USA All Amritdharis Banned From Rochester NY Gurdwara Sahib

[spnadmin]

CharlesKnuckles ji

You have posted what is almost an identical comment on a different thread. Here is the link. http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/united-states/31230-wsc-ar-condemns-board-trustees-gurdwara.html

Now without evidence, you comments are hear-say. One of our forum members did call the Gurdwara of Rochester and did find out that there are some amritdhari still part of the sangat.

Now what you say below has some built-in problems.

All Sikhs, including TRUE Amridharis, are still welcome in the Gurdwara of Rochester as they always have. However, they must not bring any long swords, and unfortunately, Kirpans thanks to the aggressive and irresponsible actions of the three banned individuals.

TRUE amritdharis are required to wear kirpans. So you cannot exclude amritdhari who carry kirpans, but include amirtdhari who do not. An amritdhari without a kirpan is not a TRUE amritdhari because a vow has been broken. It astounds me that the gurdwara management committee does not know that. Which in turn makes me think that the distortions you speak of may in fact be emanating from the management committee itself.

And it is pointless to argue what a TRUE amritdhari is because the Sikh Rehat Maryada has already decided. They carry kirpans.

I carry a kirpan and am not amirtdhari. Tell me, were the keshdhari kirpan carriers also excluded? Any way that question is answered will be problematic.

Your next point,

The reality is that these three individuals should be banned from EVERY Gurdwara for using fowl language, including curse words, in the presence of the Guru Granth Sahib located at the Gurdwara of Rochester

In my humble opinion, yes and no. Anyone who disturbs the sanctity of Darshan Sahib should be ushered out. But are you telling me that each and every amritdhari Sikh that has joined in protest of the court injunction, and once belonged to the Rochester sangat, was given to foul language, including curse words, was a felon or had married a Muslim? welcomekaur

Is that the point?

 

[Sidqui sikh]

It is indeed shameful that people are there to divide sikh's on the basis of caste, creed and their faith in baptism when infact true sikhi is above all this, the fact that certain people of the Rochester Gurudwara want to ban All Amrithdharis from entering there Gurudwara is only with these intention's as they may be feeling inferior and having hatred for those who want to follow a well established path laid down by the sikh Guru's.

 

[spnadmin]

It is indeed shameful that people are there to divide sikh's on the basis of caste, creed and their faith in baptism when infact true sikhi is above all this, the fact that certain people of the Rochester Gurudwara want to ban All Amrithdharis from entering there Gurudwara is only with these intention's as they may be feeling inferior and having hatred for those who want to follow a well established path laid down by the sikh Guru's.

The answer was given in 1699. Later reinforced in 1925.

To repeat my self - Without amritdhari, no panj pyaaree. Without panj pyaaree no sangat. Think about it.


If clean shaven Sikhs decide how amritdhari wear kakkars and which kakkars are permitted, it is their right to do so as long as the GOR is clearly understood to be a private non-profit organization by all. Amritdhari who chose to stay have relinquished their responsibilities as Khasa by misunderstanding who gave them the kirpan. GOR can no longer be a gurdwara, and those who attend should not be confused about the nature of the location as now re-defined. It is not a gurdwara, Darshan of the Guru is not being conducted properly, the sangat is not sadhsangat.

If I may add - The WSO-AR is not disputing the decision of the court. They are condemning the actions of the management committee.

 

[kaur-1]

"Without Amritdharis there is no Sangat: no Amritdharis; no Panj Pyaare; no Panj Pyaare, no Sangat.

I dont get it. Please elaborate. Thank you.

 

[spnadmin]

kaur 1 ji

Tejwant Singh was quoting something that I said earlier in the thread, in the context of having a court exclude individuals who wear kirpan from the premises of the Gurdwara.

I am not sure if you are asking Tejwant to elaborate on his understanding of my statement, or if you are asking me.

 

[preetinder]

The answer was given in 1699. Later reinforced in 1925.


If clean shaven Sikhs decide how amritdhari wear kakkars and which kakkars are permitted, it is their right to do so as long as the GOR is clearly understood to be a private non-profit organization by all.
[...]
If I may add - The WSO-AR is not disputing the decision of the court. They are condemning the actions of the management committee.

