Be glad we have something to fall back on in the event of the pen not achieving its end.

I hope it never comes to that but looking at human history it would be extremely naive to totally discount the possibility.

Exactly.

We’re told by some Sikhs that they “have to” wear a kirpan. Why? Yes, tradition and all that, I understand.

Not just “tradition”; it’s a part of the “uniform” of baptised (ie. Amritdhari) Sikhs, and constitutes one of the external “5Ks” that they wear. In a manner of speaking, it’s like voluntarily being inducted into an order of knights. The kirpan and the other four “Ks” signify that the Sikh concerned has formally joined this order, with the associated level of self-discipline, full commitment, and code of conduct involved.

But why do you have to wear it?

Only Sikhs who have undergone the Amrit baptism ceremony “have” to wear it. It’s also worth re-emphasising at this stage that becoming an Amritdhari Sikh is completely voluntary.

What happens if you don’t?

Nothing. As I’ve repeatedly stated earlier on this thread, and as has been reiterated by several other commenters, this only applies to Amritdhari Sikhs.

Given that lots of Sikhs don’t in fact wear the kirpan,

Most Sikhs are not Amritdhari, ie. baptised, and therefore this does not apply to them.

why are liberals listening most to the would-be religious police

There is no “religious police” in Sikhism.

who insist they get to decide what constitutes a religious duty,

This hasn’t been decided by some kind of “Sikh religious police” — it was established directly by Guru Gobind Singh, the last human Sikh Guru, on Vaisakhi in 1699 when he first inducted 5 Sikhs (all volunteers) formally into the Khalsa via the aforementioned Amrit baptism ceremony. He subsequently underwent the same induction ceremony himself, at their hands.

A Sikh can’t unilaterally declare him/herself to be an Amritdhari Sikh; they first have to undergo the relevant Khalsa induction ceremony at the hands of 5 Amritdhari Sikhs who are already baptised themselves. Again, this precedent was established directly by Guru Gobind Singh, was duplicated thousands of times during his lifetime, and has subsequently constituted the formal process for the last 300 years. As a result, worldwide, wherever there are Amritdhari Sikhs, they are the result of a chain of baptism stretching back directly to Guru Gobind Singh and his actions on Vaisakhi in 1699. Non-existent “religious police” have absolutely nothing to do with it.

There was a settled will on this subject away back in 1988 – The Criminal Justice Act made an exception. Sikhs were allowed to carry a kirpan.

What changed?

Dan

And guess what, it’s not about “confusing” atheism and secularism. The National Secular Society distinguishes between its theological opinions and its political aims, and understands the difference. Apparently this is too subtle for some commentators, who also know nothing about the actual history of secularism and its meaning, and how that informs the current stance of the NSS.

The NSS does sometimes draw attention to the absurdity of religion as another method of undermining the political and moral authority of religion. That’s because its largely an organisation of non-believers. But its an organisation of nonbelievers who want a secular state, not State Atheism.

On the kirpan question, I’m sure most Sikhs would never use the knife (though some of the comments here indicate that there remains a real self-defence aspect for some – it’s not merely symbolic), but lots of people who might like to carry a knife would never use one anti-socially. The key question for secularists has to be: why should the law apply differently just because of the religious affiliations of the individual? Leaving aside all the fulminations, what is actually the answer to that question?

We’re told by some Sikhs that they “have to” wear a kirpan. Why? Yes, tradition and all that, I understand. But why do you have to wear it? What happens if you don’t? Given that lots of Sikhs don’t in fact wear the kirpan, and some have said they don’t particularly want to, why are liberals listening most to the would-be religious police who insist they get to decide what constitutes a religious duty, and not to those who say “actually, a little kirpan badge would do”.

Because, if we’re going to end up with a communalist legal system, let’s be clear what the consequences of that will be for women, for gay people, for dissenters and so forth. Especially if the fundamentalists and strictest religious interpretations are automatically taken as the most authentic.

It’s easy stuff today, but there are principles at stake here. “One law for all” is not just an empty slogan. It’s something the left and liberals should cherish.

