🚀 go-pugleaf

Stop being so silly, Michael and go to bed. Life may look more
reasonable tomorrow.

Doug
--
brain under construction

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:45:38 -0000, "Michael Falconer"
<michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
> windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
> example...................

What a fine upstanding example of a loving follower of Jesus you are,
Michael.
--
Mitch

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:45:38 -0000, "Michael Falconer"
<michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
>windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
>example...................

I find your posts offensive.   Does that justify my coming and
smashing he windows of your house?


--
Debbie posting as Debbie

"Michael Falconer" <michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> writes:

> I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
> windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
> example...................

What about the Sikh religion (as opposed to the behaviour of
a few of its followers) do you find offensive, and how would
breaking windows make it less so?

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

"Debbie" wrote:
> "Michael Falconer" wrote:
>>I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
>>windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
>>example...................
>
> I find your posts offensive.   Does that justify my coming and
> smashing he windows of your house?

Was that not pretty much the point that Michael was making?
--
John Ievins

"The content of the Christian proclamation takes the form of words, but its
subject is not to be identified with them - underlying the words, ideas and
concepts is the greater reality of the living God himself, to whom the
proclamation points.  Like John the Baptist, it points to something greater
than itself, to something different, to a person whom we are given to
understand we are about to encounter." - Alister McGrath

In message <87vfawpkbx.fsf@g.mccaughan.ntlworld.com>
          Gareth McCaughan <gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

> What about the Sikh religion (as opposed to the behaviour of
> a few of its followers) do you find offensive, and how would
> breaking windows make it less so?

Owing to severe persecution by the Mughal empire in its early days, the
Sikhs have always been a warrior religion, a fact reflected in two of the
five essentials - every male must wear a dagger (and preferably a sword) and
must wear underpants (a regulation that allegedly stems from an occasion
when the Sikh forces were attacked by night and defeated while they all
struggled into their clothing).

On the whole, however, Sikhs have proved remarkably peaceful - in part
because their reputation as fierce and efficient fighters means that people
tend to leave them alone.

Unfortunately the actions of a few hotheads in India have somewhat marred
this image: massacres of Hindu civilians and acts of terrorism in support of
a demand for independence for the Punjab have resulted in a degree of
suspicion of all Sikhs and when, a while ago, the terrorists were allowed to
make the Golden Temple of Amritsar their base, the Indian government was
provoked into attacking the temple.

The Sikhs, of course, got all upset and, as we all know, it was Sikh
bodyguards who murdered Indira Gandhi, the person who ordered the attack on
the temple. I have no sympathy for them: if they really wanted to defend
their religion and protect their temple they should all have marched on it,
waving their swords, and expelled the terrorists who had taken refuge there
or at very least negotiated their surrender - rather like we Christians did
when some terrorists took refuge in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

I have no sympathy with gratuitous offensiveness towards any religion, but
the little I know about the play that is at present stirring the Sikh
community seems to indicate that it is not attacking the Sikh religion, but
the behaviour of some Sikhs. The only question is whether it is an accurate
portrayal of what goes on. I do not think that the majority of Sikh
gurdwaras are the scene of rape or murder, any more than the majority of
Catholic priests abuse children. Given human nature and given the events at
the Golden Temple, I do not find it impossible to imagine that rape and
murder *may* take place under cover of a gurdwara.

In that case the appropriate response of the Sikh community should be to
make sure that guidelines and procedures are in place to ensure that such
things cannot happen or, if they do, that the culprits are transparently
exposed and brought to justice.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Debbie wrote:
>
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:45:38 -0000, "Michael Falconer"
> <michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
> >windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
> >example...................
>
> I find your posts offensive.   Does that justify my coming and
> smashing he windows of your house?

I think that's precisely Michael's point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4109315.stm is a useful
reference for those not aware of the story.

Mark

Debbie (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message
<ocpes0ddkrabsqp2sv1i12jejhe40k4nlh@4ax.com>:

> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 22:45:38 -0000, "Michael Falconer"
> <michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
>>windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
>>example...................
>
> I find your posts offensive.   Does that justify my coming and
> smashing he windows of your house?

You tell 'im Debbie, though I would suggest simple manualisation would be
less offensive and more acceptable to the other parties in this ng.
--
Paul Townsend
Pair them off into threes

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

Kendall K. Down offered:

> they should all have marched on it ... rather like we Christians did

I've looked back through my diaries, and I definitely didn't.

--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.

Ken Down wrote:

> Owing to severe persecution by the Mughal empire in its early days, the
> Sikhs have always been a warrior religion, a fact reflected in two of the
> five essentials - every male must wear a dagger (and preferably a sword) and
> must wear underpants (a regulation that allegedly stems from an occasion
> when the Sikh forces were attacked by night and defeated while they all
> struggled into their clothing).
...
> In that case the appropriate response of the Sikh community should be to
> make sure that guidelines and procedures are in place to ensure that such
> things cannot happen or, if they do, that the culprits are transparently
> exposed and brought to justice.

Transparently exposed? Not likely, if they're all wearing underpants.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

"Michael Falconer" <michael.falconer5@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:32p30jF3pcip0U1@individual.net...
>I find the Sikh religion offensive. I think I might go and break a few
>windows at one of their temples, after all i am only following their
>example...................
>

Michael .... then you end up with you as the anti-Sikh aggressor.

Maybe that's not the correct way?

David

In message <p9ij1tqfiamf.1rwci9myvggxn.dlg@40tude.net>
          Jet Wood <cwyfan@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I've looked back through my diaries, and I definitely didn't.

You must have been sleep-walking, then.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down 

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:57:40 GMT, "Kendall K. Down"
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

>I have no sympathy with gratuitous offensiveness towards any religion, but
>the little I know about the play that is at present stirring the Sikh
>community seems to indicate that it is not attacking the Sikh religion, but
>the behaviour of some Sikhs. The only question is whether it is an accurate
>portrayal of what goes on.

No. Not only is that not the only question, it's not the question at
all. If I go to see "The Rivals" by Sheridan, I don't ask myself if
the character of Sir Lucius O'Trigger is an accurate portrayal of
Irishmen; I just enjoy him for the absurd creation he is.  Why should
a modern play be any different? Is the character of Bottom only
justified if we can defend him as the archetype of all weavers? No.
Even if no rape or murder has ever happened in a gurdwara, that is no
argument for not locatiing them there if that's what the playwright
wants.

--
Alec Brady