND PRAY IN SABARIMALA. So if I stand in one corner of the spectrum, it's definitely not fair for me to talk much on middle ground.Then why answering this question nowWell, this answer is basically a counter-argument answer to my beloved friend- Kiron Krishnan‘s the answer to this questionKiron Krishnan (भगवतीश्वर शर्मन्)'s answer to What is the fuss about women entering Sabarimala temple? Why can't either groups back down from their stance and reach an amicable solution?Generally, I and Kiron have almost identical viewpoints in most of the topics I discussed in Quora. So essentially it's over this topic, we actually disagreed for the first time and stood almost at two ends of the spectrum. I fully respect Kiron’s viewpoints and he is an intellectual himself (a great person who has read so much on Hindu epics, scriptures etc) and I stand nowhere close to his intellectual prowess. Yet, with my very limited knowledge (few scriptures and interactions with people coupled with my own personal observations and understandings), I felt I must write an answer to disagree with his points.Why do I want to write a counter-argument?Well, in Quora, everyone writes their opinion and I fully respect that. I could make this counter arguments as a reply to his answer. But I felt, there is a need of an independent answer because Kiron has answered so well and with precise clarity making 10 key points which need a detailed reply from my end, which a comment may not work.And when I realized, my reply to his 10 points is effectively my opinion and answer to this question, I felt it could be written independently here.Kiron has raised 10 points as 10 questions and his answer to that point. So I will quote his question and answer both below (Kiron’s answer will be marked dark black) and my answer below to it1. Shouldn’t the right to practice celibacy be a private matter to be left to the individual to decide? How is the court of a “secular democratic republic” supposed to determine who has which rights?If Ayyappa as a legal person wishes to be a celibate, how can the court of a secular democratic republic intervene and banish his right?Ans: As per Indian Law as made by Supreme court in Sri Adi Visheshwara Of Kashi ... vs State Of U.P. And Ors , a diety is a legal person and he has all rights as any citizen of this country has in eyes of law. He can file a case in a court of law (appear before the court as a petitioner) and he can be charged and appear before the court as a defendant. He can own properties in his own name, sell it, buy it etc. But he is regarded as PERPETUAL MINOR, ie he will be treated as a minor forever. He needs a guardian or court of wards to appear for him in a court of law. While he can own properties in his name, it needs to be managed by a legal guardian on his behalf.Now, for the same reason, Ayyappa of Sabarimala is a legal person. He can have all rights as a citizen have. If he wants to observe celibacy, he is free to do. But my doubt- did Supreme court of India’s constitutional bench’s verdict on 28th Sept 2018 was related to his marriage? Did the court ask Ayyappa to get married and stop his celibacy? Did the court ask him to do sex and produce children like other gods? So I don’t understand the above reply from my friend.The court was checking the validity of a law passed by Kerala state Assembly. The law was called- Kerala The Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship Act 1965. As per Sec 2(b) and Sec 3 of this legal act, the devaswom/temple authorities can create/distinguish Hindus on the basis of a class/section as deemed by customs or usages. It's based on this law, Devaswom formulated Temple entry law, that prohibited ladies of a certain age into this temple.The court was checking the constitutional validity of this clause of a law passed by a legislature. The legislature can pass laws within the ambit of the Indian constitution. No legislature can make laws that violate the spirit of the constitution. The constitution prohibits discrimination, hence creating a class by a government and denying a social right based on it, is discrimination and prohibited by Constitution. Hence that section has been abolished by the Supreme court of India (it still remains in force as the original verdict hasn’t stayed).It simply means Kerala Govt cannot prosecute or arrest any ladies who violate this ex-law. If a lady wants to enter Sabarimala, there is no law available with the Kerala government to deny or arrest them as done previously.Now, where is celibacy of Ayyappa comes in the legal debate of validity of a law passed by Govt? The secular court wasn’t dealing with personal choices of Ayyappa, but the validity of a law by a government authority established by the Constitution of India.2. How does practising celibacy adversely affect any of the third parties? Does it contribute to social discrimination, harm to life or harm to the property? Has there been any incident where Sabarimala custom has been used by people historically to deny entrance to other Ayyappa temples? If it doesn’t affect society or generate socially undesirable consequences, how does it itch society?