Swim in the waters & eat all the fruits of the Garden of LifeEnjoy Life in its fullness every day!Enjoy Life in full nakedness with a SmileThat is Paradise.............. your religion, your god- all are Deceivers.Deceiver is another name for Devil- andrew 
ആ അറിവുകൾ തെറ്റാണ് കുട്ടി കൈ രേഖകൾ കൂട്ടി വച്ചാൽ നമ്മളുടെ പൂർവികർ വെട്ടി തെളിച്ചിട്ടഭാവിയിലേക്കുള്ള വഴിത്താരകൾ കാണാം അതിൽ നിന്ന് തിരിഞ്ഞു പോകുന്ന ആധുനികതയുടെയും ഉത്തരാധുനികതയുടെയും കൈവഴികളും കാണാംതോണിയും പുഴകളും ഓളങ്ങളും നിന്റെ മനസ്സ് സൃഷ്ടിക്കുന്ന വികല്പങ്ങളാണ് അങ്ങനെ ഒന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു പണ്ട് നിന്റെ പിതാമഹരുടെ കാലത്ത് ഇന്ന് നീ കാണുന്നത് മൃഗതൃഷ്ണ മാത്രമാണ് മനുഷ്യന്റെ വ്യാമോഹങ്ങൾ സൃഷ്ടിച്ച മൃഗതൃഷ്ണ . 
There is a widespread consensus among the leaders of major American institutions that anyone in their workplaces who told someone else to go back where they came from would face serious consequences.But virtually none of those leaders -- from schools and universities to big global companies to nonprofits and local government -- have been willing to publicly express that consensus as President Donald Trump has deployed that incendiary and openly racist language himself in repeated attacks on four nonwhite Democratic House representatives over the past 10 days.Both sides of that equation -- the broad consensus that the President's language would be unacceptable in any other arena of American life, and the equally widespread reluctance to say that publicly -- hint at the full implications of Trump's racially polarizing agenda and rhetoric. Indeed, a court could determine such rhetoric to be illegal discrimination at a workplace found to have tolerated it.With a wide array of racist remarks culminating in his "go back" tweet and the "send her back" chant at his rally last week, Trump has already broken the boundaries of what had been considered acceptable language about race and racial minorities in politics -- though he later briefly claimed he was "not happy" with the chant before pivoting to defending his audience. What's behind Donald Trump's attack on 'The Squad' as 'not very smart?'Now the question is whether his words and example will set a new standard for what is acceptable in other arenas of American life -- particularly because leaders from those institutions have been so reluctant to publicly reaffirm that they consider the President's language unacceptable for a student, teacher, coach, employee or executive.Such silence runs the risk of "normalizing hate," Vanita Gupta, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in an emailed statement."Those in positions of power have a responsibility to speak out against hateful rhetoric that does tangible harm to our most marginalized communities," she said. "Anything less than wholesale public condemnation of hate speech -- especially stemming from our own government -- is a dereliction of our duty as Americans."Stephen Miller's laugh-out-loud excuse for Trump's 'send her back' reactionOver the past week I reached out to leaders at a wide array of American institutions: school districts, universities, Fortune 500 companies, leading trade associations and former military officials. I did not ask them to comment on the President's words. Instead I asked them how they would respond to the use of the same words in their own institutions.What would happen to 20 high school juniors if they surrounded a classmate in a hijab on a football field and chanted, "Go back"? Or to 20 employees in a factory cafeteria who chanted, "Send them back," at a small group of colleagues? Or to 20 soldiers who surrounded a new recruit and told him or her to "go back?"Phrase would draw punishment or removalEveryone I spoke with said without hesitation that inside their own institution anyone who told someone else to "go back" where they came from would face punishment or removal."This is pretty easy from an HR standpoint," said James Banks Jr., general counsel of the Society for Human Resource Management, the leading association of human relations officials.While stressing that he cannot comment directly on the President's words, Banks said that virtually every company now has internal policies governing not only discrimination but also civility. Any employee who told another to "go back" would almost certainly face investigation under both sets of rules.Rep. Elijah Cummings: Trump's 'go back' comments bring back painful memories of childhood racismRep. Elijah Cummings: Trump's 'go back' comments bring back painful memories of childhood racism"If I were to construct a scenario in which -- take a hypothetical -- a white male employee makes that kind of a comment against a group of employees, all of whom are people are color," Banks said, "that would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the discrimination and/or civility policies and would almost certainly result in some kind of employment action against that employee."The level of sanction against an employee who used such language, Banks said, would depend on the circumstances of the comment and any record of prior offense."If it involved just one employee, one time, it was his or her first offense, it would likely not result in termination. Something less than that: a reprimand, maybe a suspension from work, depending on how seriously it was viewed with in that specific workplace," Banks said. "If, however, this was a follow-on to a number of other incidents, it could well lead to termination."Likewise, retired Army Gen. Mark Hertling said flatly through Twitter, "If any subordinate commander, or even someone wearing leader rank (any officer or NCO) said this, they would likely be immediately relieved or at the least counseled for an Equal Opportunity Offense." After Hertling, who's a CNN analyst, published that comment, several officers who served under him tweeted that the situation never would have reached him because they would have disciplined or moved to discharge someone using such rhetoric themselves.Yet very few others were willing to join Hertling and the Society for Human Resource Management in publicly