VanHelsingh

Really??!?? Why would they do that? That's shocking. I never knew that.

It seems to be a combination of not wanting to rock the boat, coupled with genuine fear. But there is an element of not wanting to criticise their "hosts" as it were. Whether that can be construed as misguided patriotism or something else, I'm not sure.

Still waiting for an answer why the original poster is placing his/her selfish desires and feelings before respect for SGGS Ji?

@ sikhlionz - The 'muslim & black kids' you're holding up as examples are also NOT the kind of people that Sikh kids should become. I agree with you by all means that Sikh kids should be toughened up - but not into illiterate, dumb thugs.

Some people just don't want to have a difficult life which is understandable. The hypocrites who post such nonsense would turn around in a second (if a Sikh were to "rise up") and say "See! We told you they were bad-un's!". You just can't win in these situations.

@ Kharkooartsy - So its okay for beadbi to continue at your place, just because you don't want to take SGGS Ji out of your house, as you like the feeling SGGS Ji gives you? Okay.....

No wonder people say some Americans are ignorant and dumb when you read stuff like that. Absolutely shocking stuff.

Did that ^^^^ really happen are you embellishing the facts for dramatic / humourous effect? So a slice of meat pizza just happened to fall out of the fridge when it was opened, ey? So the fridge was bursting to the brim with pizza was it? How about proof of whiskey bottles still being in the house, rather than a vague feeling? I understand your sentiments 100% but the above occurences seem a little far-fetched to me. Personally I think people who don't partake in meat, alcohol, etc., should be perfect candidates for providing SGGS Ji a perfect temporary home during an Akhand Path, etc. Any other house where the aforementioned substances are consumed, I would not be happy in seeing SGGS Ji at that place of residence. You'd think people would know what is in their own home (and what their personal practices are), and then make a decision accordingly. Obviously not.

To be serious, I think the 'markings' are more of an internal 'thing', that only be seen (as mentioned in one of the above posts) by someone spiritually attuned to such matters. Although I'm pretty such that spiritual people would be able to "read" something by looking at our foreheads too.

Aren't they due to age and/or smiling a lot? :lol:

This is one position in our community that demands a full Sikh be in place. If the first point of contact at a Gurdwara is a 'relaxed' Sikh, that doesn't reflect well on the religion and the local community belonging to that religion. Although I always come back to the fact that I hope the Pardhaan is a full Sikh within himself as well as externally. But yes, this should be a given that Gursikh's should be the Pardhaan of a Gurdwara.

As long as it does a better job of representing Sikhs than the Muslim Council of Britian does at representing Muslims, this could be a good thing. My only fear is that the organisation will be populated by little Napoleons all vying for their little bit of power, rather than what's best for Sikhs. Let's hope this isn't the case. I also foresee the media running to this organisation whenever a matter regarding Sikhs makes into the headlines. I hope the council choose spokespeople that are sensible people, with a clear understanding of what a person in their position should and should not say. Let's not make life any difficult for ourselves in this country than it already is. Indigenous British people sometimes have a habit of jumping to the wrong conclusion by reading misleading headlines designed to provoke a reaction. We've all seen this in the past few years in instances such as the kirpan and kara issues, etc. A newspaper reporter looking to stir up some trouble + a less than "aware" Sikh Council UK spokesperson, and we're in trouble. One positive outcome that I hope comes from the formation of this organisation, is a remedy for the mistaken belief by some people in this country that Sikhs are connected to Muslims. This should be the first myth dispelled by this organisation. Although I haven't the foggiest how they'll do this. :lol: Also, we should not have to apologise for ourselves as a religion or our history. I guess I'm trying to say you can't please everyone (and we shouldn't have to), and certain people will always be looking to criticise organisations such as the Sikh Council. In our efforts to form cohesive relationships, we shouldn't have to modify or 'water-down' what it is we believe in.

Respect to them for understanding the importance of Guru Nanak Sahib Ji's Prakash Purab.

Like GPS has stated above, I think Guru Gobind Singh Ji has stated in Gurbani how gods and goddesses began to consider themselves untouchable, almost equals of God. But Guru Ji has always said there have been many thousands of Brahma, Vishnus and Shivas created and destroyed by God - but there will always be only one God.

He has developed an ego ever since his profile has begun to spread nationally. He see's himelf as some kind of champion of the Asian community in the UK. The sycophants who phone in and massage his ego don't help matters. Some of his (non-religious) opinions on life are also very suspect - a definite chamcha of the BBC executives, and by all accounts "under the thumb" (:lol:) when it comes to his home life. As you can tell I've been listening to his nonsense for years. But you have to really listen to these programmes - you can't shut yourself off from people's opinions just because you don't agree with them. Its the only way you'll find out what rubbish people are talking about.

