It's anti-Muslim prejudice by people who are too ignorant to realize that Sikhs are not Muslims.

I'm torn on that question.

they exist.

Currently, the reds and rebs see them as Muslim or Arabs because they are that damn ignorant and the more stupid ones just use the catchall "terrorist" and leave it there.

Sometimes it is about hatred but rather raw ignorance, my Indian friends growing up were generally labeled as "Chinese" for whatever reason, by black and white. Just pure ignorance and various forms of bigotry, even from others oppressed. Hell, it was easier being "Chinese" than a "half breed" at the time but they certainly didn't have the added weight of being lumped in with a gang of radical Saudis that run planes into buildings then either, now it has to be a sad state of affairs. I bet Native people and even hispanics get lumped in sometimes. Easy "other" targets, not white, not black, so must be "terrorist".

Shit, even educated and fairly worldly minority people can be guilty of this kind of thing. I know a foreign born hispanic woman who has traveled around the world and is a generally pretty liberal Democrat but said out loud (at work mind you) that she'd not date a man from "a terrorist country" out loud and in public.

People are just fucked up and stupid.

2. Yes, you're right. Azaris too.

3. We fight the fights we have in front of us, and that's not mine right now.

But, of course, you're right: add that to the horrors of the day.

I just think that no religious system is free from hierarchical exploitation.

It sucks, but I think that's the reality.

Sorry if I triggered anything or offended you.

Recursion is a good person, so I'm not going to be hostile toward their views.

But yeah, that's what the Sikh community has had to deal with. It's not necessarily internal, though, it's external exploitation.

And unless I've seen everything backwards, it's yet another way the Sikh community is victimized

Take care Recursion.

Probably don't even wear American flag pins on their lapels. And that's how you can tell a person's patriotism, ya know.

Any religion that stipulates you cannot BE religious unless you wear the proper clothing will always seem alien to us.

Sure, Catholicism has its share of unnecessary accoutrements but these are primarily ceremonial, not as closely intertwined with day-to-day existence.

The Amish and Mormons are seen in this light, too. I confess to having to suppress a chuckle when I see a group of Mormons headed for church, safe in their belief that they live simple, uncomplicated lives.

So long as they have the proper hat and the beard and a black suit and whatever other dress rules they have. I just think it's ludicrous.

We regularly make fun of Christians for hypocrisy. Don't the 'Hat' religions deserve mockery, too? Or maybe not 'deserve'. But I think that's what sets them apart even more from those around them.

And any religion, when it defines how they must act and dress and behave, does, by extrapolation, attempt to define the rest of us, too, by implying that we are 'outside'.

Iran's president is seeking dialog with the West. Wow. Who would have thought that would happen? What needs to happen in 50 years or so, I think, is another Eastern 'Gandhi' who will issue a sort of Papal Declaration that one's clothes do not define one's religion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

"And any religion, when it defines how they must act and dress and behave, does, by extrapolation, attempt to define the rest of us, too, by implying that we are 'outside'. "

Do you feel the vegans who publicly don't eat meat or other animal problems are also trying to imply those that do eat meat as "outside?"

What about non-smokers who try not to eat around people smoking?

Do you think that Sikh's who choose to dress according to the dictates of their religion think of it in terms of "I'm better than all those people who don't dress the way I do?" The few Sikhs I've met haven't seemed to be in that mindset.

Bryant

"Sikhs are pretty much the most pious and moral people on earth.
I'm not saying that attacking a different religion or ethnicity is OK, because it's not, of course. But as an empirical statement, whatever your religion is, Sikhs probably enact the morals of it better than you do."

So that would be an odd way to argue that they don't see themselves as better than those outside the practice, to declare loudly that they are better than others. Better than other religions, the MOST moral people on earth no less.

I do too, actually. Like I say, the Sikhs I've met have been genuinely impressive.

It's one thing if I, as a Mormon, were to spout off about how Mormons are the greatest people on the earth - that would be an arrogant thing to do and kind of bad. But if I sing the praises of Sikhs or Zen Buddhists or anybody - that's different.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but one of the things I admired about the Sikhs I have met is their humility after a fashion - they are certainly content with their faith, but they don't need to tear other faiths or belief systems down to feel better about themselves.

Bryant

that question nor addressed any of the anti gay activism or devotion to consumerism that defines that community.
I'd sick of waking up each day to be told on DU that yet another anti gay religion is superior to others, better and more moral than those of no faith or of some other faith. When you declare a group to be the most moral, and that group organizes against my family, those are words of aggression. The SOP of GD says 'no religion' but the anti gay folks just can't help but promote their superstitions in GD. Super moral, to ignore the rules and do as one pleases.

forum, but an argument could be made that it's less about Sikhs and more about how they are persecuted in the United States, which moves it back to being about policy and not religion.