affirming existing policies for dealing with such language. Indeed, most company officials who agreed to speak would do so only without their names attached.One senior executive at a Fortune 500 company that operates extensively through both urban areas that lean Democratic and non-urban areas where Trump is strong, told me such language would likely draw sanction from the loading dock to the boardroom."If a claim like you described were substantiated, the associate would face a range of actions depending on their history but at a minimum it would be (a) permanent mark on their file, required coaching and training, and (there) probably would be some scenarios where they would be demoted or fired," the official told me. "Highly likely someone doing this would never get promoted."But against the backdrop of Trump using the very language it would punish, the company refused to publicly affirm its own policy. "I would rather not get pulled into the current controversy," the official said.Public and private responses differThe nation's leading business organizations also responded cautiously to Trump's language. Privately, one senior executive at a major business trade association told me that the consequences for telling an employee to "go back" would be severe across the upper ranks of American business."All major US organizations and companies have strict policies and mandatory training programs against discrimination," the official said. "It would be a fireable offense for any employee to say such inflammatory language to another employee."But in public, the business community was muted to the point of irrelevance. The Business Roundtable issued a bland general statement: "Welcoming immigrants and their descendants is a core American value. As CEOs, we will continue to build our companies around the principles of respect, trust and equal opportunity for all our employees. Business Roundtable encourages our political leaders to debate the issues based on merit and come together on solutions to benefit American workers, families and communities."Watch the tape. There's no way to spin Donald Trump's 'send her back' complicityWatch the tape. There's no way to spin Donald Trump's 'send her back' complicityThe US Chamber of Commerce did not issue a public response."The failure of Corporate America to challenge the President's racist rhetoric is disheartening, but not surprising," Wade Henderson, the former head of the NAACP Washington office, told me in an email. "After all, the economy is humming; and most corporate leaders would prefer to avoid a confrontation with a vindictive President. But in the struggle for the soul of America, there can be no by-standers."Business wasn't alone in its reticence. A public university system, in which racial minorities and the children of immigrants now compose a significant share of its student body, also refused to publicly comment on how it would handle a professor or athletic coach telling a student to "go back" where they came from. It pointed me instead to general guidelines of civility. A major, highly diverse, public K-12 school system also refused to publicly discuss its handling of such language.This public caution is so striking partly because human resource professionals say "go back" language is not considered a close call or a judgment at the margin: It now stands far beyond the boundaries of acceptable rhetoric in almost any workplace. While Republican elected officials have almost universally rejected the idea that the language is racist, the conclusion is equally solid in the opposite direction among human resource professionals. Despite the President's adoption of the phrase, Banks said, "it remains equally unacceptable in the American workplace" as before his comments.The world's silence on Trump's racism is deafeningThe world's silence on Trump's racism is deafeningBackstopping these internal company policies are regulations and court precedents under federal law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the federal laws barring discrimination based on race, gender and national origin, has repeatedly considered language similar to that Trump used as evidence of discrimination in the workplace, according to a CNN investigation.The EEOC website specifically cites language similar to the President's as a potential violation of the federal law preventing discrimination based on national origin. "Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, 'Go back to where you came from,' whether made by supervisors or by co-workers," the agency writes.Banks said human resource professionals generally expect that the President's use of the "go back" language will lead to more people expressing that sentiment in workplaces."If people who are more predisposed (to say such things) hear more of it in a general public discourse, they may be more likely to try to bring that into the workplace," he said. But he added, if people do bring that language to the job, "I think they are in for a rude awakening."Banks said he thinks companies have not publicly reaffirmed that "go back" is unacceptable language because they believe the President's embrace of the phrase has not changed the underlying federal rules or case law that define it as unacceptable."That's probably why you don't hear more about it from HR professionals," he said, "because we just shrug our shoulders to say, 'It's still out of bounds for us and was never in bounds.' "But civil rights leaders see the silence of the nation's corporate leadership in particular over the past week as an abdication that holds the threat of encouraging such nativist and racist language in other settings."The business community is an important voice in this country and their failure to respond only contributes to the normalization of the President's words," Henderson said in his email. "They know quite well that the President's comments violate EEOC guidelines and all of their internal personnel policies. They also know that the corrosion of American ideals is ultimately costly to business and to us all."
