Hard Talk How Many Sikhs Have Married Out Of Caste/race?

[Bmandur]

Re: How Many Siks Have Married out Of Jaat/Zaat (Caste/Race)

Devote Sikh doesn't believe in Caste.
However, if you are going to use the name of Guru Gobind Singh ji than:

You have to be Khalsa
You have to follow the and keep the Five K
YOU have to marry a partner same as you are same religion
Caste is no Bar when you are true Sikh & Khalsa

gurisK pRIiq guru imlY glwty ]
gurasikh preeth gur milai galaattae ||
The GurSikh loves to meet and embrace the Guru.

iqau siqgur isK pRIiq hir hir kI guru isK rKY jIA nwlI ]2]
thio sathigur sikh preeth har har kee gur sikh rakhai jeea naalee ||2||
In just the same way, the True Guru loves His Sikhs. The Lord cherishes His GurSikhs, and keeps them clasped to His Heart

jwqI ECw pwqI ECw ECw jnmu hmwrw ]
jaathee oushhaa paathee oushhaa oushhaa janam hamaaraa ||Page,486
My social status is low, my ancestry is low, and my birth is low as well.

moh cIkiV PwQy inGrq hm jwqy hir bWh pRBU pkrwie jIau ]
moh cheekarr faathhae nigharath ham jaathae har baa(n)h prabhoo pakaraae jeeo ||page:446
I am stuck in the swamp of emotional attachment, and I am sinking. O Lord God, please, take me by the arm.

I hope you will get some of the understanding
Gurfateh

 

[spnadmin]

I can't see how this has a place in our modern society.

In order to save Sikhi, and the message of our Great Guru's we must let go of these things and learn to respect one another.

On culture and diversity I think people have a bigger loyalty to area and village. For example, the Misl leaders had one thing in common. They were all Majhails.

Randip Singh ji

Do you see this pattern changing to any significant extent? I am afraid that I do not. The Jatt identity is being promoted on a steep upward curve on web sites and facebook pages. If other groups don't seem to be doing the same, it may simply be there are fewer of them.

 

[kuldeepsb5]

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh,
Imarried a girl of Walia family 30 years ago where as it was quite impossible to do so
at that time,to go ahead,for out of caste marriage.Caste is no bar for a Sikh but important is that your would be life partner should be preferably Amritdhari and would be couples nature, habbits and life style should also match with each other so that they can understand each other well and live in such a way that the forthcoming life may not be a compromise but an understandingful and submissive life .
May Ibeg pardon if something wrong has been stated above.
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh.

 

[amrit.saggu]

Randip Singh ji

Do you see this pattern changing to any significant extent? I am afraid that I do not. The Jatt identity is being promoted on a steep upward curve on web sites and facebook pages. If other groups don't seem to be doing the same, it may simply be there are fewer of them.

I wish more people were like you Narayanjot. I can almost blindly agree to every post I've read of yours on SPN. God bless you.
That facebook group- I couldn't believe it, I joined it just to talk to the people who were a part of it and could not have a proper discussion as their level of arrogance would not allow it. It's alright though, everything happens in Hukam. I still love them all!

 

[Atheist]

One thing I don't understand is that this day in age, why can't human beings just marry other human beings who they believe are a good match and just not have "caste" a factor at all? Everyone looks at something a little different - one person may be looking for an independent, career-oriented woman/man, and someone else might be looking for a really good looking but otherwise introverted house wife. Who cares, the point is, whatever factors or qualities you are looking for in someone else, "caste" should just not be a factor at all. If you happen by chance to marry in your caste, fine, if you marry outside of your caste, who cares. It'd be even better if everyone just quit talking about caste and in a few generations no one would know what caste their ancestors were in. Certainly would simplify things.

I don't know why in 2010 it continues to be an issue. Another reason I'm atheist.

