A mosque can be demolished, but not temple: Swamy http://tz.ucweb.com/3_1SM5F
My Comment: How perverse a logic can get is reflected in Swamy’s arguments. He says a Temple can’t be demolished because the “God” resides in it, but a Mosque can be because it is just a convenience to offer worship. BTW, as per him, he has made this argument in SC and expects the court to accept it. Before the SC accepts this argument (given the SC is accepting anything and everything these days), let it be known, even in Hinduism, the “God” is one called Brahman; rest all are just conveniences. As per Vedanta, the external “God” known as Brahman is called Atman when it is acknowledged within. And when the two “Gods” are realized as one through bhakti, meditation or whatever else, mukti is achieved. So, even Hindus don’t need Temples for meeting the “God” because “God” resides within them. Though it’s a different matter that each single Hindu can then declare himself “God”, call his abode, authorized or unauthorized, a Temple, and injunct all and sundry from demolishing his Temple. Is Swamy suggesting that? OK…then it’s a different matter.
Disclaimer: I am an atheist nonbeliever and am residing in an unauthorized construction in an unauthorized colony and won’t hesitate to call my residence a Temple if ever the present government changes its mind and starts demolishing all unauthorized colonies. But chances of such a thing happening are very bleak; so, my atheism is safe.