Jump to content

Incorrect Mention Of Sikhs In Law And Order


Recommended Posts

Something struck me as controversial in the new episode of Law and Order airing as I write. The episode is about a man who uses religion as a tool to justify a murder. He says that if his daughter's teacher continued to teach evolution in school, the teacher would make her a non-believer. He kills the teacher, Mr. Nash, and says that if he didn't kill the teacher, God would have exacted His wrath on the daughter at any moment. A lawyer questions his reasoning. The lawyer claims that the man in question is schizophrenic, as his "magical thinking" suggests. The lawyer follows up by asking, "Since God has allowed millions of non-believers to live, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs... What makes you so certain that He was going to hurt your daughter?" Sikhism is clearly a religion that believes in God. The writers of Law and Order are intelligent people; why, then, would they label Sikhs as non-believers? Please do not debate the argument about God's wrath being mentioned in the show. Instead, let's talk about this "Sikhs being non-believers" issue and what can be done about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

Umm.. i don't know why you interpreted it that way:

It sounds like the lawyer was questioning the guy who sees EVERYONE but those who subscribe to his beliefs as "non-believers". That includes Hindus, muslims, sikhs, buddhists, jews, ...

In fact, by posing the question that way, he reenforces the fact that this guy is crazy and believes that everyone is a non-believer besides fanatics like himself. I don't think it was meant to impact sikhs or any of the other listed faiths in that way.

Waheguroo jee ka Khalsa!

Waheguroo jee kee Fateh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lawyer follows up by asking, "Since God has allowed millions of non-believers to live, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs... What makes you so certain that He was going to hurt your daughter?" Sikhism is clearly a religion that believes in God. The writers of Law and Order are intelligent people; why, then, would they label Sikhs as non-believers?
non-believers = someone that doesn't believe in Jesus Christ. there solves your little dilemma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use