What does push it over the edge is declaring them to be the most moral on the face of the earth - like I say the ones i knew were impressive but this was years ago and I didn't ask them about Homosexuality.

Bryant

as superior to all others is a religious action. When that faith is anti gay and anti choice it is also a political and personal attack. 'X is the most moral, X opposes gays, X must be right because X is better than others'.
A religion that hates my family is inferior, backward superstition. How's that? I do not accept any faith that rejects me first, would you? I see any club that attacks 'the other' as bigoted and in the wrong. To me that is the opposite of moral or pious, it is self serving aggression.

My faith's record on homosexuality isn't very good; which is why I wouldn't promote them as the most moral and superior to all others. I'd be tempted if they did something I found particularly praiseworthy to mention it here or more likely in the religion forum.

On the one hand I look at religions like other organizations like people. A person can have some negative qualities and some praiseworthy qualities - as can religions or other organizations. A religion can have a bad record on, say, tolerance towards homosexuals, and a good record on, say, helping the poor or speaking out about class inequality. You can praise the latter while condemning the former.

On the other hand if there was a "Fuck the Mormons" club, I doubt I'd be able to look past that, even if they had a killer soup kitchen program that genuinely helped thousands.

I guess I'd be curious as to what religions have you found generally inoffensive or are they all cut from the same cloth?

Bryant

Neither you nor the OP bothered to answer any questions, you came to preach at the sinners in GD.
I look at how people act, how you treat others. Folks who refuse questions are rude folks.

You didn't ask me any questions except "How's that?" I guess that's fine.

Ask me any question not related to personal information and I'll answer them - any question. As many as you like.

But don't come down on me for not answering questions when you haven't asked me any!

Bryant

The clothing aspect to religion is a 24/7 reminder that everyone not part of the group is an outsider.

I'm not sure what any member of a 'Hat' religion truly thinks but you have to admit that for the vast majority, there is very little individualism. All must wear beards or hats or the correct type of vestments in order to belong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

As they are a lifestyle choice based on a moral decision (generally, there are Vegans who do it for other reasons).

I would just comment that it probably looks different from inside a religion that requires it than from outside.

Bryant

Not any more 'moral and pious' than any other organized religion. The joke was 'their holy sign is the sing of the Mercedes Benz'.
Here is a story from Vancouver BC Sikh leader from a few years ago: "Homophobic remarks attributed to Sikh leader Balwant Singh Gill in The Vancouver Sun. The Sun's Dec 15 story, "Canada's Changing Moral Landscape," quotes Gill as saying: "I hate homosexuality. Most Sikhs believe homosexuality is unnatural and you can't produce kids through it. And, secondarily, no major religion allows it."
http://dailyxtra.com/vancouver/news/sikh-leaders-anti-gay-remarks-ignite-furore?market=208

He sounds like any other right wing religious bigot to me and that's what that community was like in LA as well, bigoted and heavily into wealth, material things and snobby attitudes toward others, particularly minority peoples.

What is your connection to them that causes you to see them as superior to others?

very likely don't know what a Sikh is. They've probably never heard of the religion at all, much less anything about the people that follow it. They (The bigots) are mostly xenophobic to the point that all religions by brown people are the same to them. Sikh = Hindu = Muslim = Zoroastrian = etc.. As is almost the case with bigots, ignorance is the problem.

But those personal beliefs are shoved front and center 24/7 by any member of a 'Hat' religion. It's not right, it's certainly not Progressive, but people react unpleasantly -sometimes unconsciously- to those who practice a form of 'reverse bigotry' by implying that everyone outside their specific clothing-related religion does not belong.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

It isn't just a ceremonial knife. The kirpan is supposed to kept razor sharp and the owner is supposed to be proficient in its use. It is a deadly weapon.

If the law allows them to wear it because it is part of their religion, then I want to start a religion that says I have to wear a gun.

It might not be a religion, but it sure is treated that way.

existences require a feeling of superiority over some pariah outgroup. It doesn't matter who they hate, they need that to cover over some repressed sense of their own inadequacy and vulnerability to a changing world.

...by trolling the costumed ones in line for premiers with cries of "Star Trek sucks!"

Yeah, the anti-Muslim hate is itself stupid, but the targeting failure makes it more ridiculous.