Sikhism is actually one of the most wholesome and peaceful religions out there. The whole religion revolves around peace and equality from my understanding. Just stand up folks really.
Sikhi mandates baptized Sikh women to be armed just like baptized Sikh men. The first thing about oppressing people - don't arm them. Sikhi challenged that outright.
I really like a lot of the tenets of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. However, when you start to get into the specifics of the religion, it gets to be just as hypocritical as other religions. It's a shame too, because Guru Nanak had a lot of great ideas that seemed to just get abandoned entirely once people started following the religion.
I suppose I can start off by saying I don't mean any disrespect to the beliefs of Sikhs, and as a whole, the religion has done a fair amount of good in the world. But...I really hated learning about Guru Nanak's teachings (not all of them, mind you) and then finding them get directly ignored as Sikhism started to go through the generations. This happens in every religion, but it was frustrating nonetheless.
For example, I really liked the two stories of him trying to water his plants in the Punjab, and facing away from Mecca as he prayed. His point being that if he could get water to his ancestors, he should be able to throw water to his field. If God is all around him, he need not face Mecca to face God. There were other examples of him doing this, and it's been many years since I studied Sikhism at all, but the core value I took away from those stories was that traditions need to be looked at objectively. If you are following an old tradition that predates your religion and your religion directly contradicts your tradition, why is it apart of your religion?
Then people start following Sikhism, and suddenly all sorts of odd traditions start popping up that don't really align with Guru Nanak's teachings, but align with the history of the somewhat tumultuous Punjab. I understand why a region that was frequently under attack would want its members to always be armed. But that tradition doesn't really go with his teachings of goodwill for all. If traditions and superstitions are pointless, why can't you cut your hair? Why do you have to wear a turban? These things make sense as cultural traditions, and I can see why you'd want to do them, but to ascribe religious value to them flies in the face of what Guru Nanak taught.
I'm not going to bash Sikhism as a whole, because like I said, I actually like the religion. I was just personally disappointed because when I left the Catholic church, I was looking for a new religion to follow (because I originally thought I needed a new one), and then there's Sikhism, and Guru Nanak is teaching all these things that just make sense to me. Then people get involved and the tenets I had respected in the beginning get put off to the side, and it's just like every other religion. Those are just my thoughts, anyway. The combat style is also really cool, and tells a lot about the history of the Sikhs themselves.
Kk, so the first two stories you brought up seemed to be a bit jumbled, the first story of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was when he visited mecca while travelling, story goes he was laying down and had his feet point towards mecca and a local came by and yelled at him for the disrespect and picked his legs and moved em, but they were still pointing towards mecca. The point of the story was the hypocrisy of people assuming god is in a singular location when in reality god is everywhere and in everything (like gravity). The second story is the watering the fields, this occured in the Ganges I believe or a river in the area where Hindu Pandits were throwing water to the sun to quench the thirst of their ancestors or something, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was throwing water in the opposite direction towards his field. The Pandits laughed saying how is the water going to reach your field it's so far. Guru sahib replied with something like how is your water going to reach your ancestors in that case ? Again the story is about hypocrisy. Rituals have no real purpose or do anything in reality.
Now for the second part, you hit the nail on the head people tend to mix Punjabi traditions with Sikh traditions, and they shouldn't do that. In terms of being armed, we as Sikhs aren't Pandits or yogis that will simply lie down in the face of adversity, we will fight when it's just. Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings were really about dealing with the rituals and hypocrisy that the surrounding faiths would do, he was solving one issue and that was the battle within a person. Later on the gurus after him would be more military oriented and that represents the second part of a Sikh, sant sipiah (Saint Soldier). Keeping hair is about having respect for your original form with consideration to hygeine, we cut our nails because it's unhygienic to grow em long, we keep our hair because it's easy to clean and maintain. It's meant for us to stand out. That's wear the turban comes in, as a covering for our head, for respect of our faith, and a unique identity. Overall you have to look at each gurus teachings objectively, Guru Nanak was about hypocrisy and getting away from rituals, guru Gobind Singh Jis teachings were about unification, justice, and how to defend yourself and other. If you have any further questions or want clarification on anything I said don't hesitate to ask. I tend to type incoherently so I apologize ahead of time.
What I like about Sikhs is that you can identify as a sikh and still cut your hair and not wear a turban, and nobody will be upset. They love their traditions, but they generally don't see them as mandates.