 

[spnadmin]

I wish more people were like you Narayanjot. I can almost blindly agree to every post I've read of yours on SPN. God bless you.
That facebook group- I couldn't believe it, I joined it just to talk to the people who were a part of it and could not have a proper discussion as their level of arrogance would not allow it. It's alright though, everything happens in Hukam. I still love them all!

amrit.saggu ji

Probably we do have to "love them." In any walk of life, those people who are most arrogant are also those who most frightened deep down inside. Perhaps frightened the life will pass them by, that they will lose something important, that their fears will be greater than they can handle -- and so they strike poses and live in their myths to feel safe. So they do need a lot of love. Thinking of that -- then it is also probably also true that those who have no need to be arrogant already feel "loved" within, feel strong, do not need the myth because they have found their strength in "His Hukam." That is what hukam is there to do -- support us.

 

[Lee]

One thing I don't understand is that this day in age, why can't human beings just marry other human beings who they believe are a good match and just not have "caste" a factor at all? Everyone looks at something a little different - one person may be looking for an independent, career-oriented woman/man, and someone else might be looking for a really good looking but otherwise introverted house wife. Who cares, the point is, whatever factors or qualities you are looking for in someone else, "caste" should just not be a factor at all. If you happen by chance to marry in your caste, fine, if you marry outside of your caste, who cares. It'd be even better if everyone just quit talking about caste and in a few generations no one would know what caste their ancestors were in. Certainly would simplify things.

I don't know why in 2010 it continues to be an issue. Another reason I'm atheist.

Heh we can of course marry anybody we wish to. My wife is Athiest for example.

 

[kuldeepsb5]

GURU roop Sadh Sangat jeeo,
Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ki Fateh.
Caste system realy needs to be eradicated from Sikhi.
But no one is doing some thing for practical implication of the same and everybodyjust talks ,gives quotes from Gurbaani . Can any body from so called higher castes can marry his daugtrer/son to a boy /daughter from
so called lower caste? If yes,it is O.K. and if no , please forgive me , we are only so called Sikhs or BHEKHI SIKHSand not real SIKHS.

Bhai Nand Lal (Singh) ji in his Rehatnama ,has mentioned at a place:-
"Amrit ko paani kahe ,Sikh ki poochhahe jaat.
Kahe GOBIND SINGH Nand Lal ji ,so sikh jampur jaat."
(Whenever we ask some sikh as to which jaat he/she belongs,we
are marching ahead towards NARAK.)

Gurbani tells us,
"JAAT PAAT NAHI POOCHHE KOI,HAR KO BHAJE SO NAR KA HOI."
AND
"NEECHAN ANDER NEECH JAAT NEECHI HOO ATT NEECH,
NAANAK TIN KE SANG SAATH,VADDEAN SIO KYA REES"
These teachings of gurbaani are more strongly supporting this aspect of
spirit told in rehatnama about JAAT.
Bhul Chuk Khima ,
WAHEGURU JI KA KHALSA WAHEGURU JI KI FATEH

 

[Randip Singh]

One thing I don't understand is that this day in age, why can't human beings just marry other human beings who they believe are a good match and just not have "caste" a factor at all? Everyone looks at something a little different - one person may be looking for an independent, career-oriented woman/man, and someone else might be looking for a really good looking but otherwise introverted house wife. Who cares, the point is, whatever factors or qualities you are looking for in someone else, "caste" should just not be a factor at all. If you happen by chance to marry in your caste, fine, if you marry outside of your caste, who cares. It'd be even better if everyone just quit talking about caste and in a few generations no one would know what caste their ancestors were in. Certainly would simplify things.

I don't know why in 2010 it continues to be an issue. Another reason I'm atheist.

Ironically, Mr Atheist, many of the people who I know who do believe in caste are also atheists. Oxy{censored} or what hey?

 

[spnadmin]

Ironically, Mr Atheist, many of the people who I know who do believe in caste are also atheists. Oxy{censored} or what hey?

Randip ji

This is an interesting observation that you make. One thing may explain it: the loss of a concept of a loving, compassionate Creator, who is without any enmity toward anyone. I cannot see how the identification of Akaal with the forces and energies of the Universe can overcome the prejudices of caste and race. One is seemingly relieved of the need to see the divine in everyone. Too impersonal. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Atheist]

Ironically, Mr Atheist, many of the people who I know who do believe in caste are also atheists. Oxy{censored} or what hey?