(For the record, self-harming, polluting, animal-killing fests are all very widespread in the same secular republic - ever cared to touch them?)The question in court wasn’t about celibacy of the deity, rather about rights of devotees.The original petitioners were 4 Hindu ladies who were practising Hinduism. They filed the case after hearing the news of Kerala Government prosecuting former Karnataka Minister- Jayamala for her alleged secretive entry into the temple in 2005 which was a public controversy then.Jayamala is a reputed public personality and a practising Hindu. If a Hindu lady has been prosecuted for praying, its indeed a matter of social concern for other ladies. How could a government prosecute a lady for praying her favourite god?Once Slammed For Entering Sabarimala, Minister Jayamala Hails VerdictIts a social discrimination as these ladies who filed the petition may too suffer the same issue if they want to visit the temple. Its indeed harm to their reputation, their integrity, their social status. All these come under Right to Life, a fundamental right as per Constitution. Right to Life doesn’t just mean existence, rather equally means your dignity, your integrity etc. So essentially it's a legal question. The Ayyappa is never a party here. He is into his Tapas (Meditation). Rather the question was all about fairness of a law that prosecutes people for praying? Its the same question that came in the 1920s when Dalits and lower castes sought-right of praying in temples, which was finally settled thro’ Temple Entry proclamation of 19363. So you might ask, how do you know what deity of Sabarimala wants?Who is that person that gives power to the deity and makes the deity there? Tantri. If there was a religious king sworn in God’s name deriving from divine law, he also would have had a say on it. Opinion of the deity of Sabarimala is with the Tantri.Can you please quote an authentic scripture than empowers Tantri to speak on behalf of the deity? The concept of Tantri and Tantra is well codified under Tantric law - the Tantra Samucchayam which codifies all multiple theses and viewpoints of Tantra into one single source which all Kerala tantric temples follow rigorously. It's authored none other than illustrious Chenas Nampoothiripad, the most celebrated Tantric pandit of Kerala in 15th century and duly accepted by entire Kerala Nampoothiris as represented by Alvancherry Thampurakkal (Head of Nampoothiris of Kerala) and Kochi Maharaja (Supreme Head of Kerala temples- Koviladhikari) and other Kings way back in 16th century. Accordingly, all Kerala temples (barring few original Tulu Brahmin temples like Sree Vallabha temple of Thiruvalla and similar) that have Namboothiri as heads of temples follow this thesis.Can you quote a line from Tantrasamucchayam that makes Tantri as representative of Deity to speak? Is he the father of the deity? Is he the guardian of the deity? Is he the owner of the deity?No…Tantrasamucchyam defines Tantri as someone who knows the tantra (the technique of unleashing the divine energy). It has nothing to do with a deity at the very first place. A tantri can unleash the divine energy even from a stick or grass if he follows the tantric concepts (as per tantra).Tantri in all Tantric concepts is just like consultants for a temple. A Tantri advises temple priests (Melshantis, Keezhshantis etc) about the ways to unleash the divine energy of the deity, train the priests about the mantras to be used, the mode of usage, the rites/rituals etc. The most interesting part of Tantrasamucchayam is that Tantri isn’t even related to the temple. His job is like how modern-day consultants work. A consultant advises company management on ways to work, but at the primary place, a consultant isn’t even an employee of the company. He is a third party.It's here, the Devaswom concept works. The temple is owned by Devaswom (originally Brahmaswoms which was owned by Nampoothiris which was brutally abolished in the 18th century). Devaswom head swears the authority in name of the deity. I hope you might have heard the swearing pledge of Devaswom President and officials. They have sworn in name of the deity, god and Hindu faith and publically acknowledge that they are faithful to Hindu Dharma, Hindu scriptures and the validity of the deity. I am yet to see a single Devaswom official who doesn’t sign this document to become an official. Infact even a peon to get a job in Devaswom dept has to sign this affidavit. So indeed Devaswom owns the temple, they hire the priests and they hire a Tantri (permanent basis/hereditary basis) to advise the priests on poojas and rites.The right of a Tantri is never beyond the 4 walls of Sreekovil (Sanctum Santorium) and Nalambalam (Inner courtyard). He has no right over the administrative