Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it ...

Discussion of life's dilemmas, blessings and challenges. Got Questions? Need Answers? This is the place to be. Feel comfortable with asking any question. Anonymous posting is allowed. Questions are answered by anyone in the sangat who feels they can help.
ImperfectSikh
Active Forum User
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by ImperfectSikh »

Sat Sri Akaal Lee,

Self-respect is not a tool of ego.

It is a tool of respect for the Universe, which must include yourself since you are a part of it.

The Gurus, and many Sikhs after the time of the Gurus in human form, fought many wars against Mughals, the British, and others at times. Sometimes (especially under Ranjit Singh) these were political wars related to territory, but most of them were wars of self-defense, which arises from self-respect.

The question is a simple one. Would you befriend and otherwise assist a friend whose religious choices you respected, and yet who had nothing but contempt and slander against your own ? If not, then why accept that kind of behaviour in your family ?

Tolerance that is unaccompanied by self-respect is nothing more than a suicide pact. Human beings raise families for many reasons, and one of the reasons is that you can pass on your values to your kids and perhaps indirectly and imperfectly through them, to your grandkids.

Religious values of tolerance are a part of my value system. I will respect even a fundamentalist Muslim's right to believe whatever he or she wants to believe. But I will not let those hateful ideas infect the minds of my kids, or would move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening to my grandkids. Just like day and night cannot coexist in the human mind, religious tolerance and intolerance cannot either.

That is why an inter-religious marriage between a Sikh and a Hindu / Buddhist / a Jew might work, but it cannot work between a Sikh and a fundamentalist Christian / Muslim.

In Star Trek terms, that is a bit like an alliance between the Federation / Klingons on one hand and the Borg on the other. To a committed Christian or a Muslim, a Sikh is spiritually nothing more than a misguided soul who needs to be harvested. That is why tolerance is necessarily a two-way street and the only thing that prevents it from being a one-way street is self-respect.
sikhing guidance
New User
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by sikhing guidance »

I found this post to be very depressing and at the same time infuriating. I have read the views of lee douglas and AM and while i understand where the both of you are coming from, i completely disagree. Perhaps, i am not that tolerant myself. In terms of my sikhi, i am, like everyone else still learning and continue to walk that path and learn lessons along the way..but i feel the mindset of Lee douglas and AM is dangerous.

Why i feel it is dangerous is that..where do u draw the line? The both of you continue saying that we should be tolerant and open minded of others view points and that if someone chooses a different path ..we should respect it as all paths lead to God. But if that is true, then why bother teaching our children, future generations or anyone else for that matter about Sikhi? The reason any religion is taught by parents etc to the next generation is to propogate those thoughts, philosophies etc embodied by that religion. Sikhi is not just a religion, it is a way of life. By both lee douglas and AM promoting that fact, what hope is there that the future generation sticks with sikhi? If you dont teach your child to read or write, who will teach them? I think its highly unrealistic and disney like to assume they will learn on their own. It pains me when sikhs act like this, yes perhaps that is because we are not like other religions in terms of active missionary work or belief etc. But if we dont teach our future generations about sikhi, then who will??

As for your cousin, Imperfect sikh, i think she is disgraceful. That may sound harsh, but i am going to say it like i see it. She married someone of a different religion, ok fine, it happens, but then to convert and let her children believe that such narrowmindedness is ok???? Give me a break. She has disrespected her father, by not standing up for him, and allowing this nonsense to continue. She obviously has no respect for her upbringing. Her husband has no respect for her, he obviously loved her knowing she wasnt a christian, or maybe he felt he was trying to save her? Either way there is a circle of disrespect. How her father puts up with that is beyond me? But that man has a huge heart and i am sure it does take a toll on him.
As for the grandchildren, again AM i think your view is completely wishful thinking and insulting. The children most likely will never grow up respecting their grandfather or their mothers cultural heritage..but in the end..lets be honest and i am sure people will get upset..their color will remain brown and that is something they cannot erase. I think that lesson needs to be taught to Nikki Haley as well..but she is a lost cause.