പ്രസംഗിക്കട്ടെ ! പ്രസംഗിക്കട്ടെ എങ്ങെനെ ങ്കിലും അമേരിക്കയിലെ സാഹിത്യകാരന്മാർക്ക് വിവരം ഉണ്ടായാൽ മതി. ഞങ്ങൾ ആവശ്യത്തിന് വായിച്ചും, കേട്ടും, പഠിച്ചിട്ടുമാണ് ഇങ്ങോട്ട് വന്നത് .  അതുകൊണ്ട് അത് കിട്ടാത്ത ഈ നിര്ഭാഗ്യവാന്മാർക്ക് വിവരം ഉണ്ടാക്കി കൊടുക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണ് . ന്യുയോർക്കിൽ ഇരിക്കുന്ന പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും ഹൂസ്റ്റണിലെ പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും ഡാളസ്സിലെ പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും എല്ലാം കൂടി സ്ഥിരം അടിയാണ് . അണ്ടിയാണോ മൂത്തത് മാങ്ങയാണോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ച് .   ഒരുത്തനോടും ഒന്നും പറയാൻ പറ്റില്ല .എന്തെങ്കിലും പറഞ്ഞാൽ ഉടനെ അവാർഡ് പൊക്കി കാണിക്കും (കൂടുതൽ വാദിക്കാൻ പോയാൽ തുണിപൊക്കി കാണിക്കും ) പല പേരിലാണ് അവാർഡ് വരുന്നത്, ബഷീറിന്റ 'അമ്മ , വയലാറിന്റ രണ്ടാം ഭാര്യ, പിന്നെ കേരളവർമ്മയുടെ അമ്മാണച്ചെന്റെ പേരിൽ അങ്ങനെ പോകുന്നു അവാർഡ് ചരിത്രം .   നിങ്ങളുടെ വിഷയം കൊള്ളാം വിദ്വേഷമില്ലാത്ത മാനവികത - പ്രസംഗിക്കാൻ പറ്റിയ വിഷയം .  അടുത്ത വർഷവും അതിന്റെ പിന്നത്തെ വർഷവും അതുതന്നെ പ്രസംഗിക്കാം . കാരണം ഇത് നടക്കില്ല സാറേ ഭൂമിയിൽ ഒരിടത്തും നടക്കില്ല . ഞാൻ ഇത് കേൾക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങീട്ട് എത്ര വർഷമായി . നടക്കുന്നത് ഒന്നേയുള്ളു -മനുഷ്യനിൽ വിദ്വേഷം കുത്തി വയ്ക്കുക കുത്തി തിരിപ്പുണ്ടാക്കുക . ഇന്ന് നീതിക്കും ധർമ്മത്തിനും കൊടുത്തിരുന്ന നിർവചനങ്ങൾ തിരുത്തി എഴുതുക  ജനം അടിക്കട്ടെ തമ്മിൽ അടിക്കട്ടെ . സാഹിത്യകാരന്മാർ തല്ലി ചാകട്ടെ  തമ്മിൽ കാണുമ്പോൾ മുറുമുറുക്കട്ടെ . നായ്ക്കളെ പോലെ .  അങ്ങനെ മാനവികതക്ക്  ഓറഞ്ചു തലയൻ ട്രംപിന്റെ വെറുപ്പും വിദ്വേഷ്വവും കൊണ്ട് ചീർത്ത മുഖച്ഛായ ഉണ്ടാകട്ടെ
Some of the things you have said about others are gibberish.  The people those who oppose your religious doctrines are the people who believe that the religions are doing more damage to humanity than it brings them together.  The concept of making someone god or assuming that there is a god out somewhere controlling everything happening in the universe are all the figment of some peoples imaginations according to them.  Other problems with religions  of the world  are that they all have their on god and cannot agree on anything.   As a layman, when I look outside all the religions in the world and their gods, they are all in conflict with each other and fighting  to contain others. I have noticed that you always manipulate things around and try to establish that Jesus is the true god and through him is the salvation. And, that is what you have done in the comment you wrote under this article. Life is simple and that is to love your neighbor as you love yourself and let your light so shine before others and they will glorify your god. Don't try to sell your god to anyone and that will have adverse effect.    
