MisterrSingh

Looks like a somewhat abstract space shuttle passing beneath or across a moon or a planet in a starry sky. Maybe someone was trying to tell us something, lol?

Expect a NATO intervention in 5... 4... 3... 2... ??

I suppose they want to encourage their new arrivals to feel at home.

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Yet, there'll still be some people who'll argue you've misunderstood certain things, or there's a particular context that's been overlooked, or that we aren't meant to analyse these issues in a studious, detached manner, etc. You can't win with these people. It's the Brahmanical coveting of spiritual and religious teachings all over again; they who exert such control also hope to control you. Don't let it discourage you.

He can charran-toh as many Christians as his heart desires, but that's not going to make the front pages of the newspapers and websites, is it? An act of apparent humility doesn't ring true when there's many socially and politically loaded issues circulating around it; issues that only the most sheltered or out of touch individual would be ignorant of. For the Pope to not be aware or even advised against the "optical impact" of his visual statement is difficult to believe. Catholicism is a heresy in my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. Billions clearly feel otherwise.

Don't play ignorant. He has a responsibility as the figurehead of his respective sect; as the apparent leader and role model for 1.2 billion Catholics to be cognisant of his actions, because they not only reflect his own thoughts but the expectation of how all Catholics are then expected to behave, to varying degrees, due to the example set by their leader. The symbolic nature of bowing down to a Muslim delegation and kissing their feet -- especially in a world where that image will circulate in seconds -- is hugely damaging regardless of the idea that the religion itself prescribes it as an acceptable ritual. Again, symbolically, at a time when millions of migrants are flocking to traditionally (if not in practice) Christian countries, what does this image suggest to those individuals who are of a competing, more aggressive belief system which holds Westerners and Christians with contempt and scant regard? When their Pope tacitly prescribes an attitude of prostration, literally and figuratively, it's not an innocuous act of religious devotion; it's a calculated and concerted visual message designed to signify surrender and the example he expects Catholics to adhere to. And don't for one moment believe the Pope was caught unawares or was simply caught up in innocuous religious observances. He knew very well what he was doing. I reiterate the idea that this religious gesture symbolises something greater in magnitude than what it seems to imply on the surface. Everything is symbolism with these people. Discernment. It's what separates us from being mere automatons. There is a time and place for all things.

Sounds like studying to me.

Like all those revered and holy personalities of the 20th century who started Sikh sects, gathered millions of followers, yet are still considered to be part of mainstream Sikhi? Would you say they knew more than Guru Ji to fracture the panth? Where was their humility when it came to realising the bigger picture that the more something is splintered and diluted the weaker it becomes? You see, this is the kind of selective amnesia and hypocrisy that anyone who listens to their conscience struggles to ignore.

There's a certain school of thought that suggests gay men of previous generations (I'm referring to hundreds of years in the past leading up to the tail end of the last century) considered marriage and their contribution to the bearing of children an unassailable duty that was necessary for a functioning and healthy society. Gay husbands provided for their families in all the ways a heterosexual man did. It was only when the social sciences that were pioneered in the middle of the last century deemed it was necessary to emancipate the "oppressed" homosexual do we find ourselves in a situation where gay men are as confused, angry, and depressed with their lot in life more than any other period in history despite the apparent leaps and bounds in attitudes. Much of this strife has originated from transforming marriage from a transactional and pragmatic partnership to one where psychological politicking, delusion and personal feelings trump reason.

Again, you've created a straw man erected on emotion in order to make a point and then proceeded to demolish it to win a so-called argument that wasn't even on the cards. Answer me one question: how many of our previous generations married for "love" as it's come to be defined in the 20th century and beyond? The remainder of your nonsense is your typically emotionally charged schtick, which I've informed you a few days ago isn't going to wash with me. DON'T put words in my mouth. I've warned you about this earlier. It's an underhand way of silencing dissent.

There's brothers marrying sisters; fathers / uncles marrying daughters / nieces in order to emigrate to Canada albeit with one eye on a quick divorce once the job is done. It's happening by the pind-load in Punjab, and nobody seems to be batting an eyelid. Scratch the surface and it's clear there's very little that's taboo or morally suspect in the Punjabi mentality despite the surface level propriety. I don't agree with it myself, and it's something I'd never do, but then I don't walk in their shoes, so I wouldn't know how I'd react if confronted with certain circumstances. I'd like to think my principles aren't dependent on situational context and desires, but not everyone is prepared to draw a line and adhere to its limits.