decisions of the temple, he has no rights over financial matters of the temple, he has no rights over ownership of the temple. He can advise the temple management about deities requirement, but the decision rests with Devaswom, not Tantri. What if Tantri demands 1000 tons of gold for the deity? Should Devaswom oblige?The opinion of the deity never rests on Tantri. As per Tantrasamucchayam, it rests with deity itself. To know that, Devaprasahanam (Astrology checking for the god’s will) has to be conducted and Tantri cannot speak for deity, rather understand what the panel of astrologers has to say on this. So as the right to accept Devaprasahanam decision or not rests with the sovereign (Melkoiyma holder). In past, it was Devaswom Diwan representing the King, now with Devaswom Commissioner.I don’t know from where you got the idea- Tantri speaks for a deity? How can a human speak for the god?4. “But Ayyappa temples in other places don’t have this restriction, so why Sabarimala? If Ayyappa in other temples can bear women, why not in Sabarimala?”Well, we are not speaking about brahman or the omnipresent “G”od here, but the deity of a temple. It is because of belief in the deity of Sabarimala that people visit there. Else, they would go to other Ayyappa temples, right?As you say, indeed the customs are different for each temple. And that validates the need to consider the deities as individuals, as their devotees consider them. People don’t view Kāśī Viśvanātha and ,a local temple Śiva deity the same way. Again, the issue comes to the right of the deity of the temple.Well, again back to the same old question- Can you quote the difference of deity worship from Sabarimala and nearby Achankovil temple or in Pandalam temple?By the way, how many deities exist as per Tantra? Just 7. Simply 7 deities. We have Vishnu, Shiva, Bhagavati, Ganapati, Subramanian, Dharmashasta and Sankaranarayan.Can you spot a deity called Ayyappan or Manikandan from these 7 deities? Can you spot a deity called Durga or Lakshmi or Parvathy from here? Can you spot some of the favourites deities like Krishna, Sree Rama, Vamana or Nagas from here?Tantric form of worship as done in Kerala is a uniformed mode of worship. It's well codified, well-established mode of worship. You can have N number of Krishna temples, but no priests know any tantric way to worship Krishna.I am a hardcore believer of Guruvayurappan. Even when I get up from bed, I say always by reflex- Guruvayurappa, Krishna, Rakshikkanne (Ohh Lord of Guruvayur, my Krishna protect me). From my childhood, I am trained to see Guruvayurappan as Krishna. Does the tantri of Guruvayur- Chenas Nampoothiripad worship Guruvayurappan as Krishna? Does he have any Krishna-specific moola mantras? Any fool just by looking at the statue of Guruvayurappan can realize, its not Krishna, rather 4-armed Mahavishnu (that fool includes me too). Every priest, every Tantri in Guruvayur worships the lord as Mahavishnu, not Krishna as per Tantric rules. That same procedures of rites happen in a proper Vishnu temple-like Tripunithura Poornathresaya or Sree Padmanabhaswamy temple. There is hardly any difference at allIn Kerala, we have only Dharmasastha temples and there is only one way to worship Dharmasastha as per tantric means. The pooja system followed in Sabarimala is same as any other Dharmasastha temple. The opening verses of Moolamantra in Sabarimala invokes the basic energy of Dharmasastha along with his Wife- Poorna and son- Satyaka. This is same in any Dharmasastha temple.Then how you keep on saying, the deity is different. The public/ devotees can believe anything just like they keep on believing Guruvayurappan is Krishna, Ambalapuzhappan is Baby Krishna, Tripayarappan is Lord Rama, Thrikkakarappan is Lord Vamana etc. But in eyes of Tantra and the pooja techniques, there is only one deity.I would suggest you take a look of Ayyappa idol during Makarasankarathi pooja when he adores the Golden Thangi (the golden chest cover as donated by Travancore Maharaja- Chithira Thirunal who was a great Ayyappa devotee). That Thangi has two motifs on both sides of the chest- the two wives of Dharmasastha- Poorna and Pushkala. If Ayyappa of Sabarimala can wear that Thangi with motifs of his wives, how come you worry so much on his celibacy?And please also enlighten, why Tantri didn’t quote any scriptural references to prove Ayyappa’s celibacy during the trial stage when the court asked numerous times? This was recorded by Amicus curiae in his report too, that the Tantri was refusing to provide scriptural evidence of celibacy of the deity in its unique form.5. “But on some occasions, women entered the temple in the past … So why not now?The entry of women as an everyday thing in “earlier days” is a commie myth and I have debunked it here : Kiron Krishnan (भगवतीश्वर शर्मन्)'s answer to Is it true that women of all ages were allowed in Sabarimala until a verdict in 1991?I don’t know how stupid Mallu commies have