You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sikh Cultural Politics
Good morning Sukh
The answer to your question is yes ; "freedom" not just religious, but in general is a "right" of every human being. Modern liberal societies construct everything around such fundamental freedoms and have institutions in place to ensure regulation, control, conformance, etc. is never violated. So whether you're a Sikh or a Christian your freedoms will be the same and protected.
Bye..
The answer to your question is yes ; "freedom" not just religious, but in general is a "right" of every human being. Modern liberal societies construct everything around such fundamental freedoms and have institutions in place to ensure regulation, control, conformance, etc. is never violated. So whether you're a Sikh or a Christian your freedoms will be the same and protected.
Bye..
Apologies as it is probably a leading question. If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.Good morning Sukh
The answer to your question is yes ; "freedom" not just religious, but in general is a "right" of every human being. Modern liberal societies construct everything around such fundamental freedoms and have institutions in place to ensure regulation, control, conformance, etc. is never violated. So whether you're a Sikh or a Christian your freedoms will be the same and protected.
Bye..
...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.Apologies as it is probably a leading question. If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.
In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?
Last edited:
Interesting however I'm thinking more of the role of Sangat as opposed to government. My own thoughts are that should someone wish to have anand karaj they should be welcomed...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.
In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?
If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.
Ideally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh.
To the point where they would die defending it?
One does not necessarily have to die defending it. It all depends on the context. If social activism, and peaceful demonstrations can make a difference, then so be it.
....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.Interesting however I'm thinking more of the role of Sangat as opposed to government. My own thoughts are that should someone wish to have anand karaj they should be welcomed
...as I said to Sukh above, the issue around mix-marriages and the role of the Gurdwaras is something for the academic Sikh and not your ordinary Joe Bloggs. The kind of questions you're coming up with ought to be academically argued, for example, a practicing Sikh and a non-practicing Sikh, who is to make that call ? and what criteria is there to determine a practicing Sikh from a non-practicing Sikh and how might one justify the granting of a right, privilege or a concession to one and not to the other ?Ideally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh.
They should be listened to I agree but I can't understand the logic to prevent them taking part. Should people also be excluded from ardas?....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.
..listen to them first and see what they're saying ! this 'll put you in a good stead to make sense, at the very least !They should be listened to I agree
...the topic in question is one where logic becomes "redundant" I'm afraid !but I can't understand the logic to prevent them taking part.
..when you weigh the two [ardas n AK] you'll find their intrinsic differences, which within institutional framework cannot be overridden.Should people also be excluded from ardas?
...as I said to Sukh above, the issue around mix-marriages and the role of the Gurdwaras is something for the academic Sikh and not your ordinary Joe Bloggs. The kind of questions you're coming up with ought to be academically argued, for example, a practicing Sikh and a non-practicing Sikh, who is to make that call ? and what criteria is there to determine a practicing Sikh from a non-practicing Sikh and how might one justify the granting of a right, privilege or a concession to one and not to the other ?
Do you not think it is a discussion worth exploring on here as members of the Sangat?
..listen to them first and see what they're saying ! this 'll put you in a good stead to make sense, at the very least !
I have listened to the arguments against excluding some people from partaking in anand karaj and I can't find merit in the proposition.
...the topic in question is one where logic becomes "redundant" I'm afraid !
Logic, reasoning and critical analysis helps us get closer to the truth. I agree in this topic logic often becomes redundant but as far as I can tell that is because of bigotry
..when you weigh the two [ardas n AK] you'll find their intrinsic differences, which within institutional framework cannot be overridden.
I'm not sure there are intrinsic differences.. The main argument forwarded by protesters is 'how can someone partake in AK when they don't believe in sikhi..' disregarding the presumption, if we are to say certain sikh liturgical practices are exclusive for "sikhs" then excluding "non-sikhs" from ardas makes sense. Especially since we explicitly articulate the verse "guru maneo granth"?
Sukh, the best way to get your head around something like this is to imagine yourself as a Judge having to weigh the "rights" of two opposing parties:I'm not sure there are intrinsic differences.. The main argument forwarded by protesters is 'how can someone partake in AK when they don't believe in sikhi..' disregarding the presumption, if we are to say certain sikh liturgical practices are exclusive for "sikhs" then excluding "non-sikhs" from ardas makes sense. Especially since we explicitly articulate the verse "guru maneo granth"?
[1] Gurdwara [G] is asking you to rule in its favour the right to protect the tenets of its faith, and
[2] Individual is asking you to grant him/her right to practice his/her religion and have AK@G
And since Article 9 is qualified [meaning, you as a Judge can tailor make it to serve both institution v individual] how might you consider the following:
The Gurdwara's argument might go something like this:
(a) Allowing non Sikhs to have AK@G violates Sikh Rehat Maryada [constitution, it has legal effect]
(b) if an amendment was made today, who is to say future generations wont ask for further amendments, given social society is to evolve indefinitely, attitude n trends will change with the passage of time, is there a reasonable point at which to say "no" ?
Both (a) n (b) are off-cuff sketches, more serious ones I'm sure the Sikh Scholars will be safe keeping.
Food for thought anyway to get you started !
Goodnight
I believe that the argument is much more complicated than that. Many sikh believe it is against the tenets of sikhi exclude people on arbitrary labels.. I personally think all human beings are 'sikh'Sukh, the best way to get your head around something like this is to imagine yourself as a Judge having to weigh the "rights" of two opposing parties:
[1] Gurdwara [G] is asking you to rule in its favour the right to protect the tenets of its faith, and
[2] Individual is asking you to grant him/her right to practice his/her religion and have AK@G
And since Article 9 is qualified [meaning, you as a Judge can tailor make it to serve both institution v individual] how might you consider the following:
The Gurdwara's argument might go something like this:
(a) Allowing non Sikhs to have AK@G violates Sikh Rehat Maryada [constitution, it has legal effect]
(b) if an amendment was made today, who is to say future generations wont ask for further amendments, given social society is to evolve indefinitely, attitude n trends will change with the passage of time, is there a reasonable point at which to say "no" ?
Both (a) n (b) are off-cuff sketches, more serious ones I'm sure the Sikh Scholars will be safe keeping.
Food for thought anyway to get you started !
Goodnight
To suggest the HRC could be applied to protect the protesters is disingenuous. I for one believe that Leamington gurdwara is preserving the tenets of sikhi...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.
In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?
...explain !To suggest the HRC could be applied to protect the protesters is disingenuous
A gurdwara or religion isn't a institution.. In the legal sense.. If one does not approve of the actions of a particular gurdwara they are free to practice their own religion elsewhere. In fact using the hra the individuals who have had their wedding disrupted probably have a better case...explain !
Belief and faith is not a democracy.. I believe what I believe.. Sikhi asks us to question not be sheep....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.
Mindlessly participate? Mmm a interesting presumptionIdeally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh.
One does not necessarily have to die defending it. It all depends on the context. If social activism, and peaceful demonstrations can make a difference, then so be it.
Don't know what this comment is supposed to mean....Mindlessly participate? Mmm a interesting presumption
Mindlessly - I mean without understanding, without thought - just ritualistically following the procedure.
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