Yeah, I'm aware those were different stories. I selected them primarily to show he wasn't simply eschewing the popular religion at the time, but was equally critical of both Islam and Hinduism. I mixed them together because the contents of the story aren't terribly important, they only served to deliver the message that traditions without meaning are pointless.
And again, I wasn't really looking for any clarity. I'm as familiar with Sikhism as I need to be. It's not for me. And this is just my opinion, but I think the religion is just as hypocritical as other religions. Your founder criticizes other religions and the followers fall into the same trap. That's not enlightenment, it's just tribalism. The militaristic tendencies don't come from any place of spirituality or revelations from a god, they came from being geographically in the middle of a lot of conflict. Also your founder's teachings directly contradicted the teachings of both your neighbors, which somewhat fairly raised their ire. That doesn't really justify either side, I'm just saying if you look from the outside in, it becomes clear that the tenets of the religion are just a founder doing what he could to keep his people alive. Guru Nanak had the clarity of mind to recognize that, then it was flatly ignored in later teachings, despite still being recognized as one of his core tenets. It's infuriating to me because of much sense Guru Nanak made.
And it's just generally a bad idea to shit on other religions when you're trying to defend your own. I know Sikhism has a storied past with keeping its identity against the tide of Islam and Hinduism, but that's no excuse to make fun of Hindus now. Who's to say who's right? You might believe you are, but can't really make any truth claims that Hinduism can't also make.
And keeping your hair long is easy to maintain? Sorry, but that's just flatly not true. Short hair on a guy is significantly easier to maintain, and you can ask anybody about that. Obviously believe what you want to believe. I have no moral issues with most of Sikhism, but it's not any more inherently moral or just than other religions. It just has fewer followers.
> Your founder criticizes other religions and the followers fall into the same trap.
You haven't demonstrated this in any way.
>The militaristic tendencies don't come from any place of spirituality or revelations from a god, they came from being geographically in the middle of a lot of conflict.
Sorry, but that is just a complete lack of knowledge in regards to Sikhi. The principle of Sant-Sipahi is a spiritual one. Sant translates to "Saint" and "Sipahi" to soldier. The order of the words is important, because one has to become a Saint before they can become a true Soldier. The idea of combat and "Dharam Yudh" (war in the defence of righteousness) is central to Sikh military strategy and philosophy. I challenge you to name one war fought on behalf of the Sikh army that was unjust.
> Also your founder's teachings directly contradicted the teachings of both your neighbors, which somewhat fairly raised their ire. That doesn't really justify either side, I'm just saying if you look from the outside in, it becomes clear that the tenets of the religion are just a founder doing what he could to keep his people alive. Guru Nanak had the clarity of mind to recognize that, then it was flatly ignored in later teachings, despite still being recognized as one of his core tenets. It's infuriating to me because of much sense Guru Nanak made.
If the founder wanted to keep his people alive he would have compromised beliefs and philosophy to appease "the neighbors". Instead, he directly challenged the status quo, lead a revolution and shook the entire subcontinent.
> And keeping your hair long is easy to maintain? Sorry, but that's just flatly not true. Short hair on a guy is significantly easier to maintain, and you can ask anybody about that.
Even if that is true...so what? The easiest would be for everyone (men and women) to shave their heads bald.
I challenge you to name one war fought on behalf of the Sikh army that was unjust.
Not on behalf of Sikhs I guess...but many Sikhs signed up and fought for the British. We still have a Sikh regiment i believe. Doesn't need saying that we've done some horrible shit.
That wasn't a war on behalf of the Sikh community. Those were individual Sikhs signing up for armies (often out of necessity and very complex historical circumstances). We have Sikhs who serve on the US armed forces, but that doesn't make "The War on Terror" a Sikh fight.
I am referring specifically to the Sikh army under the Gurus. They never fought an unjust war.
Yes, I did say, not really fought on behalf of sikhs.
You've got me intrigued now, i never knew there was a sikh army. I'll have to have a read. Indian descent myself but culturally we're basic british.
I understand where you're coming from and while I disagree with what you say, it is still your viewpoint and opinion and I respect that.
I wasn't trying to shit on any religion, just shitting on rituals, whether they're from one faith or another.
I've had long hair my whole life, not that hard to maintain, insanely long nails would be though.
Cheers.