to be, to believe this crap. Don’t know whether to laugh or just pity their arrogance. Why such a pledging to pūtitama ideologies?Even if say, there was a time when women entered the temple, that time is “gone” at the instant when Tantri decides otherwise. In Kerala, there is this tradition of devapraśnam that usually is a procedure to hear from the deity. Devapraśnams in Sabarimala have unanimously rejected the possibility of entry of women of the particular age group, till date.Can you quote which Devaprasnam said specifically about 10–50 years of age? Can you quote which Devaprasnam said a categorically no on women entry?The only Devaprasnam which said about this topic AFAIK I know was the controversial Devaprsanam conducted by Parappanangadi Unnikrishnan which lead to Jayamala’s revelations and this specific court case.Controversy over Sabarimala Temple entry returns to spotlight | Kochi News - Times of IndiaActor Jayamala's confesses entering Sabarimala, raises questions about a conspiracyAnd that Devaprasanam was cancelled by Devaswom.In few other Devaprasanam and Ashtamangala Prasanam in past, there was some topics that the deity was unhappy of having women in the temple. There was no instances where any Devaprasanam categorically saying NO ENTRY at all. There are the difference between the two.When you say unhappy, it doesn’t mean No entry. In similar Devaprasanam, the deity was unhappy about opening the temple beyond the Mandala Pooja, but it's still happening. In 1990 Devaprasanam, the deity was unhappy that a tradition was broken (offering Marijuana/Ganja) to a local deity called Karuppuswamy near the Pampa temple (as Marijuana/Ganja became illegal substances as per Indian Narcotics Substances Act 1985). Did all these unhappiness were rectified? No!!!In last Devaprasanam, the deity was unhappy about non-reinstatement of Kandararu Mohanaru as Sabarimala Tantri. Do you want a sex-scandal involved person like Mohanaru as Tantri of Sabarimala who was stripped from that post by Devaswom? No one in Kerala wants that tainted person back to that position, so conveniently the so-called divine revelations of Devaprasanam was ignored. But in women’s entry case, even the slightest unhappiness means ban… That logic is indeed baffling!!!Please note:- the actual ban of ladies inbetween 10–50 into the shrine came in 1991 when Kerala High court banned it. Before that, there was no legal ban, rather part of belief systems.6. “But Tantri is not a godman, he is a human. In fact, there are instances where a Tantri is known to be a criminal”You are right. But to counter that is not by absolving the Tantri’s post of its rights, but to change the person who sits in the position of Tantri. You don’t demolish the party system to show dissent to a government, do you? Similarly, none can challenge the authority of Tantri’s position here. I don’t know why people don’t use the basic logic here.Well, Tantri is indeed a respectable post and needs to be respected. He is the master of Tantra, so indeed his words do carry weight. Respect and submission are two different concepts. While you can respect him, there is no point in blindly accepting what he says, even if stupidity. As you said, he is a human, he can err. If he errs, he must be questioned and a logical answer must be obtained.In past, there were Tantric sabhas. One of the famous was Kochi’s Shastrasadasu as well as various Anyonyams where non-Tantris too debate on the validity of various rites, customs and traditions. If one Tantri errs, other tantris and scholars can rectify and consensus be made. It happened numerous times.That system don’t exist today. So in that place, a legal forum like courts forced to involve as courts and government stepped into the old shoes of various Sabhas and Kings.Just like if a government errs, people do rectify (we don’t demolish a party, but do protest against their mistakes), the same way, we need to build the system to question erring Tantris, rather than making them another Human God, the incorruptible.7. “But it is śāstā who is the idol in Sabarimala, and Śāstā is not a celibate. In fact, it is Śāstā’s mūlamantra that is chanted for pūjās in the temple…”Yes, you are right. Sabarimala is essentially a temple housing the Dharmaśāstā. However, the legend is that Maṇikaṇṭha the prince is a human incarnation of this Śāstā, and he merged with the deity in Sabarimala. In that way, the deity of Sabarimala is not just the general Ayyappa Śāstā, but strictly the Maṇikaṇṭha infused into the deity.Of course, since you don’t have a mūlamantra for a historical age human incarnation who rests in the temple as a perpetual celibate, indeed the Śāstā of the temple might be worshiped with his own mūlamantra where Śāstā is also the husband of Pūrṇā and Puṣkalā. But this can never change the divinity and the deity of the temple whose all traditions point to the Maṇikaṇṭha legend.Since I answered part of this answer earlier, not repeating it.But