californiasardar1

Thank you for actually sharing your thoughts on the questions I posed. Much appreciated!

I am not sure why you have labeled my thoughts as "faux-humble nonsense." At some point I realized that if I am struggling so much to do basic things in my life, it must be because of having too many inherent flaws. I don't want to pass those on to poor children who will grow up without a hope. I also don't want to ruin the image of the amritdhari community (there is no way I can live up to what an amritdhari should be). I don't understand what you mean by my "passionate kesh-ahderence remaining strictly within the sphere of secularism." When have I talked about it being secular? Keeping kesh is part of being a Sikh, which is inherently a religious choice. I'm not sure why you would suggest that not being amritdhari would help generate female interest. I would argue that being keshdhari but not amritdhari makes it more difficult to get married. Any girl who actually wants to be with a singh will be amrithdhari and naturally look for an amritdhari.

I rail against "monay" in general (men and women), not just males. I also rail against "singhs" like the Badals and KP Gill (before someone brings them up). If you do want me to start "dividing the blame" by gender, let me point out that Sikh men began cutting there kesh in large numbers when it was still virtually unheard of for a Sikh woman to cut her hair. Before getting haircuts was widespread, Sikh men trimmed their beards in large numbers. Even before that, it was commonplace for "singhs" with long beards to drink regularly and engage in all sorts of other anti-Gurmat behavior. Sikh women have been much better about keeping rehat until relatively recently. To be fair, part of that was probably just socially conservative cultural norms that prohibited women from doing certain things, but it is what it is. SIkh women have also in general been much better at doing path regularly. I think for a long time, it has been Sikh women who have passed down the more spiritual aspects of Sikhi to children. Perhaps that comes down to a natural gender dichotomy where males gravitate towards worldly/social affairs and women gravitate more towards spirituality. Now, I don't think any of that applies to the current generation ?. But if we want to have this discussion and look at how we ended up here, I think it is only fair to point the finger at the group that took the lead every step of the way in normalizing degenerate behavior. Do you think a Punjab filled with hair-cutting women wearing skirts, drinking openly, dancing like idiots etc. would exist with a bunch of men who don't engage in such behavior? No, of course not. But a Punjab with men engaging in degenerate behavior and women behaving respectably existed for a long time before the women joined in the degeneracy.

I don't understand where your comment is coming from. Where did I say that Sikh males are the "problem"?

I'm not being facetious. I am content with my fate to not marry and have children partially (largely?) because it will ensure that I don't "contribute to" (pollute) the Sikh gene pool and further weaken the quam.

Why won't anyone attempt to answer the questions I posed?

no

Guys, please stop derailing this thread. I am seriously curious about how people here would answer the questions in the original post.

F___ monay.

I don't want to embarrass amritdharis by joining their group. They deserve better than me. I am already a huge embarrassment to the Sikh community (> 90% of the posters on sikhsangat have said so at one point or another). I don't want to make it worse by becoming an embarrassment to the amritdhari Sikh community.

I'm not amritdhari. I don't know much about Sikhi, so I am asking the people here.

This kind of posting is why we need WLS/LS/JPS back!

I don't know. It must be similar to how you simultaneously support Sikhi and support the right of people who are born men to shave every day (presumably because they wish to identify as women).

Great post. We should support anti-Muslim politicians. I am sure that people like Eric Zemmour and Marine Le Pen are big fans of the Sikh religion.

Here are some questions for you: Do Sikhs believe in "shrines"? Do Sikhs believe in pilgrimages? Is Amritsar a "Holy City"? Is it important for a Sikh to visit Amritsar? Is Harmander Sahib the "holiest shrine in the Sikh religion"?

Pasted below is exactly what I wrote. Please point to where I said anything about "non-Sikhs" donating. "The criticism of Ravi Singh is ridiculous. Here is why: If he devoted 100% of his charitable efforts to Sikh causes, Khalsa Aid would bring in only a small fraction of what it does in donations. More people are likely to donate to a charity that presents itself as serving all kinds of people all over the globe. So basically, Ravi Singh spending X% of whatever Khalsa Aid brings in right now probably ends up being more than if Ravi Singh spent 100% of what would be a MUCH smaller pot of donations on Sikh issues."