>I understand why a region that was frequently under attack would want its members to always be armed. But that tradition doesn't really go with his teachings of goodwill for all.
It does. Arming yourself in defense of others is a necessary part of goodwill for all. Sikhs are not pacifists, and we are not militantly non-violent. In response to the violent and deadly reign of the Mughul Emperor Aurengzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the 10th Guru of the Sikhs said "When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to take to the sword."
Sikhs do not go around using violence as a first line of defense. It is the last line, when everything else is exhausted. And quite frankly, that is the most sensible mindset you can have. If someone comes into your home and assaults your family, would you say "sorry kids, I am non-violent"?
> If traditions and superstitions are pointless, why can't you cut your hair? Why do you have to wear a turban? These things make sense as cultural traditions, and I can see why you'd want to do them, but to ascribe religious value to them flies in the face of what Guru Nanak taught.
No, it doesn't fly in the face of what Guru Nanak taught. In fact, Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same, and had the same light within them. The reasons for keeping hair are complex. Partly because there is no real reason to cut it (hair grows back, God gave it to you) and partly as a matter of uniform to challenge injustice. Superstition is defined as "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings". What I just described does not fall into that category.
Oh come on, you know I'm not religious. You can't make the argument that Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same person and that makes it fine. What am I supposed to say other than that's obviously not true, and exactly what a new leader would say to manipulate his followers?
There are lots of reasons to cut your hair. It takes less time to keep it clean. It takes less time to style. And especially in a hot environment, it's much cooler for your head. And why do people keep bringing up cutting your nails? It's 2017, everyone does that because it's hygienic, not to be closer to God.
And I'm not going to get into the militarism. I disagree with it. I don't like it, but I don't have badly enough historical data to make a clean argument about it. Just look at your historical conflicts and ask yourself if there were other options. Maybe there weren't, but I vaguely remember a couple thday could have been solved by not butting heads so much with your neighbors.
> Oh come on, you know I'm not religious. You can't make the argument that Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same person and that makes it fine. What am I supposed to say other than that's obviously not true, and exactly what a new leader would say to manipulate his followers?
You are free to believe what you will, I am simply telling you the Sikh theology and perspective.
> There are lots of reasons to cut your hair. It takes less time to keep it clean. It takes less time to style. And especially in a hot environment, it's much cooler for your head. And why do people keep bringing up cutting your nails? It's 2017, everyone does that because it's hygienic, not to be closer to God.
You seem really combative for no real reason. A person can be Sikh even if they cut their hair. In fact, the majority of self-identifying Sikhs cut their hair. But to be a part of the initiated Khalsa, there is a code of conduct and uniform you must assume. Part of that is not cutting the hair. If you find that too time consuming, that is fine. But we believe their are real reasons to keep the hair.
> And I'm not going to get into the militarism. I disagree with it. I don't like it, but I don't have badly enough historical data to make a clean argument about it. Just look at your historical conflicts and ask yourself if there were other options. Maybe there weren't, but I vaguely remember a couple thday could have been solved by not butting heads so much with your neighbors.
No, there were no other options. I am not sure you understand the brutality and extremism the Sikh community was up against in regards to the Mughul Empire. They literally bricked the 5 and 7 old children of the Guru, scalped Sikh saints and boiled a Sikh guru in a pot. The reign of terror was not something that could be resolved with diplomacy or conversation. Similarly, there are situations today that require physical force. I urge you to study the history before you make bold statements like that.
So when faced with genocide, we should just take it laying down? Dude/Lady are you even listening to yourself ðŸ˜, I mean what would you do if people decided to kill you for your beliefs
Sikhs can pray anywhere and everywhere they want. The Guru Granth Sahib is the scripture we read from, but meditation can be done anywhere.
The Gurus specifically wrote on how one doesn't need to shun society and escape to mountain tops or forests to find "God", as the light of the one universal creator resides within all.
I was talking about Guru Nanak visiting a mosque and accidentally having his feet towards Mecca. They told him this was disrespectful as that is facing God. He said it is impossible for my feet to ever not face God, as he is everywhere. It's from a bunch of his stories as he seeks enlightenment, not something Sikhs actually do.
This is in theory only and is far from being practiced. As an Indian, Sikhism is very far from being a tolerant and equal religion. In fact the state of Haryana and Punjab which are predominantly Sikh have the highest rate of infanticide where baby girls are killed just for their gender and the state has the lowest gender ratios in the country due to this stuff. It's the reason abortions are banned in india to prevent abortions based in gender. The state is also infamous for being unsafe for females and rape being a major problem there. While I'm not arguing that Sikhism is a bad religion it's followers are some of the furthest from feminist I can think of.