Noticed the comment from andrew. Also noticed that some people are using emalayalee to spread their religion here. They have also intolerance when they see articles related to another religion, and a volley of negative comments follow on such articles and writers. What hypocrisy! I believe all major religions are from God. Take out the knowledge of God out of the religions or the theology out, and then all religions agree on the morals and ethics side. This is because revelations about God came step by step in bits and pieces as it is said in book of Hebrews in Bible (1:1).  In Buddhism there is not any knowledge of God as God wanted people to follow a life style as God wanted them to follow rather than learn theology. This does not mean that all the practices in all religions are from God. ‘Anacharanghal’ got in to all religious practices with time.   Most people spread their religions through different Medias. The right way to spread religion is to practice it by revealing the character and attributes of their God through their actions, and people watching such selfless actions will get attracted to the religion (keep it personal as andrew said it). People want to know why this person behaves different, and will get attracted to his/her religion.  Apart from theology, all religions teach ‘sanathana’ values such as ‘sathyam, dharmam, justice’ and such values as mercy, love and charity which are attributes of God in any religion.   In school I remember saying the pledge, “India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters”. During the early years of immigration one Malayalee or Indian was eager to see another Malayalee or Indian. Now rare are those who think above their own religion or denominations, or that come together to cooperate above religious boundaries.   Last Saturday I attended the funeral service of Sri Devaraj Karaavallil the famous poet from Houston.  His poem, ‘Kedaaramaanasam’ is a classic collection of his poems. Words come flowing by as the links in a chain. Such poems that overflow with love of fellow human beings and nature can come from only a ‘niskalanka’ mind. I know him for years and I understood him as a religious person never talking about religion. At the same time he was revealing Hindu religious principles without word or speech through his actions. Such rare births appear in families occasionally, and it must be due to the ‘sukrutham’ from parents or grandparents as there is a reason for everything. For us to have such births in our families we need to reveal the character and attributes of the God we believe in to others through our actions instead of words that have lost its meanings. So the right way to spread religion is without word or speech through your actions that reveal the character of the God you believe in.
ഇതൊക്കെത്തന്നെയല്ലേ പശുവിന്റെ പേരിൽ ഇൻഡ്യയിലും നടക്കുന്നത് !!!
Excellent.Covers all aspects of SRIMAD RAMAYANAM63
മത്തങ്ങക്ക് കണ്ണ് കൊത്തി       വാ കീറി നോക്കി   അയാൾ തന്നെ; ട്രമ്പൻ 
പരപുരുഷ ബന്ധം പരസ്ത്രീ ബന്ധം, കുണ്ടനടി തുടങ്ങിയവ ബന്ധങ്ങൾ മുറക്ക് നടത്തിയിട്ട് നിങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ ദൈവത്തിന് പഴി .  കള്ള ഇമാറുകൾ . 