sorry to have offended. But i am not that tolerant. Sir javay par sikhi sidak na javay
ImperfectSikh
Active Forum User
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by ImperfectSikh »

As for your cousin, Imperfect sikh, i think she is disgraceful. That may sound harsh, but i am going to say it like i see it. She married someone of a different religion, ok fine, it happens, but then to convert and let her children believe that such narrowmindedness is ok???? Give me a break. She has disrespected her father, by not standing up for him, and allowing this nonsense to continue. She obviously has no respect for her upbringing. Her husband has no respect for her, he obviously loved her knowing she wasnt a christian, or maybe he felt he was trying to save her? Either way there is a circle of disrespect. How her father puts up with that is beyond me? But that man has a huge heart and i am sure it does take a toll on him.
As for the grandchildren, again AM i think your view is completely wishful thinking and insulting. The children most likely will never grow up respecting their grandfather or their mothers cultural heritage..but in the end..lets be honest and i am sure people will get upset..their color will remain brown and that is something they cannot erase. I think that lesson needs to be taught to Nikki Haley as well..but she is a lost cause.

sorry to have offended. But i am not that tolerant. Sir javay par sikhi sidak na javay
I have to take slight issue with that, though I agree with many of the sentiments.

In my cousin's case, her conversion to her new religion was not born out of spiritual convictions but because (and I have heard this from many different sources) her husband effectively made it the price of marrying him. She loved him more than she loved her heritage, so she converted. Those, howsoever arrived, are her choices. It is not disgraceful to act like a narrowminded fanatic if you sign up to join a narrowminded fanatic group.

What I find disgraceful in this whole business is her father's continued forbearance where he keeps accepting multiple levels of insults (including and not limited to the reasonable right of any grandparent to help educate his grandkids). His wife foresaw this and disowned her daughter. He did not, and now he is simply allowing his daughter's in-laws to abuse Sikhi with his quiet acquiescence. Which is an implicit "admission" to his grandkids that the Christianity that they are being raised with is a morally superior religion to Sikhi and he is just a wilfuly misguided grandparent who will burn in hell. I cannot imagine how his values of tolerance for different ways of life are at all being inherited.

As to Ms. Haley, she is a Methodist, and we should take her word for it. She made a conscious choice to leave Sikhism, and does not need to be "taught any lessons". People have a right to choose whatever life they want. But choices have consequences, and myopic Sikh-Americans who point to her proudly in any way, shape or form, are just insulting themselves. She is not a lost cause or anything. Just a stranger with an incompatible narrowminded hateful worldview (what would you expect from someone "proud" to have Ms. Sarah Palin's endorsement ?).
Lee Douglas
Power User
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:08 am

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by Lee Douglas »

ImperfectSikh wrote:Sat Sri Akaal Lee,

Self-respect is not a tool of ego.

It is a tool of respect for the Universe, which must include yourself since you are a part of it.

The Gurus, and many Sikhs after the time of the Gurus in human form, fought many wars against Mughals, the British, and others at times. Sometimes (especially under Ranjit Singh) these were political wars related to territory, but most of them were wars of self-defense, which arises from self-respect.

The question is a simple one. Would you befriend and otherwise assist a friend whose religious choices you respected, and yet who had nothing but contempt and slander against your own ? If not, then why accept that kind of behaviour in your family ?

Tolerance that is unaccompanied by self-respect is nothing more than a suicide pact. Human beings raise families for many reasons, and one of the reasons is that you can pass on your values to your kids and perhaps indirectly and imperfectly through them, to your grandkids.

Religious values of tolerance are a part of my value system. I will respect even a fundamentalist Muslim's right to believe whatever he or she wants to believe. But I will not let those hateful ideas infect the minds of my kids, or would move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening to my grandkids. Just like day and night cannot coexist in the human mind, religious tolerance and intolerance cannot either.