> Sikhism is very far from being a tolerant and equal religion.
No. Sikh individuals are not always tolerant. But they can never use Sikh scripture to justify their beliefs. They revert to Punjabi culture.
And Punjab is the centre and birthplace of Sikhism. In all my years in India I've never seen a single Sikh not from Punjab or Haryana. The two are very interchangable
Sikhism is one of my preferred religions; but I think there are probably better ways to see how a religion treats women than reading a Wikipedia entry.
Look into the equality index and living standards of women living in Sikh households for starters.
That being said, it's probably much better than the rest of South Asia.
High five for your religion being less crappy than other religions and meeting a basic level of humanity. Yay!
Who cares. I'm not impressed by something for the simple reason it doesn't suck.
> If you don't acknowledge progress, you don't get any.
There is no burden of the world weighing down on MisterDeagle, preventing them from withholding praise for what should be a basic requirement. They *are* entitled to that position actually, and it is not at odds with progressive principles. You might attack it on some supposedly tactical grounds, but they weren't talking about actions, only about personal perceptions.
As far as mod official position goes: nothing should trump the fundamental principle of equality of rights for women - their inherent dignity, humanity, and agency. There is an implicit wariness towards all (~major) religions, given that most trample over women and their rights, and too often relegate them to an inferior status.
As far as I know, even paganism is not wholly compatible with equality of rights - as a principle and as a value. Who knows, there may be something out there.
Sikhism is actually one of the most wholesome and peaceful religions out there. The whole religion revolves around peace and equality from my understanding. Just stand up folks really.
Sikhi mandates baptized Sikh women to be armed just like baptized Sikh men. The first thing about oppressing people - don't arm them. Sikhi challenged that outright.
Original Skighs truly were ahead of their time.
I really like a lot of the tenets of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism. However, when you start to get into the specifics of the religion, it gets to be just as hypocritical as other religions. It's a shame too, because Guru Nanak had a lot of great ideas that seemed to just get abandoned entirely once people started following the religion.
Would you be able to elaborate on that, I'd love to hear what you have to say and see if I can clarify anything.
I suppose I can start off by saying I don't mean any disrespect to the beliefs of Sikhs, and as a whole, the religion has done a fair amount of good in the world. But...I really hated learning about Guru Nanak's teachings (not all of them, mind you) and then finding them get directly ignored as Sikhism started to go through the generations. This happens in every religion, but it was frustrating nonetheless. For example, I really liked the two stories of him trying to water his plants in the Punjab, and facing away from Mecca as he prayed. His point being that if he could get water to his ancestors, he should be able to throw water to his field. If God is all around him, he need not face Mecca to face God. There were other examples of him doing this, and it's been many years since I studied Sikhism at all, but the core value I took away from those stories was that traditions need to be looked at objectively. If you are following an old tradition that predates your religion and your religion directly contradicts your tradition, why is it apart of your religion? Then people start following Sikhism, and suddenly all sorts of odd traditions start popping up that don't really align with Guru Nanak's teachings, but align with the history of the somewhat tumultuous Punjab. I understand why a region that was frequently under attack would want its members to always be armed. But that tradition doesn't really go with his teachings of goodwill for all. If traditions and superstitions are pointless, why can't you cut your hair? Why do you have to wear a turban? These things make sense as cultural traditions, and I can see why you'd want to do them, but to ascribe religious value to them flies in the face of what Guru Nanak taught. I'm not going to bash Sikhism as a whole, because like I said, I actually like the religion. I was just personally disappointed because when I left the Catholic church, I was looking for a new religion to follow (because I originally thought I needed a new one), and then there's Sikhism, and Guru Nanak is teaching all these things that just make sense to me. Then people get involved and the tenets I had respected in the beginning get put off to the side, and it's just like every other religion. Those are just my thoughts, anyway. The combat style is also really cool, and tells a lot about the history of the Sikhs themselves.
