- “The one rule for everyone” comment flies in a face of almost all equal rights policies and activist achievements over the past century and reeks of nothing other than an overwhelming drive for “assimilation” rather than any form of the much touted “integration”…it’s time to become “one of the boys”

- The criticisms being aired here against religion are typically a product of those raised in Abrahamic faiths, mainly Protestant and Catholic Christianity and now using the issues they have had/experienced/found with their inherited tradition against all religions (many of which do not share such issues, i.e. anti-evolution, anti-science, anti-critical thinking) owing to little more than ignorance and bigotry.

- The crux of the matter for the French ruling and those supporting such issues in the UK is simple: “We want you all out of here!” and by “you”, the main target is Muslims, however since it is not PC to attack a single group in isolation and so openly, it’s best to go around the backdoor through blanket policies and views which effectively cover all of those who are not “one of the boys”.

Next thing, let’s go back to Victorian days and place a ban on ladies wearing trousers to work, one rule for everyone right! Gosh, that would be great process for this fine democracy!

I couldn’t understand some parts of this article, but it sounds interesting…

I don’t see how it’s a “misquote” when I’ve used the exact words of a sentence.

You did not use the exact words — you only quoted the latter half, whilst ignoring the fact that the previous half of my statement explains the latter half regarding how the warlike aspect of Sikhism developed, which places my full statement into its proper context.

In fact, “developed” is probably an inaccurate word to use; the warrior aspect has always existed within the faith, it just became manifested/expressed to a greater and more formalised degree by the time of Guru Hargobind and especially by the time of Guru Gobind Singh.

Guru Nanak himself had no fundamental objections to the principle of the use of violence under certain circumstances, as verses within the Guru Granth Sahib praising righteous warriors confirm.

The point is the context and motivation involved — there is a marked difference between using violence for self-aggrandisement, conquest, revenge etc (and/or motivated by anger and egotism), and using it only when all other legitimate peaceful means have failed whilst attempting to defend oneself or weak, innocent, vulnerable third-parties against unjustified physical attacks. The latter is the Sikh view of the matter.

The “outward symbols” of all religions has to do with our insecurities.

Not quite. In Sikhism it was introduced both as a form of uniform — as a declaration of the principles & ideals the wearer is meant to stand for (particularly for the benefit of any third-parties who require their assistance) — and to inculcate courage in the Sikh concerned.

One cannot exactly hide behind a bush if one’s outward appearance makes it very clear indeed what one’s affiliation is, in scenarios where one many be confronted by hostile opponents; this was triggered by the fact that when Guru Teg Bahadur was executed, the Mughal authorities challenged any Sikhs present in the crowd to claim his body. Those Sikhs who were there obviously could not be identified physically, so they hid amongst the rest of the public due to fear of violent retribution. Guru Gobind Singh wanted to ensure that this type of cowardice never happened again.

If violence is “logical evolution” then …..Nanak…..and millions of people all over the world who express their dreams of a politically non-violent world are all an aberration.

Non-violence would not have worked as an adequate defence against Aurangzeb. It would not have worked against Hitler. It will not necessarily work against Osama bin Laden. It will not work against any invading army intent on the forcible conquest & subjugation of your country or compatriots. It will not work against someone physically attacking you because they are in some way prejudiced towards whatever group you happen to be affiliated or identified with, or because such sadism simply makes them feel good, or because they are cynically & opportunistically taking advantage of the fact that you are unwilling/unable to defend yourself or other innocent parties, or against someone raping a woman right in front of you.

Sikhism itself does fundamentally believe in a politically non-violent world; however, unless and until the rest of the world also believes in such ideals and has the strength and ability to effectively implement them, it is necessary to have the threat of violence under extenuating cirumstances as a defence against those malicious parties who do not share such ideals or aspirations. It’s a defensive measure against violent bullies, basically, and to prevent people with such a thuggish mindset from exploiting and oppressing others.

To believe otherwise is naive at best and self-destructive & irresponsible at worst. To quote one of the relevant Sikh concepts in this matter, submitting to tyranny is as bad as if one was being tyrannical towards others oneself. It is cowardly and unprincipled to stand by and do nothing whilst such behaviour is occurring (particularly if one has the power & ability to intervene), because one’s inaction indirectly assists in perpetuating the cycle and allows the malicious party to just carry on attacking innocents. I’m sure you’ve heard the adage about how all that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.