I have to admit, I am confused by this also.

Please let me know what your statement means in the timeline:

1. Three irresponsible Sikhs have caused danger in a Gurdwara

2. The court ruled that no kirpans are allowed in the Gurdwara.

3. WSO-AR does not dispute the ruling.

4. Rochester amritaris complain that by the court's ruling, they are not allowed into the gurdwara.

5. Management committee responds by ???

6. WSO-AR condemns the response by management committee.

So, can you fill in the ??? and explains how the private non-profit status fits into the condemnation?

Many thanks- I can't make heads or tails of this situation based on the postings so far.

 

[preetinder]

Let me revise this based on more information I have received that I could actually verify

1. Some Sikhs in Rochester set up a Gurdwara. They formed the Gurdwara committee.

2. Some years later, more Sikhs came and wanted the Gurdwara to run differently.

3. The committee filed restraining orders against some of the members of the new group and also requested the court to ban kirpans. A court battle followed. The committee claimed the new group was a danger to the Rochester Sangat. The new group claimed to be representing the majority of the Rochester Sangat.

4. The court decided in favor on the committee. Sikhs carrying kirpans, such as Amritdharis could not enter the Gurdwara if their kirpans were visible.

5. The new group took their case to the public, lobbying nearby Sangats and the World Sikh Council to support their side, based on the kirpan ruling. They also took their story to Sikh newspapers and communicated with Gurdwaras across the United States and in India.

6. The Gudwara committee members kept quiet, saying because of the court case they cannot respond to the statements made by the new group.

7. The new group organized and sponsored several protests. One, on August 15 was focusd on brining larger numbers by calling the nearby Sangats that they had good relations with and asking them to come to that protest.

Thank you to everyone who sent me verifiable information.

The following is entirely my own opinion based on what I discovered and not intended be any kind of factual statement:

I was very sad to see both sides just about equally guilty of using Sikh religion as a tool to promote their own side. It seems to be a conflict between two sides. They are welcome to disagree but they both exaggerated what happened and used public channels to promote their own views.

 

[spnadmin]

prreetinder ji

I have to say thank you for picking up the threads of this story. Somewhere in the sequence, at about point 7, the threads began to go in many directions, and the story became so difficult to weave back together.

You are probably born to be a journalist :happykaur: At point number 7, in my own small circle of family friends some did become part of the rallies outside of GOR, which continued on the following weekends through August. But by that time I had lost any ability to keep track of the story - it became so confusing.

This story can be followed on facebook, where many of the legal documents are uploaded. We also have copies of the WSO-AR memorandum and some court documents uploaded here.

 

[preetinder]

prreetinder ji

I have to say thank you for picking up the threads of this story. Somewhere in the sequence, at about point 7, the threads began to go in many directions, and the story became so difficult to weave back together.

You are probably born to be a journalist :happykaur: At point number 7, in my own small circle of family friends some did become part of the rallies outside of GOR, which continued on the following weekends through August. But by that time I had lost any ability to keep track of the story - it became so confusing.

This story can be followed on facebook, where many of the legal documents are uploaded. We also have copies of the WSO-AR memorandum and some court documents uploaded here.

Would there be an interest in writing this up as a story? I haven't found much more information than what is in this timeline, but I have heard a lot of opinions and have no idea or evidence of any of it.

I haven't found the facebook group that has the court documents. In fact, I haven't found any court documents so my description is purely based on second hand reports.

I added the August 15 protest information based on the only actual impartial report during this entire incident. There is supposed to be a radio report, but they said it only aired in California. So unless anyone from Sacramento wants to tell us what that news story actually said, the information about the Aug 15 protest is also second hand.

I found a discussion on a website called Langar Hall but it was all just opinion with no evidence. There are some YouTube videos but they are the same - no actual report or evidence.

So, I don't claim that my timeline is correct, only that is what people have claimed. Could someone please post the facebook link? Or is this story finished now and that is why I can't find any facts online.

 

[spnadmin]

preetinder ji

Once again I commend you for your careful analysis.

