Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events


Zan
#481
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Aren't thongs Canadian for "flip flops"?

according to the looks of horror and dismay on my kids' faces when I once accidentally used that vernacular to describe some cute thongs I saw in the store, no, 'thongs' is no longer considered appropriate foot wear.
 
L Gilbert
#482
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

Les! a thong does not a cutie make! Don't make me go find pics!

Hey!! I like human geography, too. I am just choosy WHOSE geography I like.
(Anna was giggling away yesterday and got me curious. She pointed to your post about human geography and her reply. ) Funny.
 
Francis2004
#483
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

according to the looks of horror and dismay on my kids' faces when I once accidentally used that vernacular to describe some cute thongs I saw in the store, no, 'thongs' is no longer considered appropriate foot wear.


 
Spade
#484
Geezus, "thongs" as a foot fetish is passť? I suppose "visiting the queen" no longer simply means "washing one's hands"?
 
SirJosephPorter
#485
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

Aren't thongs Canadian for "flip flops"?

I don’t know, you may be right, Spade. But I do remember on the other forum (Canada.com) when you used 'thong' to mean 'flip flop', you got plenty of ribbing for that.

I don’t know if you recall, but we were discussing pregnant women and you mentioned thong. My reaction was ‘pregnant and thong? Yikes.’

Nobody would believe that you actually meant ‘flip flops’
 
L Gilbert
#486
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

according to the looks of horror and dismay on my kids' faces when I once accidentally used that vernacular to describe some cute thongs I saw in the store, no, 'thongs' is no longer considered appropriate foot wear.

I wonders (not on purpose) how Pompa** .... oops, you-know-who would look wearing footwear over his um suthern parts.
 
Cannuck
#487
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

no, 'thongs' is no longer considered appropriate foot wear.

No wonder people were looking at me funny this summer.
 
Goober
#488
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Sikh religion does not have a caste system, Hinduism does. It is quite possible that Sikhs have an unofficial caste system, I donít know the Sikh society that well. But if they have one, it is not sanctioned by the religion, unlike Hinduism. They are practicing it in spite of their religion, not because of their religion.

SJPDo not care what the book says - Many Sikhs practice the aste system and it can be traced to the 18th century - Many religions change over time - So you were not right - I have bolded the applicable information for you - Now what started out as a religion having no caste system has evolved in a sunbstantial number of Sikhs practicing the caste system - SAnd it came from their religious rulers - Gurus whatevers - so do some research yourself - It is not unoffical as you say - http://www.jattworld.com/portal/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=2269&forum=1
Originally when Guru Gobind Singh made the Khalsa, he banned castes and surname use, instead all Sikhs were either called Singh(Lion) or Kaur(Princess).

Over the following years, in the times of Maharaja Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Missls that reclaimed land back from the Moghuls, those leading the Missls eventually settled in those areas taking up farming. Inevitably many of these people originated from the warrior caste, Khatri. As they took up farming, they and the original Jatt communities often merged, so it is often neccessary to go back to these times to truly find the origin of the family. During these times it was only the Jatt community that held a surname and most often the surname was the village to which they belonged . In this way it was largely used in official times when the British demanded they give a surname for official records, it later became a way of identifying where a person came from.The other high caste families reverted back to using the surnames in use before they became Sikhs and these included the low caste Ramgharias as well.This division meant that it became easy for people to identify a person's caste from their surname.However, when very low caste sikhs migrated to countries such as the US, Canada and the UK, they thought of it as a chance to start a clean slate where people would not be able to identify their caste. Some adopted the surnames of their villages such as Gill and Rai, originally Jatt surnames, or close derivatives such as Shergill and Kalirai.Therefore over recent years it has been difficult to retrace such surnames to caste, however since communities migrated to the west in such large numbers, many families from the same village came to the same cities. Before long those low caste families using ambiguous surnames were once again segregated.</SPAN>
http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Caste_System
The only case where some vestiges of the caste system still remain is that of social discrimination against Mazhabi Sikhs (converts from scavenging caste) and Ramdasia Sikhs (formerly weavers). They too have never been treated as untouchable and there has been no commensal or social discrimination against those among them who have taken the pahul (the rites) of the Khalsa. Also, there has been no discrimination against anyone while attending religious gatherings or dining in Guru ka Langar, i.e. community kitchen. The existence of remaining prejudices may be explained by several factors. First, it is a part of the dynamics of ideological mass upsurges that their initial momentum has always tended to taper off as time goes by. After reaching ideological peaks, they have invariably reached a plateau and then slided somewhat back towards the levels they started from. It is due to the limitation of human nature and environmental hurdles that the transformation of human society in terms of its idealistic goals has been extremely slow, despite all religious and other progressive movements that have taken place. Revolutionary movements do leave behind more or less degrees of progress, but the critics usually tend to compare them with absolute standard instead of measuring the achievements in relative terms. It is always easier to point out shortcomings than to appreciate gains. The initial success of the revolutionary Sikh movement, it must be appreciated, attracted to its fold a large number of converts, mostly from the Hindu caste society.During the tribulations and turmoils of the eighteenth century, the core elements of the Khalsa were deeply involved in a life-and death struggle against the tyranny of the oppressive Indian State and depredations of rapacious invaders, leaving the religious leadership in the hands of Udasis and Nirmala priestly classes whose religious and educational background was more akin to traditional Brahmanism than to orthodox Sikhism. The influence of these classes resulted in diluting the essentially anti-caste teaching of Sikh Gurus so much so that the nineteenth-century Nirankari and Namdhari movements professing to re-establish the purity of Sikh mores ended in gurudom and sectarian exclusiveness.
 