That is why an inter-religious marriage between a Sikh and a Hindu / Buddhist / a Jew might work, but it cannot work between a Sikh and a fundamentalist Christian / Muslim.

In Star Trek terms, that is a bit like an alliance between the Federation / Klingons on one hand and the Borg on the other. To a committed Christian or a Muslim, a Sikh is spiritually nothing more than a misguided soul who needs to be harvested. That is why tolerance is necessarily a two-way street and the only thing that prevents it from being a one-way street is self-respect.

ImperfectSihk ji,

Heh heh it is clear then that we disagree. That is fine.

You ask:

'Would you befriend and otherwise assist a friend whose religious choices you respected, and yet who had nothing but contempt and slander against your own ? If not, then why accept that kind of behaviour in your family?'

I would assist anybody that came to me for assistance, regardless of their faith. If I encounter a person who feels that they must become insulting towards me, I walk away. As for my family, well I am the only Sikh, I have a Christian sister, and the rest are all atheist. So myself and my sister already come in for some family stick for our faiths, all light hearted of course.


Family ties are differant, mostly a strain yet dispite the strain we do seem to want to contiune with these ties, something to think about huh?

Thinking for a while about this phrase' self respect'. Yes of course it is a tool of ego, how can it not be? Self? Self? What of God?

Do such concerns as self respect prompt one to perfrom actions in anger?

It is clear from your example it does. What are you actualy advocating for this Grandfather? What actions do you say he should perform in line with 'self respect'? Why do you seem angry, and as a Sikh should you be so?

Anything that turns ones mind from Waheguru to the respect of ones self must be a tool of ego, mustn't it?
Lee Douglas
Power User
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:08 am

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by Lee Douglas »

sikhing guidance ji,

Hah no offense taken brother.

I must ask though what is this concern with Sikhi? Are you more concered with the path you tread than with where it leads?

Love of the path, IS ego. What does it matter if our own daughters and sons do not follow us on our path? Why should it concern us which path (indeed if any) that a another human wishes to walk? They are after all engageing their God given free will, can we, should we even attempt to gainsay anothers choice, yes and I mean even that of our own children?

Can you not see that such sentimants DO equate to love of the path? What is the stronger feeling in your heart, love of God or love of the path you walk? Then ask yourself, what should be the stronger feeling.

I have two kids, both atheist as is my wife, I am saddend that they do not walk the path with me, but that is not my choice to make.

As I am saddend that you feel my 'mindset' to be dangerous, as far as I can see I just have the mindset of a Sikh.

Let me put it this way. Can you point out to me any human wherein God does not reside? Can you point out any substance known or unknown to man wherein God does not reside?

We know, as Sikhs, that Ik onkar, God is 1. Think for a momnet what a wonderous teaching this is, what does it mean to you, what does it say to you about how you should live your life?

Wow, I mean just wow. When you contemplate this truth that God has given us, it blows your mind.

There is not one iota of the creation that is not God, nothing that exist is berift of God. So when you show your displeasure or anger towards another human, what exactly are you showing God?

Is this really a dangerous mindset brother?
ImperfectSikh
Active Forum User
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by ImperfectSikh »

Lee Douglas wrote:
ImperfectSihk ji,

Heh heh it is clear then that we disagree. That is fine.
Most decidedly.

You ask:

'Would you befriend and otherwise assist a friend whose religious choices you respected, and yet who had nothing but contempt and slander against your own ? If not, then why accept that kind of behaviour in your family?'

I would assist anybody that came to me for assistance, regardless of their faith. If I encounter a person who feels that they must become insulting towards me, I walk away. As for my family, well I am the only Sikh, I have a Christian sister, and the rest are all atheist. So myself and my sister already come in for some family stick for our faiths, all light hearted of course.
As would I. But I would not help someone who did not respect me or insulted me.