Here are some of the resources that I mentioned.

Uploaded as an attachment the restraining order from the judge.

At this link - You may find more documents that were uploaded. I confess that I did not take the time to go through every page.
http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/united-states/31230-wsc-ar-condemns-board-trustees-gurdwara.html

At this link you will find the facebook group or you can search for Sikh Voice in the facebook search engine. I checked recently and they have more information than they did when the controversy first broke.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100001258716903&v=wall&ref=ts

I will not be online for extended periods of time. So if you have further questions send me a private message. PM's are forwarded to my home email and I can read them and will try to help if you have any other questions.

Warm regards

 

[BazGrewal]

This is not a gurudwara. I'm not sure what it is, but it's not a gurudwara.

I agree with you, if they are allowing this to happen then it is definitely not anything like a gurdwara.

 

[preetinder]

I have spent some time reviewing the documents and verifying what I could. As a result I have updated my timeline of September 3. I could only work with information I got but I honestly tried to represent what I read fairly. Thanks everyone for their help and thanks to this website and forum.

Let me revise this based on more information I have received that I could actually verify

1. Some Sikhs in Rochester set up a Gurdwara. They formed the Gurdwara committee.

2. Some years later, more Sikhs came and wanted the Gurdwara to run differently.

3. The committee filed restraining orders against some of the members of the new group and also requested the court to ban kirpans. A court battle followed. The committee claimed the new group was a danger to the Rochester Sangat. The new group claimed to be representing the majority of the Rochester Sangat.

4. The court decided in favor on the committee. Sikhs carrying kirpans, such as Amritdharis could not enter the Gurdwara if their kirpans were visible.

5. The new group took their case to the public, lobbying nearby Sangats and the World Sikh Council to support their side, based on the kirpan ruling. They also took their story to Sikh newspapers and communicated with Gurdwaras across the United States and in India.

6. The Gudwara committee members kept quiet, saying because of the court case they cannot respond to the statements made by the new group.

7. The new group organized and sponsored several protests. One, on August 15 was focusd on brining larger numbers by calling the nearby Sangats that they had good relations with and asking them to come to that protest.

Thank you to everyone who sent me verifiable information.

The following is entirely my own opinion based on what I discovered and not intended be any kind of factual statement:

I was very sad to see both sides just about equally guilty of using Sikh religion as a tool to promote their own side. It seems to be a conflict between two sides. They are welcome to disagree but they both exaggerated what happened and used public channels to promote their own views.

 

[CharlesKnuckles]

Just so you know (and a point of clarification):

1) The Gurdwara of Rochester did not ask for a of ban Kirpans as stated by defendants in this case. The New York State Supreme Court put the ban in place after viewing photo and video evidence of the banned defendant brandishing swords and Kirpans in an offensive manner. The judge put the ban in place not realizing the cultural impact or significance of the Kirpan to Sikhs.

2) Per my last conversation with the General Secretary of the GOR, the GOR has asked the judge to lift the ban on Kirpans. However, large swords will NOT be allowed in the Gurdwara of Rochester.

3) The ban of the defendants (aka: "new group") will remain.

 

[spnadmin]

Thank you for the update.

 

[preetinder]

Ok. Just by reading the Order of May 20, it was not obvious that the court (Supreme Court of New York) inserted the ban without being asked to. The request by the Gurdwara is not publicly available from the county clerk so I could not verify either way.

Thank you for this information and the updates ... As always, I am happy to receive information that I can confirm.

Just so you know (and a point of clarification):

1) The Gurdwara of Rochester did not ask for a of ban Kirpans as stated by defendants in this case. The New York State Supreme Court put the ban in place after viewing photo and video evidence of the banned defendant brandishing swords and Kirpans in an offensive manner. The judge put the ban in place not realizing the cultural impact or significance of the Kirpan to Sikhs.

2) Per my last conversation with the General Secretary of the GOR, the GOR has asked the judge to lift the ban on Kirpans. However, large swords will NOT be allowed in the Gurdwara of Rochester.

3) The ban of the defendants (aka: "new group") will remain.