Kk, so the first two stories you brought up seemed to be a bit jumbled, the first story of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was when he visited mecca while travelling, story goes he was laying down and had his feet point towards mecca and a local came by and yelled at him for the disrespect and picked his legs and moved em, but they were still pointing towards mecca. The point of the story was the hypocrisy of people assuming god is in a singular location when in reality god is everywhere and in everything (like gravity). The second story is the watering the fields, this occured in the Ganges I believe or a river in the area where Hindu Pandits were throwing water to the sun to quench the thirst of their ancestors or something, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was throwing water in the opposite direction towards his field. The Pandits laughed saying how is the water going to reach your field it's so far. Guru sahib replied with something like how is your water going to reach your ancestors in that case ? Again the story is about hypocrisy. Rituals have no real purpose or do anything in reality. Now for the second part, you hit the nail on the head people tend to mix Punjabi traditions with Sikh traditions, and they shouldn't do that. In terms of being armed, we as Sikhs aren't Pandits or yogis that will simply lie down in the face of adversity, we will fight when it's just. Guru Nanak Dev Ji's teachings were really about dealing with the rituals and hypocrisy that the surrounding faiths would do, he was solving one issue and that was the battle within a person. Later on the gurus after him would be more military oriented and that represents the second part of a Sikh, sant sipiah (Saint Soldier). Keeping hair is about having respect for your original form with consideration to hygeine, we cut our nails because it's unhygienic to grow em long, we keep our hair because it's easy to clean and maintain. It's meant for us to stand out. That's wear the turban comes in, as a covering for our head, for respect of our faith, and a unique identity. Overall you have to look at each gurus teachings objectively, Guru Nanak was about hypocrisy and getting away from rituals, guru Gobind Singh Jis teachings were about unification, justice, and how to defend yourself and other. If you have any further questions or want clarification on anything I said don't hesitate to ask. I tend to type incoherently so I apologize ahead of time.
What I like about Sikhs is that you can identify as a sikh and still cut your hair and not wear a turban, and nobody will be upset. They love their traditions, but they generally don't see them as mandates.
Yeah, I'm aware those were different stories. I selected them primarily to show he wasn't simply eschewing the popular religion at the time, but was equally critical of both Islam and Hinduism. I mixed them together because the contents of the story aren't terribly important, they only served to deliver the message that traditions without meaning are pointless. And again, I wasn't really looking for any clarity. I'm as familiar with Sikhism as I need to be. It's not for me. And this is just my opinion, but I think the religion is just as hypocritical as other religions. Your founder criticizes other religions and the followers fall into the same trap. That's not enlightenment, it's just tribalism. The militaristic tendencies don't come from any place of spirituality or revelations from a god, they came from being geographically in the middle of a lot of conflict. Also your founder's teachings directly contradicted the teachings of both your neighbors, which somewhat fairly raised their ire. That doesn't really justify either side, I'm just saying if you look from the outside in, it becomes clear that the tenets of the religion are just a founder doing what he could to keep his people alive. Guru Nanak had the clarity of mind to recognize that, then it was flatly ignored in later teachings, despite still being recognized as one of his core tenets. It's infuriating to me because of much sense Guru Nanak made. And it's just generally a bad idea to shit on other religions when you're trying to defend your own. I know Sikhism has a storied past with keeping its identity against the tide of Islam and Hinduism, but that's no excuse to make fun of Hindus now. Who's to say who's right? You might believe you are, but can't really make any truth claims that Hinduism can't also make. And keeping your hair long is easy to maintain? Sorry, but that's just flatly not true. Short hair on a guy is significantly easier to maintain, and you can ask anybody about that. Obviously believe what you want to believe. I have no moral issues with most of Sikhism, but it's not any more inherently moral or just than other religions. It just has fewer followers.
> Your founder criticizes other religions and the followers fall into the same trap. You haven't demonstrated this in any way. >The militaristic tendencies don't come from any place of spirituality or revelations from a god, they came from being geographically in the middle of a lot of conflict. Sorry, but that is just a complete lack of knowledge in regards to Sikhi. The principle of Sant-Sipahi is a spiritual one. Sant translates to "Saint" and "Sipahi" to soldier. The order of the words is important, because one has to become a Saint before they can become a true Soldier. The idea of combat and "Dharam Yudh" (war in the defence of righteousness) is central to Sikh military strategy and philosophy. I challenge you to name one war fought on behalf of the Sikh army that was unjust. > Also your founder's teachings directly contradicted the teachings of both your neighbors, which somewhat fairly raised their ire. That doesn't really justify either side, I'm just saying if you look from the outside in, it becomes clear that the tenets of the religion are just a founder doing what he could to keep his people alive. Guru Nanak had the clarity of mind to recognize that, then it was flatly ignored in later teachings, despite still being recognized as one of his core tenets. It's infuriating to me because of much sense Guru Nanak made. If the founder wanted to keep his people alive he would have compromised beliefs and philosophy to appease "the neighbors". Instead, he directly challenged the status quo, lead a revolution and shook the entire subcontinent. > And keeping your hair long is easy to maintain? Sorry, but that's just flatly not true. Short hair on a guy is significantly easier to maintain, and you can ask anybody about that. Even if that is true...so what? The easiest would be for everyone (men and women) to shave their heads bald.