The western way was also one of pragmatism until recently relatively speaking. "Love" seems to have crept into the equation around the time society was entering the period where individualistic feelings and desires were seen to be preferable to reason and foresight. And here we are. But wait... there's more! ?

I've come to realise the black and white outlook some Sikhs cling to actually places us at a disadvantage. I'm not advocating criminality and the ends justify the means, but a little cut-throat savvy isn't necessarily a bad thing when concerned with furthering a good cause.

Both.

I think it was a delegation of African Muslims around the time of a specific Christian holiday that requires Christians to perform "seva" for guests.

Objectively, it's fascinating and quite admirable how they galvanise and mobilise to further collective Jewish aims despite individuals within that collective harbouring divergent religious beliefs or even choosing to be atheist as the case may be. I suppose the Jewish persecution complex as it relates to a commonality in culture and identity lends them a strength in unity that supercedes any other individualized driving forces that would hamstring other religious groups according to sectarian loyalties. It's a lesson for us all, although I suspect it's one that can only be enacted by a shrewd, far-sighted, and generally intelligent (in a worldly sense) population.

Obviously not enough if they're recruiting for more, lol.

It speaks for itself, doesn't it?

This is entirely your doing. Stamping your feet and pinning blame on other peoples and institutions is a weak move. Take responsibility for your actions. The CIS-het patriarchal structure didn't marry your woman under duplicitous circumstances; that was all you. Own your decisions. Good luck, brother. You're a top guy in a terrible situation. I wish I could do more for you.

I stopped responding to and feeding ideas driven by emotion a long time ago. Female emotion has driven many a easily led man to ruin. I do not respond to attempts to shame me into compliance. A person cannot serve two masters. You may delude yourself into interpreting Sikhi according to the paramount ideology that drives your conscience, i.e. the contemporary liberal / feminist paradigm that's a form of a greater ideology (in magnitude not quality of doctrine) that is the antithesis of the Gurbani you supposedly distort to justify your worldview. I will not resubmit myself to the slumber from which I was blessed to have awakened from. You do a great injustice to the many who may be spared years of inner turmoil and conflict by muddying voices such as mine, and lulling them into continued ignorance and darkness. Enough is enough.

Acknowledging the reality of feminine nature and how it manifests in our community amongst a considerable proportion of women is not misogyny. The worship and veneration of the Feminine is the marker of a dying civilsation. There is a middle ground between the respective extremes of woman hate and capitulating to their destructive nature in the hope of preserving a non-existent peace. Dulling the senses and labelling people who have a counter view to what's come to be accepted as normal is not healthy for the long-term survival of our people, and more importantly is not healthy for the individual conscience. The idea that fundamentally all people (women) are good people, based on spiritual instruction that disregards the nuance of day-to-day reality, is a dangerous and counter-productive idea that lulls many into inaction and complacency. Some individuals cannot be reformed through conciliation, tolerance, and patience. So what do you propose for those who have no desire to resort to anger, violence, and hate yet find themselves confounded by destructive feminine energy? You cannot advocate a path of non-engagement or appeasement that, nine times out of ten, leads to serious and undeniable problems for the male. Speaking a truth is not violence or hate. You will eventually come to realise this when this principle will manifest itself in an area of existence that your worldview will not seek to dispute. Hopefully, you'll be honest enough with yourself to acknowledge this lesson when that moment arrives. As for Ajeet, I agree, he shouldn't have married the girl. There's no way this is going to end in any way but tragedy. I genuinely feel for his wife. I think she's in an impossible situation. Her attitude is what it is and does her no favours, but considering the deception under which she's been drawn into, I don't feel comfortable in condemning her. If Ajeet had any nous, he'd make her an ally instead of playing her off against his parents in the hope of... pushing her into a situation that leads to divorce? Who knows.

Tax laws that favour religious institutions (and subsequent committee politicking and fractures) are the only reason we have multiple Gurdware in the West. It's an economic scam designed to line the pockets of religious opportunists who can't bear to work a 9 to 5. The last thing the Sikh community needs in the UK is an NKJ hub of immorality and subversion. Unfortunately, their sales patter is designed to specifically target oblivious Western born and raised Punjabis who have burned themselves out on their materialistic, hedonistic and spiritually empty lives, and are desperately seeking purpose and contentment in a religious sense. This demographic is ripe for brainwashing, with them being ignorant of the core tenets of Sikhi, and thus open to any and all suggestions as long as it's delivered in an agreeable English style that jives with their underlying, pre-existing worldview and values which they'd never dream of overturning. I have no doubt the 300k will be collected. Shame.