the question is how can merging of a human spirit with a deity, alter the position/identity of a deity? As per our beliefs, Sankaracharya merged his consciousness (his spirit) with Sharada Devi of Sharada Peeth in Kashmir. Does that mean from thereafter Sharada Devi is Sankaracharya? Are you worshipping Sharada Devi as Adi Sankara or as a Goddess?A human incarnation by the god/deity himself for certain purpose and he returns back to that same source. That won’t alter the identity of the source. Manikanda may be celibate, so what? He is no more. His identity is merged with Dharmasastha and that temple is of Dharmashasta. Every pooja offering is done in the name of Dharmasastha.Interesting the deity is offered even Panaka, a divine drink to boost sexual energy and its part of that temple’s custom. And then after boosting the sexual energy (because Tantra says the energy of a deity can be manifested in its ultimate pinnacle), you call that deity is celibate? What kind of logic is that?Every single custom of that temple is related to Dharmasastha. People may have n number of beliefs. Its just people’s belief. It has nothing to do with pooja systems and position of the deity. I may offer Butter to Guruvavyurappan just because I believe Krishna loves butter. It doesn’t mean the deity is Baby Krishna, rather its Lord Vishnu. One famous legend of Guruvayur is that a young priest who thought the deity would actually eat the food when offered, even brought lime pickle to Guruvayurappan thinking that the lord can’t eat just plain rice and prayed so hard that Lord Vishnu appeared and ate rice with pickle. It's now custom in Guruvayur to offer lime pickle during the lunch. So you can do anything with Bhakti. You are free to assume the deity is celibate. It's your wish. But you cannot enforce your viewpoint of Celibacy over the deity’s worshiped identity and enforce over others. It needs to be backed with proper logical scriptural evidence.8. “People should throw age-old beliefs and move to progress”.Learn tolerance first before advising others about how their beliefs seem ridiculous to you.While respecting your views and beliefs, the problem is when you refuse even to accept the logic of existing customs and traditions prima facia, rather sticking with myths and legends.There are so many customs disrespected, so many ignored, so many avoided. Then why specifically this one alone? Did Ayyappa myths allow the temple to be opened other than 41 days of Mandala pilgrimage? Then how come its open first week of every month which started since 1956? Or why the temple of an ascetic be gold plated? There are 1000s of traditions broken in this temple. No one worries. Its all matter of conveniences and age. People wanted more number of days for that temple to be open as crowds increased, so it happened. Then why not about ladies?9. “Hindus have always evolved”Oh yes, they have always. Evolved.If the deity says through the devapraśnam or if the Tantri decides that deity is ok with your decisions, then indeed there will be an evolution. If say, this land was ruled by a king deriving his power from divine authority, and if that king decided to change the practice, then too there is an evolution. Else, it is not evolution what you are trying to trigger, but just your attack on someone’s harmless personal beliefs and practices based on your “holier than thou”. Don’t come up with that in India.Same points earlier. Not repeating that…Kings claim their divine authority, not given. Did Kings of Travancore have any divine authority of Padmanabha before Marthanda Varma? No!!! Infact the Venad kings had no authority over that temple itself. So who gave that divine authority to Marthanda Varma? Did Sree Padmanabha appeared in front of all and gave the rights to Marthanda Varma? No!!! He claimed.Same way how come Travancore gained rights of Sabarimala? Did Ayyappa prophesied, okay- I am done with Pandalam kings, please come and take me under your custody? Pandalam Kings sold the properties to Travancore to clear its debts and Travancore got the right of the temple.Did Ayyappa was consulted when his original shrine was removed to current place? No!! It was a political decision made by the King.These divine rights of King so obsolete in any sense. The Kingship is one form of government, so as democracy. Tomorrow it maybe something else. In all these systems, beliefs continue, so as temples and deities continue. There is no point in saying, ohh only Kings had right, not democratic leaders and institutions.Its this same democratic institution that threw away NO-ENTRY for women in Thiruvalla Sree Vallabha temple in 1965, so as today every lady enters. I think my friend- Kiron is from Thiruvalla and I think his family ladies might have entered into the shrine which was not a decision of Sree Vallabha, rather EMS Government (yeah, a communist govt). Are you cursing that now?10. “What about believing women?”I mean, every single person who believes