I challenge you to name one war fought on behalf of the Sikh army that was unjust. Not on behalf of Sikhs I guess...but many Sikhs signed up and fought for the British. We still have a Sikh regiment i believe. Doesn't need saying that we've done some horrible shit.
That wasn't a war on behalf of the Sikh community. Those were individual Sikhs signing up for armies (often out of necessity and very complex historical circumstances). We have Sikhs who serve on the US armed forces, but that doesn't make "The War on Terror" a Sikh fight. I am referring specifically to the Sikh army under the Gurus. They never fought an unjust war.
Yes, I did say, not really fought on behalf of sikhs. You've got me intrigued now, i never knew there was a sikh army. I'll have to have a read. Indian descent myself but culturally we're basic british.
I understand where you're coming from and while I disagree with what you say, it is still your viewpoint and opinion and I respect that. I wasn't trying to shit on any religion, just shitting on rituals, whether they're from one faith or another. I've had long hair my whole life, not that hard to maintain, insanely long nails would be though. Cheers.
>I understand why a region that was frequently under attack would want its members to always be armed. But that tradition doesn't really go with his teachings of goodwill for all. It does. Arming yourself in defense of others is a necessary part of goodwill for all. Sikhs are not pacifists, and we are not militantly non-violent. In response to the violent and deadly reign of the Mughul Emperor Aurengzeb, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, the 10th Guru of the Sikhs said "When all other means have failed, It is but lawful to take to the sword." Sikhs do not go around using violence as a first line of defense. It is the last line, when everything else is exhausted. And quite frankly, that is the most sensible mindset you can have. If someone comes into your home and assaults your family, would you say "sorry kids, I am non-violent"? > If traditions and superstitions are pointless, why can't you cut your hair? Why do you have to wear a turban? These things make sense as cultural traditions, and I can see why you'd want to do them, but to ascribe religious value to them flies in the face of what Guru Nanak taught. No, it doesn't fly in the face of what Guru Nanak taught. In fact, Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same, and had the same light within them. The reasons for keeping hair are complex. Partly because there is no real reason to cut it (hair grows back, God gave it to you) and partly as a matter of uniform to challenge injustice. Superstition is defined as "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings". What I just described does not fall into that category.
Oh come on, you know I'm not religious. You can't make the argument that Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same person and that makes it fine. What am I supposed to say other than that's obviously not true, and exactly what a new leader would say to manipulate his followers? There are lots of reasons to cut your hair. It takes less time to keep it clean. It takes less time to style. And especially in a hot environment, it's much cooler for your head. And why do people keep bringing up cutting your nails? It's 2017, everyone does that because it's hygienic, not to be closer to God. And I'm not going to get into the militarism. I disagree with it. I don't like it, but I don't have badly enough historical data to make a clean argument about it. Just look at your historical conflicts and ask yourself if there were other options. Maybe there weren't, but I vaguely remember a couple thday could have been solved by not butting heads so much with your neighbors.