As to your family situation, it is not my place to say anything. One cannot choose the family one is born in.

Family ties are differant, mostly a strain yet dispite the strain we do seem to want to contiune with these ties, something to think about huh?
It is not my place to comment, but family bonds between adults do (and should) break when mutual (read two-way street) respect is absent. Whether that lack of respect is towards one's career choices, religious choices, marriage choices, etc.

In my experience, atheists (except for a very minor fraction) do not actively consider theists to be creatures unworthy of fulsome existence (I cannot say God's love since they do not believe in God), or consider it their (un)divine duty to try to convert them.

I tend to respect agnostics a lot more (from a purely intellectual standpoint), but most atheists are generally pretty tolerant people (even if I strongly disagree with them).
Thinking for a while about this phrase' self respect'. Yes of course it is a tool of ego, how can it not be? Self? Self? What of God?
By that facile (and IMO red-herring) semantic token, self-actualization, self-reliance (as opposed to expecting handouts from other people), self-denial, self-control, etc. are all signs of ego then, are they not ?

Where would our daily fight against the Five Sins be, without self-control ?

What a can of worms you have stumbled into, Lee Ji.

Merely semantic "arguments" are dangerous to use since they usually backfire.
Do such concerns as self respect prompt one to perfrom actions in anger?
If they do, then they are wrong. But if they are a considered choice after a sound decision making progress, they are a mark of wisdom.

It is clear from your example it does. What are you actualy advocating for this Grandfather? What actions do you say he should perform in line with 'self respect'? Why do you seem angry, and as a Sikh should you be so?
I advocate nothing for him.

I have a private opinion that he should have disowned his daughter when she joined an intolerant faith. As a parent, one's duty is to raise the child with the best possible set of values one knows, and when they make an adult decision to turn their back on them, then it is also your final (and painful) duty to turn your back on the child.

It is no different if the said child, raised in an atmosphere of respect for other races, suddenly decided to join the KKK, or Black Panthers, or organizations that adopted a similar view of people not of their identifying characteristic (race in this case, religion in the case of committed Christians / Muslims / other religious groups that disrespect other faiths as a matter of policy).

Guru Nanak Dev Ji gave the gurgaddi to Guru Angad, not his children. I doubt he was acting out of ego, or anger.


Anything that turns ones mind from Waheguru to the respect of ones self must be a tool of ego, mustn't it?
I have stated my arguments above that address that question.

I will go further and make some observations. I have observed that many Sikhs (and indeed members of other tolerant faiths), as a part of a natural human tendency to either not ruffle any feathers, or to blend in, keep compromising on some rather fundamental things about their faith, and even basic human dignity, when they find themselves immersed in a culture / religious milieu that is intolerant of their choices (which in Sikhs' case, is almost worldwide).

Lot of post facto "arguments" about how it would be intolerant to not (effectively) submit to the majority religion, in exchange for being suffered to exist, are advanced. I mostly understand the psychology that prompts the willful (IMO) misunderstanding of what tolerance means, but that does not lessen the fact that those arguments can be dismissed as being merely facile adjustments made in face of a "fitting in" problem.

I do not claim that all such arguments are based in such entirely human considerations, but an unsettlingly large number are.
AM
Active Forum User
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 4:53 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by AM »

Sikhing guidance,

I appreciate your take on my comments. However I can tell you for a fact they are not wishful thinking. I live it every day of my life. I wake up to it in the morning with my children and our parents and I end my day knowing all is well. :)
I guess I don't see things in the negative in the first instance so to me its more of what fits and what doesn't.
I was raised to see the good in people and believe that to be the biggest lesson of our faith.
You mention passing on our faith to the next generation. I faith as a language or tool really. The message is almost always the same, some of us like to use our hands to eat while others prefer a fork and knife and then again chopsticks. I don't see it as my aim in life to expand Sikhi. My main aim as a parent is to raise children that understand an appreciate their fellow human being as being a creation of God regardless of background. Thereby ensuring they are good human beings with God's grace at their side.

