Japnaam Singh

I'm about 99% sure that no shabad exists. I did a search of those translations online and its attributed to Guru Nanak Dev Jee in 2 separate places, both of which lack real reliability. First: http://sanskrit.gde.to/all_txt/giri.txt Second: http://www.geocities.com/s0ji/medit83.htm

JSS, You're always quick to defend these people. People who believe so many things that would disgust the average Sikh: Nang Beliefs - Sikhs are part of the 'hindu indian nation' - Drinking isn't that big a deal, it's only a weakness, no effect on your amrit - The bujjer kurehit is if you sleep with a muslim women. Other women are okay, it's only a weakness, not a bujjer kurehit - Only cutting of kes from the head is a bujjer kurehit, hair on the rest of the body don't really count as kes (the nirnangulla then goes into detail describing body parts that sikh females apparently removed hair from - another made up X-rated story by the nirnangulla) - women can't receive khanday kee pahul, they must shuck an inferior kirpan amrit administered by one singh, not by punj piaray - bhang is great - belief in ritualistic animal sacrifice - sacrificed goats will be reborn as nihungs (this can result in an ugly cycle... as we know, gurbanee says that you will have to suffer what you make other living things suffer... so nang sacrifices goat, comes back as a goat. Goat becomes nang. This nang then sacrifices previous nang (now a goat)... as I said, ugly cycle) - anointing the nishan saahib with blood from a sacrificed animal - claim that the Singh Sabha and Gurdvara reform movements were backed by the British Government; that in fact, the mahants are the true caretakers of sikh shrines - 84 holocaust was the fault of the sikhs, which is why their leader Santa Nihang then backed the GOI - Guru Gobind Singh Jee used the colour blue as a sign of devotion to Shiva - bel ief in hindu idols and gods Anyways, we're way off topic. Baba Nihaal Singh is an amazing Gursikh Nihung who has sacrificed a lot over the years. We need more panthic leaders like him.

How is that reasonable? One of the main reasons behind keeping Kesh is so that we're easily defined as the Sikhs of the Guru. Keeping hair is not "optional" for a Sikh--it is a requirement. It is central to who we are as Sikhs. It defines us. I'm 99% sure that Pheena is not a Muslim... I just read some of his previous posts, and it is clear that he considers himself a Sikh. It is ok if he considers himself a Sikh, but it is not okay to claim that keeping hair is not central to how we are defined. And I said that its unfortunate for Pheena in particular, because he seems to possess a fair bit of knowledge. I know a lot of 'sehaj dhari' Sikhs who cut their hair, yet all the ones I know admit that cutting their hair is wrong, and many of them hope to keep their hair in the future. They understand that cutting their hair is a weakness and most of them have enough respect for Gurmat to not want to "water it down" by claiming that keeping hair is not of central importance.

Firstly, Pheena is a male. He has corrected that misperception like a dozen times on this forum. And if he doesn't claim to be a Sikh, then I apologize.

Oh whatever Pheena. Its the undisputable, unmistakeable hukam of Guru Sahib to keep Kesh. And its especially tragic in your case, because you genuinely do seem to possess a lot of knowledge and insight about many issues. If you don't want to keep your Kesh, don't publicly justify it. Accept your faults and move on.

That's not the definition of racism, but I get your point. No need to explain further.

What does racism have to do with anything? :wub:

Happy Birthday Diljot Kaur. :TH:

I respect your sincerity and the genuine innocence you bring when it comes to the topic of unity and togethernes..... but, You're looking for perfection when there can't be any. You're looking to live in an ideal world when that isn't possible. In reality, we have to take the good and the bad... and simply filter the bad out. Let's ignore it, alienate it, marginalize it and eventually we'll have the good outweigh the bad to a larger extent than is currently true. Just one last point. Disagreeing isn't "arguing" neccesarily. You have to respect that as well. People MUST disagree and engage in debate in order to move forward in life with stronger and more logical beliefs... The next time you see people disagreeing, just look a little more closely, and a lot of the times, the disagreement won't be bitter, it won't be angry and it won't be hateful. It'll just be an honest disagreement, and nothing more. Sometimes people can be jerks - JERKS WILL ALWAYS EXIST - we just have to learn how to ignore them.