Take the legal right of Jewish and Muslim people to slaughter without pre-stunning. Nobody else can do this. If an atheist did it, they would be breaking the law. Why? Shouldn’t it either be legal for everyone or illegal for everyone? Why should religious doctrine (and again it seems there are plenty of places where it turns out the “duty” can be compromised after all) override animal welfare? If the argument is that animal welfare is not an issue in ritual slaughter at all really, then fine, let everyone do it. But if it *is* an issue, it’s an issue regardless of your religion.

Nobody much minds about Sikhs not having to wear motorcycle helmets. There’s not much social risk there. But carrying knives? In school? Seems a bit different. If we don’t draw the line there, where do we draw it?

It’s tempting to go with the “local conditions” line. I’m tempted by it myself. But look at the hijab examples. A local school agrees with “local community leaders” about what they will and won’t permit in line with uniform rules. Then along comes someone who thinks those local rules are altogether too relaxed (why might they think that, eh?), and you end up in conflict, and meanwhile you’ve shifted the struggle between religious liberalism and religious illiberalism a little more to the illiberal side because now the more extreme rules are more “authentic”. It increases the pressure on more secular types in the community.

These are serious issues, not reduceable to “militant atheism”. Our society is a multicultural one, and we have a choice about whether we want it to say multicultural or whether it will turn decisively into mulitiple monolithic cultures. For us to live together as one society, we have to negotiate our behaviour in shared space. Secularism is a way of trying to establish and protect equality in that shared space. If you have people insisting that their particular interpretation of religion overrides the interests of everyone else, then you have a recipe for disaster.

This is important, that’s why people get upset. Some commentators seem altogether too blase about these issues, or else dismiss legitimate concerns as “militant atheism”. But even if you don’t agree with the “militant atheist” tone, what if they’re right about the problem?

Dan

Be glad we have something to fall back on in the event of the pen not achieving its end.

I hope it never comes to that but looking at human history it would be extremely naive to totally discount the possibility.

Can it be that, in current times, it is metaphorically replaced by the use of the pen as a more feasible latter day ‘weapon? As in the pen is now mightier than the sword to fight the same issues of intolerance. Like this blog for instance.

Though when I hear the BNP spouting their oppressive policies it makes me wonder where my family put great great great granddaddies talwar, y’know just in case voluntary repatriation is not as voluntary as one would believe.

And if it isnt just symbolism but instead there is a self defense or ‘protect the defenseless’ angle to it as some have suggested here then why don’t uk baptised Sikhs do exactly that – protect the defenseless here in the UK with their swords?

“We’ve seen increasing militancy among all religious groups in this country and Sikhs are no exception. (And by ‘militancy’ I mean violence or threats of violence, not the ‘militancy’ of atheists which amounts to nothing more than being a bit rude.)”

Again, I will ask for a SIGNIFICANT correlation to be evidenced where a rising population of Amritdhari Sikhs (i.e. those who by obligation wear a Kirpan) has seen in the UK a rise in “violence or threats of violence” where the Kirpan has abused as part of the supposed “violence or threats of violence”.

As for the assertion that “the ‘militancy’ of atheists which amounts to nothing more than being a bit rude” – this is truly laughable!!!

The 20th century is replete with example after example of the horrors mankind faced in the name of Atheistic, Scientific and Political ‘progress’.

I would have hoped for a tad more maturity on part of your argument.

“Don’t get it twisted. It is only a symbol now. It wasn’t originally”

As I have mentioned in my original post, a symbol has both utility and significance, thus a Kirpan fulfills both aspects, where a Dagger / Knife etc only has utility, thus a Kirpan is a symbol.

The Treh Mudrah or what poets later referred to as the Punj Kakkar (a term that has since remained popular with the Sikh masses) are all symbols of a Guru’s Sikh.

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the use of the term ‘symbol’, which I trust is clarified above, with the notion that Amritdhari Sikhs should only wear a ‘symbolic’ representation of a Kirpan – this is not the case, the Kirpan itself is a symbol.