I guess i don't quite understand the tolerance issue. Tolerance in itself is quite a harsh term is often misused. Maybe the word should be understanding or openess.? Just an idea there.

In this instance I don't see how a simple question by grandchildren of their grandfather could be seen so negatively. I do think this comes down to the father daughter relationship. The grandfather is still a father. I do not agree it is his 'right' to teach his grandchildren. It is his responsibility yes to teach his children as he did with his daughter. His responsibility as a grandparent is to support his child, his grandchilds mother. If there is anything that needs to be said it needs to be between that parent and child not the grandparent and the grandchild. So maybe in this instance the father and daughter need to talk a little more without bringing up harsh judgements about what should or shouldn't be done. Ultimately he needs to reassure his daughter that he is not out to change her children but instead to love them dearly and support her in her path.

It might have occurred to her that she does not want her children to go through the same confusion. On the outside it might seem like she has done it for face value. However I am reasonably confident that the inner struggle for her to sit in a church and pray and reject all her old ways would have eventually been an issue for her to overcome within herself. Its easy to write off when we aren't in their shoes but I do commend her on sticking by her decision and doing what she thinks is right for her own family, her husband and her kids.

Those kids are going to grow up as they are. They are very unlikely to grow up hating their grandfather particularly if he continues showering them with love and affection. They may hear different opinions within the paternal family but they will eventually get to a stage in life where they might want to ask questions of their own. Maybe not to convert to Sikhi but just to find out more about their grandad's faith. He should try to speak glowingly about his daughter/their mother. Share lovely memories of her growing up and naughty things she might have done. He should also speak about his wife, their grandmother and share loving stories about how she raised her daughter. He should try having these moments with the kids and the daughter around. Concentrate more on the relationship. God will work out the rest.

Just thoughts.
AM
Lee Douglas
Power User
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 5:08 am

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by Lee Douglas »

ImperfectSikh wrote:
As would I. But I would not help someone who did not respect me or insulted me.

ImperfectSikh ji,

Ahhh but insult, what is that? Respect, why do we need it?

What I mean is insult is never given, and can only be taken. Yes I talk even of those insults that are surly devised by others to sting us. If you insulted me for example, then I could choose to be insulted or choose to let your words runn off my back like the preverbial duck.

Choice brother. You have it in your power to choose to be insulted or not.

Why would you want respect, why do people desire it or need it? What is it? Are we not told 'Waheguru ji ki fateh!'
What is respect to us whos chief concern is tearing away the veil of illusion from our eyes?
Respect is just another cloth over our eyes.
ImperfectSikh wrote: By that facile (and IMO red-herring) semantic token, self-actualization, self-reliance (as opposed to expecting handouts from other people), self-denial, self-control, etc. are all signs of ego then, are they not ?

Where would our daily fight against the Five Sins be, without self-control ?

What a can of worms you have stumbled into, Lee Ji.

Merely semantic "arguments" are dangerous to use since they usually backfire.
Ahhhh yes sir, you have a valid point. It bears more contemplation.
ImperfectSikh wrote: If they do, then they are wrong. But if they are a considered choice after a sound decision making progress, they are a mark of wisdom.
There is the rub then. It is my choice after much delibirtion to belive that to react in anger over something illiousionary is simply a spirtual dead end. It is clear that you disagree with at least some of my points. How then, by what mechanisim do we decide right form wrong in these circumstances? We can surly only turn to Gurbani for aid.

ImperfectSikh wrote:I advocate nothing for him.
Ohh ImperfectSikh Ji,

Perhaps you have merely forgotten that in fact you have advocated that he should disown his daughter?

My wish in asking what you would advocate for this man, is to find from what source such advice stems.