That is quite ironic. The misconception people have is that atheism is a dogma, a religion, a faith, a philosophy, etc. It is NONE of those. The one and only similarity (other than being humans and stuff) that atheists have is that they do not believe in god. I could care less about caste, and I wish I didn't know that my ancestors were apparently carpenters. Who cares?? Oh, apparently all of India (or at least enough of a majority to make this antiquated idea still an issue). People that I have met that care about caste have all been Indian, and none were atheist. Such hypocrisy, the religion preaches no caste but in practice they prefer the same caste (yes yes I know, not ALL indians are like this, but again it is enough to make it still an issue).

What is more ironic is that religion specifically preaches being humble - yet the most arrogant people I have ever met are religious. Another reason I don't like religion.

 

[Randip Singh]

That is quite ironic. The misconception people have is that atheism is a dogma, a religion, a faith, a philosophy, etc.

Actually you couldn't be further from the Truth.

'Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.' by RichardDawkins.net - RichardDawkins.net

The Fundamentalist Dogma of Atheism


Also here on Channel 4 there was an excellent documentary on how Atheists have become as dogmatic as religious nuts.

BTW I cannot stand fanatics, no matter what their guise.

 

[spnadmin]

Two threads posted this week relevant to Randip ji's closing points.


Burden of Proof

Richard Dawkins: The man who gave atheism a bad name

 

[Atheist]

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

As a typical theist ploy, you took an atheistic quote out of context to prove your point. What you pasted was not a statement, it was something used for discussion:

START QUOTE
Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

by RichardDawkins.net

Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.

END QUOTE

That's what the site says. It's NOT Richard Dawkins STATING that atheists are just as dogmatic, it is him (or someone else) posting a seemingly controversial statement to see how people would attack it - as an exercise. You just saw that one statement and pasted it on here to make it look like Richard Dawkins is calling himself dogmatic.

Please don't take quotes out of context. Your cooperation is appreciated.

 

[Randip Singh]

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

As a typical theist ploy, you took an atheistic quote out of context to prove your point. What you pasted was not a statement, it was something used for discussion:

START QUOTE
Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

by RichardDawkins.net

Atheists are just as dogmatic as theists, and the only reasonable person is an agnostic.

Use the comment space below to present your rebuttal. Let's try and be clear and concise, as if this were to be used in a debate.

END QUOTE

That's what the site says. It's NOT Richard Dawkins STATING that atheists are just as dogmatic, it is him (or someone else) posting a seemingly controversial statement to see how people would attack it - as an exercise. You just saw that one statement and pasted it on here to make it look like Richard Dawkins is calling himself dogmatic.

Please don't take quotes out of context. Your cooperation is appreciated.

You are missing my point. The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today. Let me explain why:

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

 

[Atheist]

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

Thank you for your response.

The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today.

Yes, some people may see that. There are also some people that think the earth is flat (there is a Flat Earth Society - I'm not joking). That of course would not suggest that it's really true (those people who believe the earth is flat are simply wrong). Atheism is simply the non-belief or the dis-belief in god. You are an a-leprechaunist right? You simply don't believe in leprechauns, but it would be absurd to suggest that you have a "dogma" that preaches against the existence of leprechauns.

Bottom line is, no matter what, there are good chrisitans and bad christians, good sikhs and bad sikhs, good hindus and bad hindus, good agnostics and bad agnostics, and good atheists and bad atheists. I will be the first to admit that, and I will be the first to admit that I have done wrong things in my life (would anyone else like to conclude anything different about themselves?). I would argue that the thing that defines one's character is what they do and what they learn from the bad mistakes they've made. Making mistakes is simply human.

Anyone who is atheist that acts poorly or attempts to act in a dogmatic way is also wrong...but atheism doesn't teach that...atheism doesn't "teach" anything, just like a-leprechaunism doesn't "teach" anything - they are both disbeliefs in a fictitious character. So by itself (in and of itself), atheism is not a dogma. Those who treat it like one, atheist or not, are wrong. Similarly, by itself a-leprechaunism is not a dogma. Those who are foolish enough to use it as a dogma need to see my friend (who is training to be a psychiatrist).