in the deity of Sabarimala essentially accepts the fact that Maṇikaṇṭha is a celibate, and recognizes the divinity of the deity in the temple, the rituals and traditions of the temple. Most of the women believe in the deity of Sabarimala, and they have their ways to pray to the deity traditionally, by visiting him at their childhood or old age, by praying to the deity with lit lamp, making offerings, and observe celibacy with her husband and a pious lifestyle as her husband is on the trip to the great hill.I think I answered this question many times earlier?Do we have territorial jurisdiction for beliefs of Hindu deities? I live in Kerala. Can I believe and have faith in Amarnath in Kashmir? Or Kashi Vishwanath? Does a Kashmiri or a UPwala has more belief rights over these deities than me, a Malayalee? Do they stand more important devotees than me?A Malayalee lady is free to have her beliefs about Ayyappa. No one is questioning. But like her, someone from Andhra or Tamil Nadu can equally have their beliefs. You cannot claim, you are the only believer and others are not. You are free to follow your customs, but shouldn’t school others what you do?If its something related to Pooja technique, pooja styles, I agree. Each place has its own customs and rituals. But how come beliefs? If my belief says hair to be shaved while entering in a temple, can someone deny entry into the temple just because I have shaved head? Its my personal right, nothing to do with deity or pooja techniques.If a lady insists on entering Sreekovil, I would agree with you as its violation of pooja rules and techniques. But saying you can’t enter just because our ladies believe in the celibacy of the deity is stupidity. Its indirect way of saying- see Ayyappa might be tempted and lose his celibacy if they see you, in a way we are making him some sort of Ram Rahim or Aasharam Bapu or much recent Chinmayanand…. Sorry, my Ayyappa is a god!!!Well, I guess, the readers of this answer have seen two spectrums of thought in this. Its a classical case of Orthodoxy and Modernity.In all cases, orthodoxy doesn’t sustain as long as time is the best medicine for the change. Change is inevitable and nothing can stop change.The only amicable solution is avoiding its electoral politics and seeing purely as a discussion of scriptures and pooja concepts. For that, emotive things has to be kept out and some sense of sensibility be infused.I don’t expect religions to be RATIONAL. Of course, no religion is rational and no faith needs to be rational. Faith is a belief, which can’t be proved thro’ experiments. So rationality or scientific temper is not a big deal in religions. But every religion and beliefs need to be LOGICAL. It needs to satisfy simple common sense, No religion asked its believers to be FOOLS and IDIOTS. Rather all religions asked people to question, to ponder upon and derive logical conclusions. This process is called enlightenment.That's something important here. To solve this, I suggest all to be logical in their points.I thought to reply to Kiron Krishnan thro’ this long answer because he is a very logical and intellectual person, not someone emotive to chants- Hindu Khatre mein hai and talk about other irrelevant stuff.So ideally consensus or finding middle ground happens when we learn more in detail and find some point to agree. Untill then, let's agree to disagree.ThanksDear Kiron Krishnan Bhai, sorry if my comments or statements have hurt/offended/disrespected you. If you find anything offensive, please PM to me, so as I will definitely remove. And thanking for your thought-provoking answer.Suggested reading similar answers of mineArun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to What is your opinion about the Supreme Court verdict lifting the ban on women’s entry to Sabarimala Temple?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to Should women be allowed to enter Sabarimala shrine?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to Why is the Supreme Court judgement on womens' entry in Sabarimala not widely accepted?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to How can entry of women into the temple of God affect the celibacy of god as said by devotees of Lord Ayyappa?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to What do you think on the "purification" of Sabarimala Temple after two women entered the shrine to offer their prayers? Is there any justification for this?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to Why is the Kerala government calling Sabarimala shrine a secular temple?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to What is the difference between Swami Ayyappan of Sabarimala and Sree Dharma Sastha? If Dharma Sastha and Swami Ayyappan are not the same but different deities, why is the Sabarimala Swami Ayyappan Temple called as the Sastha Temple?Arun Mohan (അരുൺ മോഹൻ)'s answer to Is it true that women of all ages were allowed in Sabarimala until a verdict in 1991?