SirJosephPorter
#489
I read your article, Goober. But nowhere it says that the Holy Book, The Granth Sahib was changed to include the caste system. So what I said still stands. While some Sikhs may practice the caste system, it is not sanctioned by the religion, by the Holy Book.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#490
Quote: Originally Posted by SirJosephPorterView Post

Because Charter guarantees freedom of religion. What that means is that every effort should be made to accommodate the religious beliefs of people. If Sikhs can be permitted to carry kirpan in a safe manner, if safety considerations are answered, there is really no reason to deny the Sikhs the right to carry kirapn.

The accomodation goes too far to permit one group to carry a weapon. The safety consideration is "keep the weapon at home, locked, like a gun". The public should not be exposed to this possible threat. This is better to minimize harm.
 
SirJosephPorter
#491
Quote: Originally Posted by dumpthemonarchyView Post

The accomodation goes too far to permit one group to carry a weapon. The safety consideration is "keep the weapon at home, locked, like a gun". The public should not be exposed to this possible threat. This is better to minimize harm.


That is clearly a matter of perspective. What seems like excessive risk to you may not seem that way to somebody else. And clearly the Olympic Committee disagrees. They are in the best position to make the decision as to whether a kirpan can be carried safely.

And I defer to their decision. I donít have all the facts, I havenít listened to all the sides, I am not in a position to make the decision. Whatever Olympic Committee decided is OK by me. I have said it before, if the Committee had decided the other way (if they had decided to ban kirpans), I would be OK with that too.
 
dumpthemonarchy
#492
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

Freedom of religion is not granted according to what you or I believe is true.... as an agnostic, I'll stand up and defend anyone's right to worship whatever or whomever they want... and if necessary, someone will one day stand up and defend my right NOT to worship anyone or anything. This is how freedoms work.

S0 whether we agree with the existence of religion or not, we must do all we can to preserve the right to worship as one sees fit - it is our responsibility to freedom - but the flip side of that responsibility imo, is to ensure that protection is not abused by special interest groups who use our laws to turn what is a right into a privilege accorded to a select few. .

Religion is dangerous and should be limited where possible. Privately it is okay, but when it gets public, it should be reduced.
 
Zan
#493
Dangerous? That's a discussion unto itself, but you're veering away from the core issue here. Any group of like minded people can bring a negative element to society - it doesn't have to be dressed up as religion.

You really need to be careful about slicing away at our rights, one day it could be something you value, and there'll be no one left to fight for your rights.
 
AnnaG
#494
Nuke the buggers. They are nasty, malevolent, swarthy, evil, anti-Christian, inhuman monsters and are all out to copy Timothy McVeigh and Co. deeds. lol
 
dumpthemonarchy
#495
Quote: Originally Posted by ZanView Post

Dangerous? That's a discussion unto itself, but you're veering away from the core issue here. Any group of like minded people can bring a negative element to society - it doesn't have to be dressed up as religion.

You really need to be careful about slicing away at our rights, one day it could be something you value, and there'll be no one left to fight for your rights.

Over the centuries, and in India recently, religion has caused a number of deaths. Why? Because my god is better than your god. Common ground is difficult to find here.

In the Sikh holy book they may speak against caste, yet they practice it. Equality if necessary, but not necessarily equality. It's happening already, the RCMP is giving away our rights.
 

Similar Threads

0
Kershaw Shun knives
by Brinkley | Oct 14th, 2007
0
Sikhs celebrate England's new cricket icon
by Blackleaf | Aug 5th, 2006
23
France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans
by I think not | Mar 8th, 2006
no new posts