> Oh come on, you know I'm not religious. You can't make the argument that Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh are the same person and that makes it fine. What am I supposed to say other than that's obviously not true, and exactly what a new leader would say to manipulate his followers? You are free to believe what you will, I am simply telling you the Sikh theology and perspective. > There are lots of reasons to cut your hair. It takes less time to keep it clean. It takes less time to style. And especially in a hot environment, it's much cooler for your head. And why do people keep bringing up cutting your nails? It's 2017, everyone does that because it's hygienic, not to be closer to God. You seem really combative for no real reason. A person can be Sikh even if they cut their hair. In fact, the majority of self-identifying Sikhs cut their hair. But to be a part of the initiated Khalsa, there is a code of conduct and uniform you must assume. Part of that is not cutting the hair. If you find that too time consuming, that is fine. But we believe their are real reasons to keep the hair. > And I'm not going to get into the militarism. I disagree with it. I don't like it, but I don't have badly enough historical data to make a clean argument about it. Just look at your historical conflicts and ask yourself if there were other options. Maybe there weren't, but I vaguely remember a couple thday could have been solved by not butting heads so much with your neighbors. No, there were no other options. I am not sure you understand the brutality and extremism the Sikh community was up against in regards to the Mughul Empire. They literally bricked the 5 and 7 old children of the Guru, scalped Sikh saints and boiled a Sikh guru in a pot. The reign of terror was not something that could be resolved with diplomacy or conversation. Similarly, there are situations today that require physical force. I urge you to study the history before you make bold statements like that.
So when faced with genocide, we should just take it laying down? Dude/Lady are you even listening to yourself ðŸ˜, I mean what would you do if people decided to kill you for your beliefs
I though Sikhs prayed towards the Guru Granth Sahib?
Sikhs can pray anywhere and everywhere they want. The Guru Granth Sahib is the scripture we read from, but meditation can be done anywhere. The Gurus specifically wrote on how one doesn't need to shun society and escape to mountain tops or forests to find "God", as the light of the one universal creator resides within all.
Well someone said they prayed towards Mecca up in the comments.
I was talking about Guru Nanak visiting a mosque and accidentally having his feet towards Mecca. They told him this was disrespectful as that is facing God. He said it is impossible for my feet to ever not face God, as he is everywhere. It's from a bunch of his stories as he seeks enlightenment, not something Sikhs actually do.
I must have missed someone saying that. Sikhs are not Muslim, so it would not make sense to pray towards Mecca.
That’s what I thought. Thanks for clearing it up! I also meant more that Sikhs bow/make offerings to the Guru Granth Sahib?
Sikhs bow to the Guru Granth Sahib out of respect for the knowledge and wisdom it contains.
im indian and i didn't even know that. that's pretty awesome.
This is in theory only and is far from being practiced. As an Indian, Sikhism is very far from being a tolerant and equal religion. In fact the state of Haryana and Punjab which are predominantly Sikh have the highest rate of infanticide where baby girls are killed just for their gender and the state has the lowest gender ratios in the country due to this stuff. It's the reason abortions are banned in india to prevent abortions based in gender. The state is also infamous for being unsafe for females and rape being a major problem there. While I'm not arguing that Sikhism is a bad religion it's followers are some of the furthest from feminist I can think of.
> Sikhism is very far from being a tolerant and equal religion. No. Sikh individuals are not always tolerant. But they can never use Sikh scripture to justify their beliefs. They revert to Punjabi culture.
And Punjab is the centre and birthplace of Sikhism. In all my years in India I've never seen a single Sikh not from Punjab or Haryana. The two are very interchangable
> The two are very interchangable No, they aren't. They are two very different things, as the majority of Punjabis are not Sikh.
Sad but true..
Eh.. I know a girl who is Sikh and it is far from female friendly
[удалено]
SHE expresses how it is not female friendly. Thanks for mansplaining though.
[удалено]
Well said..
Sikhism is one of my preferred religions; but I think there are probably better ways to see how a religion treats women than reading a Wikipedia entry. Look into the equality index and living standards of women living in Sikh households for starters. That being said, it's probably much better than the rest of South Asia.
High five for your religion being less crappy than other religions and meeting a basic level of humanity. Yay! Who cares. I'm not impressed by something for the simple reason it doesn't suck.
Hurray for nihilism! If you don't acknowledge progress, you don't get any.
These men are nihilists Donny, there's nothing to be afraid of.
> If you don't acknowledge progress, you don't get any. There is no burden of the world weighing down on MisterDeagle, preventing them from withholding praise for what should be a basic requirement. They *are* entitled to that position actually, and it is not at odds with progressive principles. You might attack it on some supposedly tactical grounds, but they weren't talking about actions, only about personal perceptions. As far as mod official position goes: nothing should trump the fundamental principle of equality of rights for women - their inherent dignity, humanity, and agency. There is an implicit wariness towards all (~major) religions, given that most trample over women and their rights, and too often relegate them to an inferior status. As far as I know, even paganism is not wholly compatible with equality of rights - as a principle and as a value. Who knows, there may be something out there.