We’ve seen increasing militancy among all religious groups in this country and Sikhs are no exception. (And by ‘militancy’ I mean violence or threats of violence, not the ‘militancy’ of atheists which amounts to nothing more than being a bit rude.)

When free speech is threatened by people motivated by superstition and who see themselves answerable only to higher powers it *matters* if they are armed; it *matters* if *purely* symbolic acts like plays, books or cartoons are censored.

Oh, IRONY. I get it.

‘Nice try though shatterface, just reinforces why I’ve stopped taking you seriously.’

So, once and for all, is ‘retard’ an acceptable insult in your world? Is a bit of consistancy too much to ask?

Don’t get it twisted. It is only a symbol now. It wasn’t originally.

“I’ve personally never felt too comfortable with the idea of people carrying Kirpans around”

There are plenty of people who are not comfortable with a lot of things, ranging from Burqas and Niqabs, which increasingly come under scrunity as serious security risks through to the simple presence of coloured people or conversely a group of white folks with shaved heads waving the Union Jack (who afterall may simply be football fans and not necessarily a group of EDL or BNP supporters).

The reality here is that there is little, if any, evidence to suggest that the increasing presence of Sikhs in the UK has in any way correlated with either an observed rise in crime or decline in social cohesion or even economic underperformance.

Yet, we have several posts here from various people, who having read a sensationalised media report on the Kirpan, suddently wax lyrical linking Sikhs to knife crime (yet evidence contradicts this), making people feel uncomfortable (again, there is no material evidence of Sikh populations in the UK causing social unrest) and being somehow ‘backward’ and ‘retarded’ (when evidence clearly points to the contrary).

“nonetheless as long as they’re cerimonial and not actual sharp blades, I don’t have a problem with it”

“Ceremonial” Kirpans do not necessarily equate to blunt butter knife replicas worn about one’s neck and you are quite right that the debate about what constitutes a Kirpan is an ongoing one everytime an incident such as this one is raised in the media and of course, several commentators will see themselves somehow in a positon to dictate to Amritdhari Sikhs how they should practice their religion and conduct their private lives!

Excellent comments by you on this thread too.

Quick semi-off-topic question: During the late autumn I wrote a couple of PP articles on Guru Gobind Singh (http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688 ) and Guru Hargobind respectively (http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6771). Have you had a chance to read them ? I’m not sure if you were a reader of PP at the time but I thought I should mention them to you anyway, as I’m sure they’d be of great interest to you.

I know you’re dumb, but I thought at least you would understand the irony, given the video was having a go at Sarah Palin for her hypocrisy on the issue.

Nice try though shatterface, just reinforces why I’ve stopped taking you seriously.

Well said Jai.

Thanks Dalbir. Great points by you throughout this thread.

But Sunny has already stated his willingness to use a gun in other circumstances so I’m not willing to accept his asurances that he would be safe in possession of a dagger.

Sunny is not an Amritdhari (“baptised”) Sikh, so this subject doesn’t apply to him.

On the same day Sunny publishes an article called ‘Watch Colbert call Palin a f*cking retard’ over at Liberal Conspiracy:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/02/09/watch-colbert-calls-palin-a-fcking-retard/

This thread is ridiculous. If you want to make a libertarian argument that *everyone* should be allowed to carry a knife because many already do so and few actually use them then go ahead but the idea that religion bestows benign intent on possession of a weapon by one particular group is pathetic. A ceremonial dagger is still a dagger; it’s not a turban or a bangle. It’s not a pencil or the end of a compass. It’s not a piece of cutlery. It’s not an item with any utility other than as a weapon, or as a symbol of a weapon. And sure, maybe it reminds Sikhs of previous battles against oppression – but so does my grandad’s old service revolver.

Other commentators have drawn comparison with the American right to bare arms. Quite so. But Sunny has already stated his willingness to use a gun in other circumstances so I’m not willing to accept his asurances that he would be safe in possession of a dagger.

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/breaking-news/2010/02/10/funeral-pyre-victory-for-davender-ghai-72703-25805614/

There are however still issues around design and exact method.