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

Agreed (just like a-leprechaunism)

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Agreed, although this is not exactly an argument in its favor (the Flat Earth Society is based in belief too).

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

Again, not an argument in favor of "belief" since after all the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, and it would be absurd to simply say "well the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, so no matter how much rational proof you provide that the earth is round, you can't challenge my 'belief' that it is indeed flat."

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

Yes, we do have atheists saying that. Believing in leprechauns is also not rational. It is fine to admit that it is from "The Journal of Duh" and I'm actually pleased you did. Lots of christians tell me that their religion is completely rational (I particularly like how they say people used to live 800-900 years but now we live less because we are sinners - as if people did not sin back then...and since the life expectancy is getting longer and longer, does that mean we are now sinning less and less but not quite as less as in biblical times?).

Religion is non-rational but that's the not the big issue. The Flat Earth Society is non-rational but 99.9999% of everyone could care less about it, right? It doesn't bother you and you don't lose sleep over it right? If you do, see my friend.

What we're trying to say is that not only is religion non-rational, it can be dangerous. For example, in the US there is a christian dentist in Texas who seems to have a lot of influence over what is written in textbooks that elementary school children read. Because of his religion, he would like nothing more than to have his creationist fairy tails in those textbooks to indoctrinate children from an early age. So his non-rational belief is seriously becoming dangerous. If he were to succeed, I would have to send my kids to a private school.

Let us not forget suicide bombers, the crusades, & the Aztecs who ritualistically (per their religion) cut out the heart of someone and while it was still beating threw it down a long stair case in some ****** egregious practice to please their god. So it goes beyond non-rational...religion becomes dangerous.

Of course, I will admit that Sikhism is light-years ahead of other religions. If it were a race toward the truth, and all religions were contestants, it wouldn't even be a close match. That's how rational Sikhism is compared to other religions.

The concept of caste is out-dated and, while some may hypothetically say that "back then" it had a role, it has absolutely no role today. People worrying about it, arguing in families over it (ie marrying out of caste), and even caring about it are wasting their time. I could care less what "caste" I am and in this day in age it's unbelievable to know that I have been rejected by girls because I wasn't a jatt.

I hereby remove my caste, I am now a neutral human being without caste.

 

[Bmandur]

Aman Singh JI,
Narayanjot Kaur
& Sikh Philosophy Network

Thank you for your Support for Gurmat Crash Course on Sikh Bhagats Part 2
We had 500 Children's with parents 700+
The hall was packed three days how it was it can not be explained but we are so happy that our Waheguru has given us there blessing & strength
It was very successful soon we will see an article on Sikh net
May 9th at Dixie Gurughar will be the prize ceremony for Winner's

Gurfateh,
Binder Kaur Waterloo

 

[Randip Singh]

Dear Randip Singh Ji,

Thank you for your response.

The link is to illustrate that some people see Atheism as a dogma today.

Yes, some people may see that. There are also some people that think the earth is flat (there is a Flat Earth Society - I'm not joking). That of course would not suggest that it's really true (those people who believe the earth is flat are simply wrong). Atheism is simply the non-belief or the dis-belief in god. You are an a-leprechaunist right? You simply don't believe in leprechauns, but it would be absurd to suggest that you have a "dogma" that preaches against the existence of leprechauns.

Bottom line is, no matter what, there are good chrisitans and bad christians, good sikhs and bad sikhs, good hindus and bad hindus, good agnostics and bad agnostics, and good atheists and bad atheists. I will be the first to admit that, and I will be the first to admit that I have done wrong things in my life (would anyone else like to conclude anything different about themselves?). I would argue that the thing that defines one's character is what they do and what they learn from the bad mistakes they've made. Making mistakes is simply human.