I think a lot of people would take exception to the notion that the mission of the Khalsa is supposed to be "Sikhs first." But anyway, anyone who has internet access can easily see that Khalsa Aid uses its resources all over the globe for various causes. Except for maybe a few 80-year-old bajurgs, I have a hard time believing that the people who donate to Khalsa Aid think that they are donating to an organization that entirely or almost entirely focuses on Sikh issues. If someone is mistaken about what Khalsa Aid does, then that is on them. It is important to be resourceful enough in this day and age to be able to access information that is readily available to everyone.

He is on twitter? I thought he got banned. Anyway, it is better to have people here and debate with them than have them leave IMO.

He was at the very least entertaining and fueled many interesting discussions. Sadly, the mods here seem committed to shutting down any discussion that generates more than a few replies.

Ummm, how does this prove anything that I have written to be wrong? I am not sure why you think that is impossible that many Sikh individuals/organizations are more likely to donate to a charity that presents itself as one with a global outlook interested in assisted all kinds of different people than they are to a charity that is entirely focused on Sikh related issues. In fact, I would guess that Sikhs who are well off and have money to spare are especially more likely to donate to a Sikh organization with a "global" outlook than to a Sikh organization focused on Sikh issues. Anyway, if the Sikhs who donate to Khalsa Aid want their money to be spent only on Sikh-related issues, they clearly shouldn't be donating to Khalsa Aid. It has been obvious for years that Khalsa Aid spends money all over the globe to assist all kinds of different people. The fact that they donate to Khalsa Aid indicates that they are more-or-less happy with how the money is spread around. If you guys have an issue with how Khalsa Aid spends their money, you should convince people who donate to them to donate elsewhere.

The criticism of Ravi Singh is ridiculous. Here is why: If he devoted 100% of his charitable efforts to Sikh causes, Khalsa Aid would bring in only a small fraction of what it does in donations. More people are likely to donate to a charity that presents itself as serving all kinds of people all over the globe. So basically, Ravi Singh spending X% of whatever Khalsa Aid brings in right now probably ends up being more than if Ravi Singh spent 100% of what would be a MUCH smaller pot of donations on Sikh issues.

Wow, what a profound insight! I am glad that more "liberal Sikhs" have taken the initiative to normalize interfaith anand karajs. This provides the basis for us start counting the Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Atheists who like turning up to the Gurdwara on their wedding day in an exotic costume to take part in an "exotic ceremony" as Sikhs! Look at how many people we can gain by being inclusive in this way! And while we are at it, we can automatically give membership to anyone who they are related to! Also, why don't we count all Punjabi-speaking Hindus as Sikhs? After all, most of them have been to a Gurdwara at one point or another. Actually, that gives me another great idea. Think of all of the random tourists who visit Harmandar Sahib every day! Many of them probably matha teked. And even if they didn't they probably held their hands together at some point (mimicking what others around them were doing). Since they showed such respect for Guru Ji, let's include them as Sikhs too!

What is your point in asking me all of these hypothetical questions? There is essentially no future for keshdhari Sikhs. How can keshdhari Sikhs have a place in the future when, even in a Sikh forum like this, everyone is passionately trying to normalize and legitimize hair cutting? Every day I thank Waheguru that I will never marry and have children. Attempting to raise Sikh children in the future would be too difficult (certainly beyond the capabilities of someone like me). How on earth would I be able to convince children to move towards Sikhi when it has been declared that you can just be a "sehajdhari Sikh" (whatever that means) and not follow any rehat? How on earth would I be able to convince children to live like Sikhs when there is no community for them to be a part of?

What did Deep Sidhu do for Sikh interests? Sorry, but farmers' interests are not equivalent to Sikh interests. If Sikhi is ever going to expand, it would be helpful if jatts stopped trying to pretend their interests and Sikh values/principles are one and the same. As far as his impact on Sikhi, a generation of stupid Punjabis who are addicted to social media now think that as a Sikh is is perfectly okay to shave every day and cheat on your wife and have an extramarital affair because, after all, Sant Baba Shaheed Deep Sidhu did so! So Deep Sidhu has has a negative impact on Sikhi, which is less than my non-impact. Sehajdhari Sikhs are declaring that they don't want to be identified as Sikhs. Maybe you should go ask them why. Anyone can go to a Gurdwara. You know that. I don't know what point you are trying to make by bringing up that kind of hypothetical.

Okay, correct me if I am wrong, but the term "khulasa Sikh" seems to correspond to the definition I gave of "sehajdhari:" people born in Hindu families who had an affinity for Sikhi but had not transitioned to being keshdhari Sikhs yet. As far as I can tell, it does NOT refer to people born into keshdhari families who decided to become monay.