Hey Japmans, Your perception is just that--its your own way of looking at how things are. Just because in your mind, it seems that the world is burning and everyone hates each other, it does not make it so. For one example, lets look at Sikhsangat.com, you might not think so, but other people on this board find things to be totally constructive and relatively positive. They have the ability to look at the board and at things in general holistically, balancing the good and the bad and coming to a rational conclusion. Most people don't get thrown off by one or two jerks causing arguments, they look at the good too, and then they realize, that on the whole, SIKHSANGAT.COM is a very good and productive atmosphere for Sikh Youth. In the above paragraph, I commented on Sikhsangat.com specifically, but it also applies as well to the panth as a whole. We will see fighting and destruction if we really look for it, and we will also find peace and tranquility if we look for it as well. It all depends on the type of Sangat we keep. Lets not be thrown off by a few trouble makers. They are in the minority. Most people don't cause fights - they are good and they recognize the panthic good. -Japnaam Singh PS. There is a distinct difference between healthy argument/debate and petty fighting.

How about a Q and A for Sikh Youth to compete with Sikhnet's often misguided and wrong answers. A site about anti-panthic groups. Radhaswamees, etc. A site based solely on Gurbani.... if made properly would be really good too.

SOGGS, this issue actually hasn't been discussed much at all. Her question isn't a kakaar-based question or anything like that, she just wants to know the historical and gurmat-based justifications of wearing a dastaar. Her question is different.

Bijla Singh, your posts sound like reasons to hate America, they don't sound like persuasive arguments to either not vote for Bush or to vote for Kerry. You don't like America, we get it. Unless you believe that everything will magically change for the better if Kerry is elected because Bush is behind all the ignorance right? When Clinton left office, Bush must've poisoned the food supply or something for everyone to become ignorant and bigoted overnight. He must be co-ordinating with the FBI and local police departments on a minute to minute basis, making sure that they act as brutal and mean as possible. We'll welcome you up here in Canada with open arms. By the way, why did you sound like an 'undecided' voter when you started this thread? And why do you care about the outcome of an election, of a country, that you seem to so passionately despise?

You didn't include a location.

I go to California all the time. For most of my life, I spent more than a month of every year in California. Most of my extended family lives in California. Most of them are hardcore Democrats. Anyways, you're missing my point. I don't doubt the fact that you're discriminated against. All I said was that the discrimination you face is not the fault of George W. Bush. It is the fault of the bigot that is discriminating against you.

Again, how in the world is this Bush's fault? Its nice to scapegoat somebody without having any rational or logical basis in doing so, but that doesn't make it true or right. Its very easy to throw around that line "they just want oil", etc. etc. But there is no factual evidence supporting that. The only things supporting that thinking are baseless conspiracy theories. Before claiming that Bush is a war profiteer who sent troops into harms way so he could become richer - Provide some form of evidence. That's a reasonable position to take. Provide some reasons to back that up though. Abortion, which is essentially murder in the eyes of pro-lifers is far worse than Bujjer Kurahits. That's it, resort back to name calling and insults. It makes your argument that much stronger.

There you go again Vicky Singh. Somehow Bush is the cause of all problems. If Kerry is elected everyone will be completely happy and peaceful and loving and caring and they won't even have the slightest feelings of intolerance or racism. For god's sake, stop implying that Bush is some sort of racist. He is not, and it is very misleading for you to imply that.

No, but the US economy accounts for 50% of Canadian trade. Trade/economic policy is very important. Since US culture impacts Canadian culture so deeply through TV and other media, social policy is important. Since we live in such a globalized world, and since the US is the world's superpower, issues of war and peace as well as long-term global stability are also issues that matter to me, and everybody else as well.

I agree. Debate is healthy. I respect what the other side has to say. I think there are justifiable and reasonable arguments for voting Kerry, I just don't agree with them. Anyways, almost all of my cousins live in the US. I visit the US at least two times a year, so I DO know a fair bit about what goes on in the US. For god's sake, I live in Canada where almost every channel and show is American.

Watch FahrenHYPE 9/11. Its an independent movie, just came out recently which contains dozens of interviews of people who were in Fahrenheit 9/11 who all said that Moore misrepresented what they had to say. It debunks the entire movie.