Do you advocate disownership out of anger as you feel that respect is not being shown to this man? Does it stem from a kind of militant faith becuase this family are brining up Christians not Sikhs?
ImperfectSikh wrote: I have a private opinion that he should have disowned his daughter when she joined an intolerant faith. As a parent, one's duty is to raise the child with the best possible set of values one knows, and when they make an adult decision to turn their back on them, then it is also your final (and painful) duty to turn your back on the child.

It is no different if the said child, raised in an atmosphere of respect for other races, suddenly decided to join the KKK, or Black Panthers, or organizations that adopted a similar view of people not of their identifying characteristic (race in this case, religion in the case of committed Christians / Muslims / other religious groups that disrespect other faiths as a matter of policy).
I wholeheartedly dissagree with this.

As a parent myself my only job is to ready my children for adult life, to provide them with the tools ther will need to make the best desitions, to try to stear them into being good people. The rest is their choice, wheter they choose God or not, or what path to God, whether thay marry or not, have kids themselves, what they work as, if they work. As a father I have no control over these kinds of things, nor should I.

I do understand your point though. Bigotry is big thing in my life, it gauls me, it sticks in my throat and fills me with anger. I would be horrifyied to witness my children become bigoted in any fasihion. They may well do so, but even so, they'll have my love, they'll have my ear, my front door will ever bne open to them, untill I or them are no longer here.

ImperfectSikh wrote: I will go further and make some observations. I have observed that many Sikhs (and indeed members of other tolerant faiths), as a part of a natural human tendency to either not ruffle any feathers, or to blend in, keep compromising on some rather fundamental things about their faith, and even basic human dignity, when they find themselves immersed in a culture / religious milieu that is intolerant of their choices (which in Sikhs' case, is almost worldwide).

Lot of post facto "arguments" about how it would be intolerant to not (effectively) submit to the majority religion, in exchange for being suffered to exist, are advanced. I mostly understand the psychology that prompts the willful (IMO) misunderstanding of what tolerance means, but that does not lessen the fact that those arguments can be dismissed as being merely facile adjustments made in face of a "fitting in" problem.

I do not claim that all such arguments are based in such entirely human considerations, but an unsettlingly large number are.

Ahhh I see can I assume then you view me in this light?
ImperfectSikh
Active Forum User
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:04 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by ImperfectSikh »

AM wrote:Sikhing guidance,

I guess i don't quite understand the tolerance issue. Tolerance in itself is quite a harsh term is often misused. Maybe the word should be understanding or openess.? Just an idea there.
If you tell a youngster that if they show any interest in, or follow the faith of their loving grandfather, they are going to hell, it is hard to see it as anything but undiluted intolerance.

In this instance I don't see how a simple question by grandchildren of their grandfather could be seen so negatively. I do think this comes down to the father daughter relationship. The grandfather is still a father. I do not agree it is his 'right' to teach his grandchildren. It is his responsibility yes to teach his children as he did with his daughter. His responsibility as a grandparent is to support his child, his grandchilds mother. If there is anything that needs to be said it needs to be between that parent and child not the grandparent and the grandchild. So maybe in this instance the father and daughter need to talk a little more without bringing up harsh judgements about what should or shouldn't be done. Ultimately he needs to reassure his daughter that he is not out to change her children but instead to love them dearly and support her in her path.
Maybe you should explain why would a Sikh father support his Christian daughter to follow her faith ? Given that in this case, her adopted new faith considers his faith to be practically subhuman, and not fit for her children to be exposed to ? (basically at par with violent movies, porn, etc.)

Is that your definition of tolerance ?

That Sikhs should basically bend over and basically gift their loved ones, raised after a lot of sacrifices, over to other people who do not have the slightest respect for Sikhi, and thank them for the privilege of doing so (and not even demand equal treatment) ?

Sounds like an act of submission (as opposed to tolerance) to me.