Anyone who is atheist that acts poorly or attempts to act in a dogmatic way is also wrong...but atheism doesn't teach that...atheism doesn't "teach" anything, just like a-leprechaunism doesn't "teach" anything - they are both disbeliefs in a fictitious character. So by itself (in and of itself), atheism is not a dogma. Those who treat it like one, atheist or not, are wrong. Similarly, by itself a-leprechaunism is not a dogma. Those who are foolish enough to use it as a dogma need to see my friend (who is training to be a psychiatrist).

1) Atheism is based in rationality? Yes

Agreed (just like a-leprechaunism)

2) Religion is based in belief? Yes

Agreed, although this is not exactly an argument in its favor (the Flat Earth Society is based in belief too).

Belief cannot be explained through rationality, so never the twain shall meet.

Again, not an argument in favor of "belief" since after all the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, and it would be absurd to simply say "well the Flat Earth Society is based on belief, so no matter how much rational proof you provide that the earth is round, you can't challenge my 'belief' that it is indeed flat."

What we have nowadays is Atheists trying to tell religious people that belief is not rational......well duhh?

Yes, we do have atheists saying that. Believing in leprechauns is also not rational. It is fine to admit that it is from "The Journal of Duh" and I'm actually pleased you did. Lots of christians tell me that their religion is completely rational (I particularly like how they say people used to live 800-900 years but now we live less because we are sinners - as if people did not sin back then...and since the life expectancy is getting longer and longer, does that mean we are now sinning less and less but not quite as less as in biblical times?).

Religion is non-rational but that's the not the big issue. The Flat Earth Society is non-rational but 99.9999% of everyone could care less about it, right? It doesn't bother you and you don't lose sleep over it right? If you do, see my friend.

What we're trying to say is that not only is religion non-rational, it can be dangerous. For example, in the US there is a christian dentist in Texas who seems to have a lot of influence over what is written in textbooks that elementary school children read. Because of his religion, he would like nothing more than to have his creationist fairy tails in those textbooks to indoctrinate children from an early age. So his non-rational belief is seriously becoming dangerous. If he were to succeed, I would have to send my kids to a private school.

Let us not forget suicide bombers, the crusades, & the Aztecs who ritualistically (per their religion) cut out the heart of someone and while it was still beating threw it down a long stair case in some ****** egregious practice to please their god. So it goes beyond non-rational...religion becomes dangerous.

Of course, I will admit that Sikhism is light-years ahead of other religions. If it were a race toward the truth, and all religions were contestants, it wouldn't even be a close match. That's how rational Sikhism is compared to other religions.

The concept of caste is out-dated and, while some may hypothetically say that "back then" it had a role, it has absolutely no role today. People worrying about it, arguing in families over it (ie marrying out of caste), and even caring about it are wasting their time. I could care less what "caste" I am and in this day in age it's unbelievable to know that I have been rejected by girls because I wasn't a jatt.

I hereby remove my caste, I am now a neutral human being without caste.

Who says I am arguing in favour of belief?

What I am saying is Religion and Atheism should not try and mix.

Why should religious people who believe the Earth is flat try and convince atheism of their belief?

Vice a versa why should Atheists, try and tell people who believe something their belief is irrational?

What I am saying is two are distinct and separate. We have a mess now, where both sides seem to esposing their views to denigrate the other sides through an almost "dogmatic" view that one side is completely correct.

Its like saying an apple is better than an iguana.

here is a question, has Atheism in itself become a belief?

 

[coolbaldeep]

It is my own thinking--
A SIKH shod not marry a Non SIKH girl, b'coz it will create lot of problem for the couple and as well as for the children. Couple will be of different cultural background so it will lead to difference in thoughts. I was in a same situation but in the end I quit my friendship. I supported my decision on these points- she dint know how to worship(PATH), rules, norms of SIKHISM. So how she will convey the message of our GURUS to our children. how they will come to know that we have such a rich culture.

 

[spnadmin]

coolbaldeep ji

Thanks for bringing us back to topic. I am going to leave the interesting digression into atheism where it is but also copy a few of the more recent posts to start a new thread. Is Atheism Dogmatic?

In part this digression was intended to clarify a concept in Sikhi. But the discussion has gone off track. The new thread url is

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/atheism/29698-is-atheism-dogmatic.html

Let's stay on topic.