Nevertheless, this isn’t a licence for one to indulge one’s violent inclinations. Perhaps it is best explained by a pertinent recommendation by Guru Gobind Singh himself, who stated that one should try to be a saint first before one tries to be a soldier. Remember that in the “Sant-Sipahi” (saint-solder) Khalsa ideal, the “saint” part comes first.

Incidentally, the warrior aspect is also to do with one’s internal mindset, not just outward martial prowess or physical strength, and it applies to intellectual/psychological confrontations as well as the more obvious violent kind. But again, this is supposed to be tempered and balanced with the humane, compassionate, and fair-minded side, and this should always predominate in one’s character.

Guru Nanak’s was an acute and versatile mind. Incomparable.

If violence is “logical evolution” then Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nanak, Jesus, Mahavira, Buddha, and millions of people all over the world who express their dreams of a politically non-violent world are all an aberration.

The “outward symbols” of all religions has to do with our insecurities. Talk about “inner spirituality” has no import when the individual is enfettered by outward symbols.

Ruby’s comment is an appropriate reaction to the fact that you misquoted me, by ignoring the first part of that sentence, ie:

“Furthermore, due to being on the receiving end of religious persecution from various sources for several centuries,…..”

In Sikhism, inner spirituality is indeed far more important than outward symbols, but the introduction of the latter was a logical evolution in response to the events of the previous 200 years, the situation at the time, and an appropriate contingency measure to consolidate Sikh unity and identity and thereby prepare Sikhs for the future.

There was no divergence from the core teachings of Guru Nanak, and Guru Gobind Singh himself made this clear by virtue of the fact that he made very little additions of his own to the existing scriptures and instructed that the Guru Granth Sahib should be viewed as the “eternal Guru” after his death, rather than his own writings which constituted the Dasam Granth.

My name has only one ‘m’ in it.

In some respects, past persecutions of people has bugger all to do with me. It’s what’s happening now that we must protest about.

Justtweeky

i guess the issue is that critical thought (for which school should, i agree, be a place) need not be something which religion (or, judaism at any rate) should be concerned about. nor is science. otherwise, there wouldn’t be an association of orthodox jewish scientists. i’ve read one of their books. i understand why you don’t actually need a “god hypothesis” to explain things. i just don’t see what’s wrong with it as long as you have a correct understanding of what G!D isn’t.

i suppose the issue really is that the sort of evidence i can see as self-evident is privately experienced, so, from dawkins’ PoV, it doesn’t count as evidence at all. personally, i put that down to the fact that he isn’t using the right detection equipment.

b’shalom

bananabrain

Most schools around here haven’t got their full quota of governors. Its a thankless task, but I would urge anyone who cares for their children’s education to get involved and volunteer. Actually can I qualify that, please only those of a ‘sensible nature’ and have the ability to see the WOOD from the TREES, because to create a happy school is difficult.

I know that at our school, if a parent really wanted to make a fuss, then no matter what our numerous and lengthy ‘policy documents’ said, they could make everyones lives a real misery. But perhaps because we are a small village school (150 kids) where parents meet each other often out of school I get the chance, with other governors, to gauge the current issues and head off trouble before parents get too fired up about issues. We still get 1 or 2 complaints a year about various things, that have to be dealt with through official disciplinary committees. Nearly all have been from parents who have kept themselves to themselves and so can’t see the community point of view, and all in the last 3 years have been quite groundless and were attempts to extort from the school and the LEA compensations for apparent slights or to them and their children.

On a better note – get involved – its not that onerous and its a real eye opener.

I pray each night to God – asking that “Surely 3 full churches with lots of singing, bellring and charity events is enough to satisfy and placate any God? Please no asteroids, plagues, famine or fundementalists , we really don’t deserve it – we’re just simple village folk who want to get by – honest”

Justforfun

“I place myself in the high 4’s. I was raised in the tradition of the god of the old and new testaments, th god who smote, intervened, judged, demanded, spoke, and frequently suspended the laws of nature. This particular definition of god ultimately failed to convince me. I don’t see that as my adopting a faith position, as believing without evidence.

Yes, I believe you are right. Thanks for clarifying this.

Do you think that the issue of Sikhs wearing hard hats or not, or girls being allowed to wear a bangle at school rents asunder the fabric of British society? In the context of a minority group being placed as central in the narrative of the degradation of British life.