Found the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics...html?oref=login (registration required) Also, a Supreme court ruling from about 2 decades ago allows for slander of "public figures". Moore has been sued before by smaller people who've been misrepresented in his movies (Columbine and Fahrenheit), but he's never been sued by elected officials because their lawsuits wouldn't be allowed.

In October 2002, the UN security council unanimously called in Iraq to hault its WMD programs or face 'consequences'. Just incase you're not sure, France and Russia and permanent members of the council and Germany was on the council during this vote as well.Hmmm, hauling programs that don't exist huh? Weird. :T: Really? Not my economics professor. It all depends on the kind of economist. There's different strains of economic theory my friend. Many, though not all economists credit Reagan's economic policies for a '17 year boom 39;. Brainles <banned word filter activated> huh? I read a New York Times article yesterday, (which I will post once I find the link) which showed how Bush has a higher IQ than Kerry, based on military tests and Bush's SAT scores. Just because someone is not a smooth talker, it doesn't make them an <banned word filter activated>. Your cynicism never ceases to shock me. You have this image in your mind of Bush being some hopelessly evil monster who wants to steal as much money from working people as possible. This image is WRONG. No one believes it, except for people who enjoy being cynical. Democrats could be elected to the white house for the rest of eternity and oil prices will continue to rise. It will eventually reach $100 a barrel, and then $150 a barrel.

Vicky Singh, you rest your case on the assumption that its a strong one - It is not. SOME guy? The whole world thought he had WMD. Both of the guys running against Bush said he did. They both voted FOR the war. They saw the same intelligence as Bush. Even Saddam's generals were surprised when the War started and when Saddam told them he had no WMD to fight back with. Without a doubt, not all segments of the American population are well off, but America is still the most prosperous nation in the world, there's no denying that. Take an Economics class Vicky Singh, business cycles will happen no matter what. The economy will go up, it will come down. It STARTED to come down during Clinton's final year. That doesn't make it Clinton's fault though. Almost equally both Republicans and "southern" Democrats. Just so you know, the "South" was almost entirely democratic about 30 years ago. There's a current Democratic senator by the name of Robert Byrd from West Virginia who is a former member of the KKK. And I don't understand what you're saying anyway, is Bush a racist? I know you know that he's not, so why do you even bring up ancient history? There've been racists in both parties in the past, does this mean Kerry is a racist too? Use stronger logic in your arguments. Vicky Singh, your tone is very condescending. Bush supporters are not idiots as you portray. Please be a little more sensitive and understanding to the other position. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them brainless idiots. Yes, you're right, Bush is behind the world Oil markets. :wub: You've exposed him with your strong evidence. By the way, Kerry proposed a 50 cent per litre Gas Tax a few years ago. :T:

So this is Bush's fault? You know, maybe I just don't listen closely enough, but I've never heard Bush rally white Americans to committ bigotry against Muslims. Have you heard him say stuff like that? If so, please provide evidence. And what's your point anyway? Will all prejudice against Muslims magically dissappear if Kerry wins? Bush doesn't mind abortion when it comes to Rape, incest or saving a woman's life, but that's besides the point. That issue is in the hands of the Supreme Court. Kerry voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban which banned late late-term abortions. How could Kerry ever justify this? Well, the Sikh religion expressly forbids it. And its a scientific fact that it impairs one's judgment and ability to react. If the United States is attacked, I think Americans would prefer a sober person in office. And in my personal opinion, it also refects on the moral nature of a person as well. Really? I wouldn't be so sure. Remember this: The anti-war website Iraqbodycount.net estimates that between 11,487 and 13,458 Iraqis have been killed since the start of the war. Added to that are 1049 coalition deaths listed. That is a staggering 14,507 deaths since March 19 last year - a horrendous average of 28.5 people, real human beings, a day for the 509 days. How could this ever be justified? Wouldn't Iraq have been better off without this? It is estimated that Saddam killed between 500,000 and 1 million of his own people in the 13 years since the Gulf War, not including the effects of the sanctions. The lower number averages out to be 105 a day. Assuming Saddam had stayed in power, as the anti-war movement would have had, and assuming his regime did not fundamentally change, Saddam could have killed between 53,445 and 106,890 innocent people in the same 509 days. In other words, the war probably cost between 38,938 and 92,383 fewer lives than the so-called peace would have cost. How is that such an offensive position? Maintaining Sikh identity is a priority for most Sikhs, maybe not for you, but that's your personal preference, not mines. The American economy is the strongest economy in the world? Bush tried to re-negotiate NAFTA into a "Free Trade of the Americas" zone. He's said he wants to negotiate a settlement to softwood. I remember hearing the BC forestry minister on TV once, he said that it was mainly protectionists in congress holding up resolutions to these issues. Very good, when you can't make any persuasive arguments resort to insults and name-calling. In order to fight "terror", you can't just kill a few terrorists a nd expect to win. You'd have to change the societies in which the terrorists are formed. Democracies will be far less likely to support terrorism.