Swim in the waters & eat all the fruits of the Garden of LifeEnjoy Life in its fullness every day!Enjoy Life in full nakedness with a SmileThat is Paradise.............. your religion, your god- all are Deceivers.Deceiver is another name for Devil- andrew 
ആ അറിവുകൾ തെറ്റാണ് കുട്ടി കൈ രേഖകൾ കൂട്ടി വച്ചാൽ നമ്മളുടെ പൂർവികർ വെട്ടി തെളിച്ചിട്ടഭാവിയിലേക്കുള്ള വഴിത്താരകൾ കാണാം അതിൽ നിന്ന് തിരിഞ്ഞു പോകുന്ന ആധുനികതയുടെയും ഉത്തരാധുനികതയുടെയും കൈവഴികളും കാണാംതോണിയും പുഴകളും ഓളങ്ങളും നിന്റെ മനസ്സ് സൃഷ്ടിക്കുന്ന വികല്പങ്ങളാണ് അങ്ങനെ ഒന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു പണ്ട് നിന്റെ പിതാമഹരുടെ കാലത്ത് ഇന്ന് നീ കാണുന്നത് മൃഗതൃഷ്ണ മാത്രമാണ് മനുഷ്യന്റെ വ്യാമോഹങ്ങൾ സൃഷ്ടിച്ച മൃഗതൃഷ്ണ . 
There is a widespread consensus among the leaders of major American institutions that anyone in their workplaces who told someone else to go back where they came from would face serious consequences.But virtually none of those leaders -- from schools and universities to big global companies to nonprofits and local government -- have been willing to publicly express that consensus as President Donald Trump has deployed that incendiary and openly racist language himself in repeated attacks on four nonwhite Democratic House representatives over the past 10 days.Both sides of that equation -- the broad consensus that the President's language would be unacceptable in any other arena of American life, and the equally widespread reluctance to say that publicly -- hint at the full implications of Trump's racially polarizing agenda and rhetoric. Indeed, a court could determine such rhetoric to be illegal discrimination at a workplace found to have tolerated it.With a wide array of racist remarks culminating in his "go back" tweet and the "send her back" chant at his rally last week, Trump has already broken the boundaries of what had been considered acceptable language about race and racial minorities in politics -- though he later briefly claimed he was "not happy" with the chant before pivoting to defending his audience. What's behind Donald Trump's attack on 'The Squad' as 'not very smart?'Now the question is whether his words and example will set a new standard for what is acceptable in other arenas of American life -- particularly because leaders from those institutions have been so reluctant to publicly reaffirm that they consider the President's language unacceptable for a student, teacher, coach, employee or executive.Such silence runs the risk of "normalizing hate," Vanita Gupta, the president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said in an emailed statement."Those in positions of power have a responsibility to speak out against hateful rhetoric that does tangible harm to our most marginalized communities," she said. "Anything less than wholesale public condemnation of hate speech -- especially stemming from our own government -- is a dereliction of our duty as Americans."Stephen Miller's laugh-out-loud excuse for Trump's 'send her back' reactionOver the past week I reached out to leaders at a wide array of American institutions: school districts, universities, Fortune 500 companies, leading trade associations and former military officials. I did not ask them to comment on the President's words. Instead I asked them how they would respond to the use of the same words in their own institutions.What would happen to 20 high school juniors if they surrounded a classmate in a hijab on a football field and chanted, "Go back"? Or to 20 employees in a factory cafeteria who chanted, "Send them back," at a small group of colleagues? Or to 20 soldiers who surrounded a new recruit and told him or her to "go back?"Phrase would draw punishment or removalEveryone I spoke with said without hesitation that inside their own institution anyone who told someone else to "go back" where they came from would face punishment or removal."This is pretty easy from an HR standpoint," said James Banks Jr., general counsel of the Society for Human Resource Management, the leading association of human relations officials.While stressing that he cannot comment directly on the President's words, Banks said that virtually every company now has internal policies governing not only discrimination but also civility. Any employee who told another to "go back" would almost certainly face investigation under both sets of rules.Rep. Elijah Cummings: Trump's 'go back' comments bring back painful memories of childhood racismRep. Elijah Cummings: Trump's 'go back' comments bring back painful memories of childhood racism"If I were to construct a scenario in which -- take a hypothetical -- a white male employee makes that kind of a comment against a group of employees, all of whom are people are color," Banks said, "that would almost certainly be seen as a violation of the discrimination and/or civility policies and would almost certainly result in some kind of employment action against that employee."The level of sanction against an employee who used such language, Banks said, would depend on the circumstances of the comment and any record of prior offense."If it involved just one employee, one time, it was his or her first offense, it would likely not result in termination. Something less than that: a reprimand, maybe a suspension from work, depending on how seriously it was viewed with in that specific workplace," Banks said. "If, however, this was a follow-on to a number of other incidents, it could well lead to termination."Likewise, retired Army Gen. Mark Hertling said flatly through Twitter, "If any subordinate commander, or even someone wearing leader rank (any officer or NCO) said this, they would likely be immediately relieved or at the least counseled for an Equal Opportunity Offense." After Hertling, who's a CNN analyst, published that comment, several officers who served under him tweeted that the situation never would have reached him because they would have disciplined or moved to discharge someone using such rhetoric themselves.Yet very few others were willing to join Hertling and the Society for Human Resource Management in publicly affirming existing policies for dealing