Its very presumptive as a opinion, as there no possible test one could do to test how engaged or mindlessly they were engaged in a act. And as I said before if we are going to start testing then apply it across the board. Let's take peoples temperature before starting ardas. Will we have a sincerity police to check if people have there eyes closed or hands folded in a appropriate manner before beginning ardas. And will these rules be applied without discrimination, you the bearded gyani and mona alike. Ironically it's this very type of thing that empties the meaning and makes it ritualistic.
Sikh Cultural Politics
I said that I ideally hoped that people would not be participating in it mindlessly - not that everyone does participate in it mindlessly. Its not up to me to control how other people act, and how engaged others are. I only can control myself. Our Gurus did ask us to not participate in things just ritualistically, but to try and understand. That is all I meant.
Sukh,..if you recall, I did say an "academic" debate, remember ! And, who said a religion is an institution ?
..the correct test would be to ask whether marriage is divine or an institution, that would put you on a good stead to move on to the second limb, meaning, your quote above !
I'd go along with that and also, wider debate and discussion could pave way for revisiting SRM to meet evolutionary changes !
..who said it was ?
..that Sir, is your "natural right" ! Gurdwara's are not saying mix-marriages cannot be had, no, not at all, what they're saying is that AK cannot be had between a Sikh and a Non Sikh. Why ? Because by constitution [SRM], which is legally binding, they cannot. As I said before, the correct approach would be to have the "house of Sikh representatives" [from amongst the cream of Sikh scholars, leaders, etc] debate n discuss the issue with a view to relax constitutional practices.
..agree wholly solely, and what you're doing is questioning ! kool yourself down, have a milkshake ! I'm with you Sir!
Last edited:
Srm is not legally binding why do you think it is
just to clarify are you suggesting religious freedom or the freedom to practice my religion is not a inalienable right?
..may I suggest you seek legal advice in constitutional and administrative affairs !
..Sukh, if you speak up and tell me exactly what you want maybe I can show you the way. There is what we call the "due process", meaning, if you have a complaint how might you go about getting it sorted or at the very least, an opportunity to be heard fairly n squarely in an appropriate forum [court].
I'm trying to ascertain whether you think that the sikh rahit maryada is a legal document recognised by the British law courts.. Seriously?
..look, do bit of research to find out more. For example, start with the preliminary enquiry; what is a Gurdwara ? is it recognised by law in England ? If so why is it recognised at law ? you will end up with it being an institution of the faith Sikh and the Charity Commission [UK] recognises it and regulates it. For the Charity Commision to recognise it as an unincorporated association it must first look to establish its legal personality. In short, it will go to look for the source of the Gurdwaras, meaning, who are the parents of these so called Gurdwaras. And, the trail will lead you to Amritsar, home of the Sikh Faith.
Once again, may I suggest you seek professional legal advice because my knowledge on constitutional and administrative law is bit rusty !
Goodnight -
I'm sorry but I think you have a overly simplistic understanding. Would be laughed out of court. The courts would say don't go to the gurdwara which practices against your interpretation. No one for instance is forcing you to attend Leamington gurdwara. Visit Coventry Instead and let people practice their religion according to their interpretation. It's really quite simple.
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
It would be nice if we could debate as equals, who knows, he may show you the way..
If you feel you know the way Originalji, wonderful for you, but the rest of us are here to learn and share, not instruct.
Sir - you've taken it out of context ! kindly re read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider. Indeed, you have found post #29 somewhat standalone and pompous to have formed such an opinion, but I can assure you of the contrary, the goodwill and meaningful exchange therein. Perhaps it's this reading in part, which may have caused obscurity to the completeness of the toptic to hand.
If the host is of the view that miscarriage of justice has occasioned, then I add no further a voice.
Much obliged
- Jan 31, 2011
- 5,769
- 8,194
- 55
your voice is always pleasant and informative to be around, there is no dispute on that point, you also contribute much to this forum, you are learned, and your own personal litmus test I find to be par excellence, however, all I am asking, once again, is to participate not teach.
It would be a huge shame if you decided to add no further a voice, rather than accept a point which is close to my heart, namely, that we are all students here, all of us, without exception, no one knows the answers, no one has a monopoly on the truth, we are all fools together.
What has prompted this is a quick review of other forums, which seem to be full of people all claiming to know the truth, all arguing like children. Let me show you how I do it, seems to me, to be a better attitude than Let me show you how its done.
kind regards
I have felt no injustice. But maybe patronising in tone on occasion. However I have my big boy pants on and it's all good. It's good to talk
Sukh, I'm sorry if my stance was somewhat austere and unorthodox, but I was leading you to take control and explore further. The intention was to allow you to apply your findings to careful and critical reasoning, resulting as it were, to a resolution of valued information. Moreover, it would've given you significant degree of intellectual independence with which you could've / can make an informed decision.
I couldn't for very many reasons divulge any further because the subject matter is controversial with which I'm presently engaged. Feel free to explore more with sangat at SPN.
Goodnight
I don't think it was austere or unorthodox in fact quite the opposite. It is a subject with which I to am engaged and exploring hence the original post
Why do you assume and presume that I do not have "intellectual independence" and do not have a informed opinion?
Its really quite dismissive. It is a argument and position I could reverse and say of you. If anything I have asked specific questions which you have not answered.
I'm sorry, it wasn't said in that regard, but in admiralty of courage and commitment. If anything, I'd like to offer assistance when n where possible.
I'm proud of young Sikhs taking up contemporary issues and trying to resolve. Back in 1976 we founded Southall Youth Movement to counter racial disharmony, which ment we were on the streets fighting come what may. And I for one believe, no pain no gain - good luck !
TC
It would be of assistance if you explained more of your rationale.
Thx
.. I think the whole mix-marriage palaver need centre stage and wider consultation. It's an agenda item for organisations like the Sikh Council UK to debate and discuss with a view to relax the rigidity of the clause [Sikh marry Sikh]. The Council's decision is likely to be persuasive on part SPGC [The Gurdwaras Act 1925] to trigger constitutional review of SRM.
..this is my take on it Sukh, but please seek professional legal advice should you be contemplating recourse !
Much obliged
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