Bush, no question. 1) A religious man. Its good to have a dharmic person in office. Someone who prays regularly. Someone who fears god. Someone who has faith guiding their lives. Kerry does not come across as a religious person to me. He doesn't seem to have a strong backbone. Blows with the wind. Seems to say anything depending on who he's talking too and how the polls look. Bush might be stubborn, but better to be stubborn than unprincipled. On a related note, although Clinton was OK overall (much better than Kerry could ever hope to be), he was a horrible moral example to others. 2) Pro-life. Bush signed the Partial-birth abortion ban; attempting to end one of the most cruel, sadistic practices in the world. Not only did Kerry vote against it, Kerry has a 100% ranking from Abortion groups. 3) Doesn't drink. Good example to others. Bush quit drinking about 20 years ago, even though he was a pretty intensive alcoholic. This shows he has will power and also leads others by example. 4) For spreading democracy around the world. Afghanistan is a success story. Elections have already happened. Women go to school, people aren't bossed around anymore by insane radicals. Iraq has its problems, but god willing, elections will bring legitimacy to the government and help stabilize the situation. If that happens, Iraq will be a gigantic success story. Unfortunately, no one knows the outcome of the situation as of yet, and therefore it would be premature to pass judgment. I'd say there's a 75% chance of success in the long term future (5 years). And even if things plunge into chaos, I still give Bush a thumbs up for try ing. 5) Supports vouchers for private schools. This might finally allow Sikhs to open up some Private schools! I don't know why more Sikhs don't realize this. Private school vouchers would be HUGE if Sikhs wanted to open a private school in America. 6) The economy. The year 2000 (when Clinton was in office) was a losing year for the stock markets. The economy went into recession right when Bush came into office. The tech bubble was just bursting. How is this Bush's fault? Recessions happen, under democrats, republicans, or anybody else, they're unavoidable. An economy goes up, only to come back down once again. This recession was the shortest in modern history. I've read many economists argue that Bush's tax cuts saved the economy from going into a depression. What's Kerry's plan here? Raise taxes? By the way, Reagonomics was an incredible success story. Reagan won a landslide in the 1984 election (winning every state but one) because his economic policies sparked a boom. 7) Free trade. I live in Canada. Kerry is a protectionist. He wants to reform NAFTA. He wants to increase tarriffs. His running mate, Edwards is straight up against NAFTA. That would be catastrophic. Kerry wants to go backwards on this issue. He wants to raise, not lower tarriffs. This is one issue which shows how Kerry and Edwards are not mainstream, moderate Democrats like Clinton, or even Gore. 8) If you throw away all the conspiracy theories and everything else, and try to examine Bush based on anecdotal evidence, he just seems like such a good guy. Of course this method is not scientific, but someone sent me a collection of stories once about Bush, and they all show him to be a caring, religious, compassionate, fundamentally decent, good man. 9) War on Terror. Islamic jihadists must be killed before they kill others. Kerry seems clueless on this issue. I remember once he said he would fight back against anybody who attacked America. That's good buddy, but what are you going to do to make sure that America doesn't get attacked to begin with? Bush has provided leadership in the world. He may be unpopular, but so what? Unpopular in the eyes of whom? Those who think that 9/11 was orchestrated by the Jews or the CIA? If I were Bush, I'd consider myself a failure if I WASN'T unpopular with those idiots. There's so many other good reasons... but they're just not coming to me at the moment.