This is the classic example of a mythbusting post creating its own misconceptions. Not saying that my effort to refute (some) of this points will be any better, but here goes:
First of all, the name seems kind of strange. Ghostbusters was a movie about busting ghosts, because ghosts are bad. Later, someone created a TV show called Mythbusters, because myths are bad, right? So what does Sikhbusters mean? Busting Sikhs ... because Sikhs are bad??
OK, the post is written by, it seems, some college student Reddit denizen who has now taken Amrit. It seems he tries his best to fit Sikhism into the modern Western framework. FYI, Reddit Sikh forum is a den of atheists, so by that standard simply expressing faith in Guru Granth Sahib would be radically conservative by that standard.
He seems to be quite full of himself:
Yet, he also talks in a number of places about subduing ego:
Political correctness and western influence
He says Sikhs shouldn't be politically correct:
Yet he himself engages in promoting the politically correct 21st century Western worldview by promoting abortion, homosexuality, homosexual marriage, even homosexual Anand Karaj (!), interfaith marriage, no need to follow Rehit, women in Panj Piyare, and railing about the "patriarchy".
And all this, despite saying about the name of our religion:
Got it. So we need to call our religion Sikhism to avoid the influence of the evil white man, while totally accepting the influence of the benevolent white man of the 21st century. Basically, as long as we call it by its Punjabi name, we're all clear to import any and all modern Western notions. /s
I know some of you will disagree with this since you were indoctrinated from kindergarten to college by your feminist teachers against the "patriarchy", but:
A user named MahakaalAkali took it upon himself to refute this stuff:
Unfortunately, he got sidetracked arguing with a another user about Khanda/Kirpan Amrit, which detracts from his main point, and which isn't accepted by traditional organizations in Punjab, even the ones he cites (such as Taksals of Punjab). I feel that at a time such as this, when even the basis of the Sikh religion, 5 banis, existence of God, etc., are being threatened, and 21st century Western worldview is being imported wholesale, it is not worthwhile to be upset at or start a fight regarding women wearing small turbans. He also said Babu Teja Singh Bhasauria created the Akhand Kirtani Jatha, which is incorrect. Again, I feel that such statements are counterproductive. It also would be pointless for Nihungs to fight with sants and taksals because they tell their sangat not to eat meat.
I feel this is a very irreverent way of referring to Amrit. Also referring to Guru Granth Sahib as an "it" leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Agree with this.
Agreed, but then he goes and puts forth 21st century Canadian leftist values as Sikh values (see section on Political Correctness above).
Nice of him to say, but it's undermined by the relentless leftist agenda above.
This is true, but who was confused about this? The same sources that confirm Guru Granth Sahib's guruship also confirm that Guru Gobind Singh ji was asked by the Singhs to add their bani to the Pothi Sahib (now Guru Granth Sahib), and Guru Sahib said that (Guru Granth Sahib) is the Guru, this (my Granth) is my khed (play).
At least I get the sense that if I were sitting with this guy, and happened to quote a line from Dasam Granth Sahib, he wouldn't freak out, which is good.
Female infanticide is horrific and should be banned. Male infanticide is just fine? I thought he said males and females should be treated equally.
Nice of him to say, but it's a bit undermined by him claiming that Sikhs claiming Sikhism is the only way to God creates ego in us.
Depends on definition of "monotheistic". His flippant phrase "man in heaven watching over us" is meant to denigrate Abrahamic religions, but ends up partially undermining ours. Agree that the Abrahamics don't believe God to be omnipresent, but they do accept that he is omnipotent and omniscient.
I do believe that God is watching over us, that's even implied when he says God is omniscient. I also believe he resides in Sach Khand (but is also omnipresent). Finally he uses "man" jokingly, but the Mul Mantar that he invokes also uses the word "Purkh" (man) for God .
Why does he say this? Even the SGPC's Sikh Rehit Maryada, cited by him, states plainly that kakkars are to be kept "ang-sang" (on your person).
If it's not to be of iron, what then? Is gold OK? How about a wooden "kirpan"? The whole point of iron is that it's not an expensive metal, like gold. And it's actually a weapon, not of wood. I also feel he dismisses the symbolic aspects of Sarbloh too fast.
Agree with this.
OK, but he undermines the above with this:
If he acknowledges that guns were available during Guru's time, and Guru ji still mandated a kirpan, not a gun, then on what logic can he call a lightsaber a kirpan? Agreed that a Sikh could carry a lightsaber if he deemed it appropriate.
Apologies for any errors on my part. Thoughts?
White-washed horsesh*t. There is no mystery surrounding Dasam and Sarbloh Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. The stance on same gender marriage is pretty clear in Sikhi as well. This is all flowery/liberal crap
I have seen hairy swimmers. Go right ahead. Or wear full body cover if you are too sensitive. When you are in the water who cares as no one can see. I am a lady and sometimes I go with my hairy legs. In the deep its insignificant.
I read the article. It was an admirable lesson in Sikh history. The facts can't be disputed. Perhaps a touch too idealistic, but ultimately we also don't want to end up in a Sunni Vs Shia situation, too. We must learn from history, but importantly we must also learn from the mistakes of others in order to prevent ourselves from succumbing to the same issues.