It might have occurred to her that she does not want her children to go through the same confusion. On the outside it might seem like she has done it for face value. However I am reasonably confident that the inner struggle for her to sit in a church and pray and reject all her old ways would have eventually been an issue for her to overcome within herself. Its easy to write off when we aren't in their shoes but I do commend her on sticking by her decision and doing what she thinks is right for her own family, her husband and her kids.
I do not want to stand on ceremony here, but since I am her relative, I know a bit more about the situation than you do.

She was a strict Sikh right up to the time she married this guy (even during dating). She and her mother had long discussions and fights about whether she should convert (I have heard from multiple sources that he made her conversion the price for proposing to her). Two days before she got married (months after she got engaged), she was doing seva in a community langar, took part at a kirtan, and then gave away her gutkas to the granthi, and cried on her way home (according to her mother, who considers her dead to her).

She has not been in a Gurudwara since, not for any festive or religious occasions (she sends a card to her father, which is never co-signed by her husband). She has kept away from all the weddings and even the few funerals because of the religious aspect involved. From what I know from her father, she tries to tell stories about Punjabi culture to her kids, but her mother-in-law makes sure that no information about Sikhism is imparted (she lives practically next door to her son).

Her mother disowned her on the day of her wedding and conversion (which took place a few hours before the happy occasion). Her family did not attend the wedding (I am told that her in-laws made some rather insulting remarks to her parents weeks before the wedding, and placed conditions that touched upon their honour).

That does not sound like spiritual "confusion" to me (unless your mind defines "confusion" as strict adherence to Sikhism). All she is ensuring is that her girls will not have to turn their back on a religion they love, when they marry.

Those kids are going to grow up as they are. They are very unlikely to grow up hating their grandfather particularly if he continues showering them with love and affection.
You mean as long as he does not contradict the racist ideas about Sikhism they are being raised with ? I think they can hire a babysitter for that purpose, instead of insulting the faith of an old man.

I snipped the rest of the response, as I see it as nothing more than falsely palliative wishful thinking.

PS: We are not talking strict racism here since that has to do with the colour of the skin, but substitute southern Baptist for white, and Sikh for black, and you have almost the same situation.
sikhing guidance
New User
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Is tolerance of intolerance really tolerance, or is it .

Post by sikhing guidance »

Imperfect Sikh,

Just read your post and i just cannot fathom how someone who was supposedly a "strict sikh" could give up her faith so easily?? Its, again, sad and infuriating at the same time. I would rather die than give up sikhi, i mean look at the sahibzadhay...what a noble example and at such a young age..

AM, again i agree to disagree with you. We are clearly on 2 different wavelengths in terms of this particular woman/situation/post. I still think ur "disneyfying" this whole situation. I actually felt offended when u suggested that this girl was confused and that she should be commended for taking a decision which supports her husband and children. What about her father, who gave her life, raised her and brought her up???? His opinion means nothing??? He is not worthy of anyones respect?

I really feel strongly, that her father should just move on and not interact with her. It must be extremely hurtful.

As for defending the rights of other intolerant religions..this has been done by the gurus time and time again..i have to agree that by being tolerant of other religions it shouldnt mean that we as sikhs...bend over backwards and just take it.

Again..if we dont teach our children sikhi...who will? Why isnt it a parents duty to propogate sikhi??? It really upsets me when i see 20+ sikhs who cant even name all 11 gurus (let alone in order), yet u have muslim children who are so well versed in their religion and stick with it. Its because of deluded thinking, as exhibited by AM that allows this.

AM i believe u are married to a nonsikh...so i can understand ur sentiments..but i dont think its good enough to just teach ur child to be a good person etc..we all need something to believe in..and a way of life to follow..believing that all religions are equal is nice..but u cant take 2 paths simultaneously to reach one destination..its impossible.

I have to agree with Imperfect sikh...i feel that this conversation is falling on deaf ears..
Imperfect sikh..have u had a real conversation with your cousin..does she regret her decision at all? is she happy or is she just going through the motions???
Post Reply