Ok, thank-you SunSingh for the confirmation. What you've written makes sense. I suppose the best way to look at this is, who are we to judge those Sikhs that basically fought so that we're alive today? Those were remarkable times (not necessarily always in a good way), so I guess a few instances took place which sit weirdly with us in the modern day, but make sense in the context of those times.

What I'm about to say may be a bit trivial in the grand scheme of things, but one issue that has always, always annoyed me, is when a boy is born all the family fall over themselves to dish out ladoo to relatives and friends as soon as possible. Yet when a girl is born some people don't even tell anyone that a baby has even come into the family! Its utter nonsense. Its improving in the UK but very slowly. Back home is another kettle of fish - some of the things I've heard are beyond words.

I think the best thing to do is to keep an ear out for any future discussion programmes that feature Sikhi. If we get the same hatchet job then complaining (in a calm and coherent manner), will be the best course of action. I just worry that being a Sikh myself, maybe I'm a bit too sensitive to the issues involved? Maybe I need to be a bit more objective? But saying that I still believe that there is definitely some kind of anti-Sikhi vibe in their discussions.

Let's not go overboard. Whilst his views are reprehensible, getting The Akal Takht involved would only give this joker's opinions credence. Best to deal with it locally (or nationally) by having literate, knowledgable Sikhs from England providing rebuttals to his arguments in a calm and sensible manner.

gurdssingh - I'm a terribly shy person. Even when speaking to family members I get flustered at times - speaking on a national radio station with a biased presenter is my idea of Hell. I communicate best with the written word - I feel comfortable this way. Also I'm afraid I'm not the expert on Sikhi that I should be (hence my joining this forum), so I'm pretty sure I couldn't speak on behalf of Sikhs as I'd most probably get something wrong.

There was one stand-out issue for me in the Max Arthur Macauliffe volumes which shocked me when I first read them. He mentions Sikh warriors preparing and eating meat in-between battles against the Mughals as a way of keeping their strength up. I was very surprised at reading this the first time, and I honestly didn't know what to think, because nearly everything else Mr. Macauliffe wrote seems to be absolutely spot-on. It is still a bit of a weird issue for me. If anyone can shed any light on this I'd be very grateful. Just for the record, I'm not looking for confirmation (or not) of being able to eat meat - I've never touched the stuff since birth and don't intend to.

Nihal is........words escape me. Its not what he says but more about the little mumbles under his breath that trail away, a certain tone he adopts when he hears something he doesn't agree about, and instances of sarcasm when he is dying to let rip but can't. As you can tell I've had the misfortune to listen to that joke of a radio station that is The Asian Network for many years. I'm a fair person most of the time but I can truthfully say there is something about Sikhism that annoys Nihal. Maybe its people he's encountered in his personal / professional life that have given him a hard time, I don't know. Suddenly he finds himself with a high profile and a platform where he can subtley criticise the faith, and he relishes the opportunity to do so but does his best to conceal his intentions. Still, some of the debates on Muslims and Islam in general on The Asian Network over the past few years have been terrible - even I've felt sorry for the Muslims at some of the stuff I've heard. @ T_Singh - Yes you're spot on about "Jasminder". He always contributes to Sikhi debates on The Asian Network. His arguments have some reference to Hinduism so I'm guessing the fella is a Hindu in disguise. Just my opinion.

In a perfect world the ideal leader would be one who lives his life according to Sikhi, but is also a genuinely first class statesman who has a grasp of political issues facing Punjab as well as some actual solutions. If he's a wonderful Sikh but can't run Punjab for toffee then that won't be of help to anyone. Same goes the other way (weak Sikh but decent statesman). There needs to be someone the people can look up to. Sadly I don't think any of the current crop can be described in this way.

If people's ire is directed at me then as usual, people have jumped to conclusions and raised their "chanda" without reading properly. My main gripe with social networking in the context of the 'Sangat' on here, is to protect children from its effects. Why did I single out social networking and not, for example, computers is because this thread was dealing with social networking. That fact that I personally don't like frequenting sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc., is MY personal choice. I never said everyone should cease to waste their time on such sites. I mentioned that young people should especially be careful. :rolleyes: Oh but lets not have the facts get in the way of some good, old-fashioned jumping the gun(!)

Thank-you humkire for the words of advice. I apologise if I've not fallen into addressing everyone with 'ji', etc., as I've not really addressed anyone in this way on internet forums. I hope as I become accustomed to this forum I begin to stand out less! Although standing out is not a bad thing necessarily - blind obedience is not desirable in my opinion (as your wonderful post pointed out if I understood one of your many relevant arguments correctly).