Christians get persecuted a lot, but we Sikhs get persecuted just as much as they do.
This persecution takes place at the hands of religions that don’t understand their religion properly. Their leaders haven’t attended anywhere near enough inter-faith buffets, with those nice little cucumber sandwiches, cut into triangles and with the crusts removed.
As a member of a persecuted religious minority, I am very much in favour of tolerance and freedom of religion. Just you wait ’till we’re in charge.
Platitude of the Day 
“the failure of religious leaders to interpret religious texts in the context of very different times.” This from the religious leader who consistently voted against marriage equality legislation because he thought it contrary to Sikh teaching.
LikeLike
It’s good that Great Uncle Indarjit embraces humanist values about freedom & tolerance but, as Rev Peter hints (“Just you wait ’till we’re in charge”), he’d replace those values with a lesser set (i.e. Sikhism) if given the chance.
LikeLike
Slightly off topic – although relevant to the discussions above – there’s an interesting article in today’s Independent which covers (a) how tolerant and inclusive the poor oppressed christian establishment is, (b) how it responds to criticism and implied ridicule and (c) how inclusive and open its outlook is towards diverse (in this case LGBT) communities.
https://www.indy100.com/article/virgin-mary-lgbt-rainbow-halo-arrest-poland-religious-profanity-elzbieta-podlesna-8903291
LikeLike
I see the “Voldemort Effect” was in fuller force than ever for Indarjit today; what could possibly be preventing him from naming and shaming the persecutor religion to which he otherwise clearly refers? Absolutely nobody would – or should – blame him for using the correct nomenclature of “Islamism”, but for some bizarre reasons of squeamishness he refuses to to use any variant of the “I”-word; it renders his otherwise apposite TftD utterly ludicrous.
LikeLike
First rule of Interfaith Fight Club : ‘Never mention the other faith(s) you’re fighting’.
LikeLike
Self-serving, hypocritical nonsense. If Sikhism believes that all religions are just different routes to god, then the specifics of the scriptures cannot have any importance. And yet, as AndyM points out, Singh used exactly the importance of scriptural rules as the (ostensible) basis for his objection to same-sex marriage. Make your mind up – do the written rules matter, or do they not?
Similar to yesterday’s discussion on religious tradition, this was a lovely piece of misdirection. Tradition is great, a personal route to (or away from) god is great, but neither implies acceptance of the baggage of outdated and oppressive rules and customs. So if tolerance is the most important aspect, openly distance yourself from these things. Sikhism says that intolerance is wrong if it concerns a person’s religion. So tell us clearly if this applies to race, sexuality and gender. And if it doesn’t, explain why it doesn’t in detail. But do not distract us with a right hand full of loveliness while at the same time holding bigotry and intolerance in the left hand. Show both hands, then either reject intolerance across the board or accept that intolerant is what you are.
LikeLike
Difficult to find much to say about this dreary monologue. Steve has eloquently written what needs to be said. But I note that the Lord Singh, despite his many assertions about Sikhism’s ecumenism and respect for all religions, seems to have had nothing to say about the refusal of some Sikh fundamentalists to allow a Sikh-Muslim interfaith buffet to take place: https://barficulture.tv/people/518 He is Director of the Network of Sikh Organisations. What’s he doing about it?
LikeLike