with such language. Indeed, most company officials who agreed to speak would do so only without their names attached.One senior executive at a Fortune 500 company that operates extensively through both urban areas that lean Democratic and non-urban areas where Trump is strong, told me such language would likely draw sanction from the loading dock to the boardroom."If a claim like you described were substantiated, the associate would face a range of actions depending on their history but at a minimum it would be (a) permanent mark on their file, required coaching and training, and (there) probably would be some scenarios where they would be demoted or fired," the official told me. "Highly likely someone doing this would never get promoted."But against the backdrop of Trump using the very language it would punish, the company refused to publicly affirm its own policy. "I would rather not get pulled into the current controversy," the official said.Public and private responses differThe nation's leading business organizations also responded cautiously to Trump's language. Privately, one senior executive at a major business trade association told me that the consequences for telling an employee to "go back" would be severe across the upper ranks of American business."All major US organizations and companies have strict policies and mandatory training programs against discrimination," the official said. "It would be a fireable offense for any employee to say such inflammatory language to another employee."But in public, the business community was muted to the point of irrelevance. The Business Roundtable issued a bland general statement: "Welcoming immigrants and their descendants is a core American value. As CEOs, we will continue to build our companies around the principles of respect, trust and equal opportunity for all our employees. Business Roundtable encourages our political leaders to debate the issues based on merit and come together on solutions to benefit American workers, families and communities."Watch the tape. There's no way to spin Donald Trump's 'send her back' complicityWatch the tape. There's no way to spin Donald Trump's 'send her back' complicityThe US Chamber of Commerce did not issue a public response."The failure of Corporate America to challenge the President's racist rhetoric is disheartening, but not surprising," Wade Henderson, the former head of the NAACP Washington office, told me in an email. "After all, the economy is humming; and most corporate leaders would prefer to avoid a confrontation with a vindictive President. But in the struggle for the soul of America, there can be no by-standers."Business wasn't alone in its reticence. A public university system, in which racial minorities and the children of immigrants now compose a significant share of its student body, also refused to publicly comment on how it would handle a professor or athletic coach telling a student to "go back" where they came from. It pointed me instead to general guidelines of civility. A major, highly diverse, public K-12 school system also refused to publicly discuss its handling of such language.This public caution is so striking partly because human resource professionals say "go back" language is not considered a close call or a judgment at the margin: It now stands far beyond the boundaries of acceptable rhetoric in almost any workplace. While Republican elected officials have almost universally rejected the idea that the language is racist, the conclusion is equally solid in the opposite direction among human resource professionals. Despite the President's adoption of the phrase, Banks said, "it remains equally unacceptable in the American workplace" as before his comments.The world's silence on Trump's racism is deafeningThe world's silence on Trump's racism is deafeningBackstopping these internal company policies are regulations and court precedents under federal law. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the federal laws barring discrimination based on race, gender and national origin, has repeatedly considered language similar to that Trump used as evidence of discrimination in the workplace, according to a CNN investigation.The EEOC website specifically cites language similar to the President's as a potential violation of the federal law preventing discrimination based on national origin. "Examples of potentially unlawful conduct include insults, taunting, or ethnic epithets, such as making fun of a person's foreign accent or comments like, 'Go back to where you came from,' whether made by supervisors or by co-workers," the agency writes.Banks said human resource professionals generally expect that the President's use of the "go back" language will lead to more people expressing that sentiment in workplaces."If people who are more predisposed (to say such things) hear more of it in a general public discourse, they may be more likely to try to bring that into the workplace," he said. But he added, if people do bring that language to the job, "I think they are in for a rude awakening."Banks said he thinks companies have not publicly reaffirmed that "go back" is unacceptable language because they believe the President's embrace of the phrase has not changed the underlying federal rules or case law that define it as unacceptable."That's probably why you don't hear more about it from HR professionals," he said, "because we just shrug our shoulders to say, 'It's still out of bounds for us and was never in bounds.' "But civil rights leaders see the silence of the nation's corporate leadership in particular over the past week as an abdication that holds the threat of encouraging such nativist and racist language in other settings."The business community is an important voice in this country and their failure to respond only contributes to the normalization of the President's words," Henderson said in his email. "They know quite well that the President's comments violate EEOC guidelines and all of their internal personnel policies. They also know that the corrosion of American ideals is ultimately costly to business and to us all."