I do think it sets bad precedents and inequality in our society. If we believe that the government has the the right to campaign against smoking, using belts, using helmets against the wishes of the individual, then it should have prevented people with turbans – which by the way do not protect against shocks – from driving motorbikes or work in construction. What you call anomaly, is in fact the result of when religion takes over common sense. Religion practices should not trump over safety, nor secular institutions.

Given that the parents have agreed that the girl should not wear the iron bangle during PE (common sense – they could have said that she should wear it at all times), I don’t quite understand she needs to wear it during school time. This seems to suggest that the parents are using her as a poster child for religious discrimination… I find that disgusting.

Also, can those who have criticised uniforms (Kismet and Kulvinder – the ‘two Ks’) please elucidate as to why? Genuinely would like to hear.

I haven’t criticised uniforms per se, if you run a private institution you should be allowed to do whatever you want.

Its more the fact the school in question is (i presume) paid for via taxes combined with a disagreement on whether excluding girls results in them being ‘freer’ from oppressive patriarchalism or not (as in the Begum case).

But as i said uniform policy is just a tiny part of the picture from my pov. I fundamentally disagree with the education system as a whole.

Yes, Jai, and what a sad divergence of intention from what Guru Nanak envisaged. Won’t say more than that

That’s what 200 years of persecution, jihad and attempts to wipe you out and convert you all to Islam does to a people, Muhammad. I won’t say more than that.

Dear Sirs

I find it odd that a school that purports to have values as those below came to a decision that will inevitably lead to confrontation where pragmatism may have avoided negative publicity and potential legal action that will drain your resources and adversely affect the integration of other cultures and faiths into British mainstream society. Indeed although I know nothing about Sarika Singh, I would guess that her family are very much British and perhaps Welsh, yet wish to practise their faith in a way that the Sikh community has done for centuries.

The Sikh community has one of the most outstanding records of any ethnic minority group in the UK of integration, and it is wrong for a dominant culture to insist on assimilation as well. The UK is only where it is today because it has a history of multi-cultural understanding and acceptance. The wearing of religious tokens is fundamentally an individual human right.

I looked at a list of the Governors, and I will do some research into their cultural awareness of other cultures, as it would appear that they are not necessarily a reflection of the Aberdare of today. I would also argue that the Welsh flag is a symbol that many in Wales regard with almost religious fervour. Indeed I bet you celebrate (as I do) St. David’s day, a Christian saint, in a country that has many faiths, and I would bet that many of the pupils, staff and parents, wear a daffodil, yet another ‘token’, that is worn with pride and even semi-religious overtones.

So I ask you!!

What care and respect have the governors shown Sarika?

How will this ban on her attending her school help her to realise her full academic and personal potential?

How does this ban encourage tolerance of other races, religions and values?

How does this ban enhance moral, spiritual and cultural values?

Have the governors shown Sarika their qualities of respect, courtesy and self-discipline?

Your Values??????????????

· The basis of all our dealings with each pupil is that the pupil will receive care and respect.

· We recognise and take account of the differences between individual children and encourage them to realise their full academic and personal potential.

· We want our curriculum to be broad and balanced and to cater for the continuous development of all children.

· At all times we will promote the essential skills of literacy and numeracy.

· We aim to encourage academic achievement.

· We will encourage a sense of enterprise and initiative so that pupils can adapt to changing patterns of employment in a modern, technological society.

· The education our pupils receive will encourage the tolerance of other races, religions and ways of life.

· Our curriculum programmes enhance physical fitness, and develop moral, spiritual and cultural values.

· We encourage the qualities of courtesy, respect and self-discipline in our pupils.

· We encourage our pupil to be responsible partners in their own education.

· We involve and consult with parents on a regular basis.

· We foster close co-operation with the community and develop an understanding of environmental awareness.

· We provide our pupils with a variety of opportunities which allows them to develop their specific talents.

· We, as a school, are committed to setting and expecting the highest standards in all aspects of school life.

See commonsense please and stop playing with the future of children in such a way.

I will be talking to the National Assembly about this, as well as my Member of Parliament.

Yours faithfully

Yes, Jai, and what a sad divergence of intention from what Guru Nanak envisaged. Won’t say more than that.

Wear a helmet, mate. Take the time, don’t count on a turban to protect your skull if it hits the tarmac at 40mph. Not a requirement, just a concern.

I’m not actually the turbaned variety so this issue doesn’t directly apply to me, but I do appreciate the sentiment in your post. Very kind of you, buddy

Who? Me?

(It was pretty good gear, as it happens)