പ്രസംഗിക്കട്ടെ ! പ്രസംഗിക്കട്ടെ എങ്ങെനെ ങ്കിലും അമേരിക്കയിലെ സാഹിത്യകാരന്മാർക്ക് വിവരം ഉണ്ടായാൽ മതി. ഞങ്ങൾ ആവശ്യത്തിന് വായിച്ചും, കേട്ടും, പഠിച്ചിട്ടുമാണ് ഇങ്ങോട്ട് വന്നത് .  അതുകൊണ്ട് അത് കിട്ടാത്ത ഈ നിര്ഭാഗ്യവാന്മാർക്ക് വിവരം ഉണ്ടാക്കി കൊടുക്കുന്നത് നല്ലതാണ് . ന്യുയോർക്കിൽ ഇരിക്കുന്ന പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും ഹൂസ്റ്റണിലെ പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും ഡാളസ്സിലെ പണ്ഡിതന്മാരും എല്ലാം കൂടി സ്ഥിരം അടിയാണ് . അണ്ടിയാണോ മൂത്തത് മാങ്ങയാണോ എന്ന് ചോദിച്ച് .   ഒരുത്തനോടും ഒന്നും പറയാൻ പറ്റില്ല .എന്തെങ്കിലും പറഞ്ഞാൽ ഉടനെ അവാർഡ് പൊക്കി കാണിക്കും (കൂടുതൽ വാദിക്കാൻ പോയാൽ തുണിപൊക്കി കാണിക്കും ) പല പേരിലാണ് അവാർഡ് വരുന്നത്, ബഷീറിന്റ 'അമ്മ , വയലാറിന്റ രണ്ടാം ഭാര്യ, പിന്നെ കേരളവർമ്മയുടെ അമ്മാണച്ചെന്റെ പേരിൽ അങ്ങനെ പോകുന്നു അവാർഡ് ചരിത്രം .   നിങ്ങളുടെ വിഷയം കൊള്ളാം വിദ്വേഷമില്ലാത്ത മാനവികത - പ്രസംഗിക്കാൻ പറ്റിയ വിഷയം .  അടുത്ത വർഷവും അതിന്റെ പിന്നത്തെ വർഷവും അതുതന്നെ പ്രസംഗിക്കാം . കാരണം ഇത് നടക്കില്ല സാറേ ഭൂമിയിൽ ഒരിടത്തും നടക്കില്ല . ഞാൻ ഇത് കേൾക്കാൻ തുടങ്ങീട്ട് എത്ര വർഷമായി . നടക്കുന്നത് ഒന്നേയുള്ളു -മനുഷ്യനിൽ വിദ്വേഷം കുത്തി വയ്ക്കുക കുത്തി തിരിപ്പുണ്ടാക്കുക . ഇന്ന് നീതിക്കും ധർമ്മത്തിനും കൊടുത്തിരുന്ന നിർവചനങ്ങൾ തിരുത്തി എഴുതുക  ജനം അടിക്കട്ടെ തമ്മിൽ അടിക്കട്ടെ . സാഹിത്യകാരന്മാർ തല്ലി ചാകട്ടെ  തമ്മിൽ കാണുമ്പോൾ മുറുമുറുക്കട്ടെ . നായ്ക്കളെ പോലെ .  അങ്ങനെ മാനവികതക്ക്  ഓറഞ്ചു തലയൻ ട്രംപിന്റെ വെറുപ്പും വിദ്വേഷ്വവും കൊണ്ട് ചീർത്ത മുഖച്ഛായ ഉണ്ടാകട്ടെ
Some of the things you have said about others are gibberish.  The people those who oppose your religious doctrines are the people who believe that the religions are doing more damage to humanity than it brings them together.  The concept of making someone god or assuming that there is a god out somewhere controlling everything happening in the universe are all the figment of some peoples imaginations according to them.  Other problems with religions  of the world  are that they all have their on god and cannot agree on anything.   As a layman, when I look outside all the religions in the world and their gods, they are all in conflict with each other and fighting  to contain others. I have noticed that you always manipulate things around and try to establish that Jesus is the true god and through him is the salvation. And, that is what you have done in the comment you wrote under this article. Life is simple and that is to love your neighbor as you love yourself and let your light so shine before others and they will glorify your god. Don't try to sell your god to anyone and that will have adverse effect.    
Noticed the comment from andrew. Also noticed that some people are using emalayalee to spread their religion here. They have also intolerance when they see articles related to another religion, and a volley of negative comments follow on such articles and writers. What hypocrisy! I believe all major religions are from God. Take out the knowledge of God out of the religions or the theology out, and then all religions agree on the morals and ethics side. This is because revelations about God came step by step in bits and pieces as it is said in book of Hebrews in Bible (1:1).  In Buddhism there is not any knowledge of God as God wanted people to follow a life style as God wanted them to follow rather than learn theology. This does not mean that all the practices in all religions are from God. ‘Anacharanghal’ got in to all religious practices with time.   Most people spread their religions through different Medias. The right way to spread religion is to practice it by revealing the character and attributes of their God through their actions, and people watching such selfless actions will get attracted to the religion (keep it personal as andrew said it). People want to know why this person behaves different, and will get attracted to his/her religion.  Apart from theology, all religions teach ‘sanathana’ values such as ‘sathyam, dharmam, justice’ and such values as mercy, love and charity which are attributes of God in any religion.   In school I remember saying the pledge, “India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters”. During the early years of immigration one Malayalee or Indian was eager to see another Malayalee or Indian. Now rare are those who think above their own religion or denominations, or that come together to cooperate above religious boundaries.   Last Saturday I attended the funeral service of Sri Devaraj Karaavallil the famous poet from Houston.  His poem, ‘Kedaaramaanasam’ is a classic collection of his poems. Words come flowing by as the links in a chain. Such poems that overflow with love of fellow human beings and nature can come from only a ‘niskalanka’ mind. I know him for years and I understood him as a religious person never talking about religion. At the same time he was revealing Hindu religious principles without word or speech through his actions. Such rare births appear in families occasionally, and it must be due to the ‘sukrutham’ from parents or grandparents as there is a reason for everything. For us to have such births in our families we need to reveal the character and attributes of the God we believe in to others through our actions instead of words that have lost its meanings. So the right way to spread religion is without word or speech through your actions that reveal the character of the God you believe in.
ഇതൊക്കെത്തന്നെയല്ലേ പശുവിന്റെ പേരിൽ ഇൻഡ്യയിലും നടക്കുന്നത് !!!
Excellent.Covers all aspects of SRIMAD RAMAYANAM63
മത്തങ്ങക്ക് കണ്ണ് കൊത്തി       വാ കീറി നോക്കി   അയാൾ തന്നെ; ട്രമ്പൻ 
പരപുരുഷ ബന്ധം പരസ്ത്രീ ബന്ധം, കുണ്ടനടി തുടങ്ങിയവ ബന്ധങ്ങൾ മുറക്ക് നടത്തിയിട്ട് നിങ്ങൾ ഉണ്ടാക്കിയ ദൈവത്തിന് പഴി .  കള്ള ഇമാറുകൾ .