USA "Militant" Sikhs Ruin Wedding After Barricading Temple

[Archived_Member16]

Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

They were opposed to multi-faith marriage

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepag...hs-ruin-wedding-after-barricading-temple.html

 

[Ishna]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

Against interfaith marraige but not against shaving, how odd.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

The Anand karaj is held in the presence of the GURU - SGGS who gives advice in the form of Laavan and other shabads sung at this ceremony. As a Non-SIKH wouldnt have any FAITH in the Guru or what He says in the Hukmnamah, ardass etc..its hypocritical for a NON-SIKH to insist on standing before the GURU he doesnt beleive in. The Anand karaj is a RELIGIOUS function and shoudlnt be held for FUN. I have come across a couple having a Anand karaj in a Mandir (bride Hindu) and Anand karaj in a Gurdwara (Groom sikh) or one in a Church and later second one in a Gurdwara or mandir..This is called FUN. Would the GOVT allow one Civil marriage in front of say a ASian Registrar (groom Punjabi) and another in front of White Christian (Bride white christian )..or one civil ceremony by a West African Registrar and a second one in front of a Sikh Registrar because the Husband is West African and the Bride is Sikh. ??? CaN EITHER THE bRIDFE OR GROOM proclaim THAT i dont have faith IN THE uk registrar..or UK Laws on marriage..etc and the registrar still allows the registration ?? A NON-SIKH is actually making a statement.I am NOT a SIKH. Can NON BRITISH CITIZENS register in a Civil marriage in UK ?? if NOT why NOT ? Why the "requirements"...similar requirements exist for an ANAND KARAJ.

The TITLE is MISLEADING and PROVOCATIVE as Ususal...what is MILITANT about these Sikhs ??

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

BTW..the two in the photo at the gate DONT LOOK like SIKHS at all. IF Most of them are like that..the title of the article should be..a GANG DISRUPTS Gurdawra Programme...and the MAJORITY SIKHS should have stepped IN and ENDED such a sacrilege as its the cowardly way out to just keep quiet and ignore this. Next time the GANG will disrupt any programme it doenst agree with. SIKHS must Always have FULL Control of their Gurdwaras....not getting LOCKED OUT by Babas (Daljit of chaicago did that..or by Shady trustees ( NY Rochestor Gurdwara is like that ) or by Gangs of youngsters...its going on too long...

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

Attached is Akal Takhat hukmanamah banning all such MIXED marriages inside Gurdwaras.

 

[Harry Haller]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

The Anand karaj is held in the presence of the GURU - Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji who gives advice in the form of Laavan and other shabads sung at this ceremony. As a Non-SIKH wouldnt have any FAITH in the Guru or what He says in the Hukmnamah, ardass etc..its hypocritical for a NON-SIKH to insist on standing before the GURU he doesnt beleive in. The Anand karaj is a RELIGIOUS function and shoudlnt be held for FUN. I have come across a couple having a Anand karaj in a Mandir (bride Hindu) and Anand karaj in a Gurdwara (Groom sikh) or one in a Church and later second one in a Gurdwara or mandir..This is called FUN. Would the GOVT allow one Civil marriage in front of say a ASian Registrar (groom Punjabi) and another in front of White Christian (Bride white christian )..or one civil ceremony by a West African Registrar and a second one in front of a Sikh Registrar because the Husband is West African and the Bride is Sikh. ??? CaN EITHER THE bRIDFE OR GROOM proclaim THAT i dont have faith IN THE uk registrar..or UK Laws on marriage..etc and the registrar still allows the registration ?? A NON-SIKH is actually making a statement.I am NOT a SIKH. Can NON BRITISH CITIZENS register in a Civil marriage in UK ?? if NOT why NOT ? Why the "requirements"...similar requirements exist for an ANAND KARAJ.

The TITLE is MISLEADING and PROVOCATIVE as Ususal...what is MILITANT about these Sikhs ??

Gyaniji,

Although you raise valid points, these same points probably apply to 99% of all Sikh weddings, not just this one.

 

[Luckysingh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

I don't know what the problem is here. What are these so called militants doing wrong ?- It is ALL blown out of proportion, as in the top page where it says 'hooded miltitants'- Now 'hooded' criminals are 'hooded' so to help disguise themselves.
Do you really think that this group of men were disguising themselves?

Gyanji, I agree with your statement 100%, this was to be a wedding for just some 'show' and 'fun'.

In my opinion, I'm sure that the gurdwara and members of the family would have been warned not to go ahead-insulting guruji.
As a last resort, they physically got there in numbers to peacefully prevent it happening.

As per SRM-
Article XVIII
k. [FONT=CGOLLD+Arial,Arial][FONT=CGOLLD+Arial,Arial]Persons professing faiths other than the Sikh faith cannot be joined in wedlock by the Anand Karaj ceremony.[/FONT][/FONT]


This group would have had some knowledge about the groom. If the groom was a true churchgoer and had no understanding or respect of sikhi, then that itself is NOT the way forward.

I know some of you will think that religion should not be used to hold back a couple that may love each other and want to be together. But, if there is an issue of different religions, like this case, then religion should not be bought into the equation.
Why bring it in without it's true meaning ?
Why bring the sacred ceremony in and deface it ?

 

[Ishna]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

I agree, Anand Karaj sanchar is for Sikhs only.

 

[Archived_member15]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

I understand where you are all coming from peacesignkaur
I don't think that any of us are actually speaking out against interfaith marriage, in terms of a civil ceremony between two people of different faiths, which is I think fully legitimate and should certainly never be discouraged.

However what we are talking about is non-Sikhs partaing of a matrimonial ceremony only for Sikhs - Anand Karaj.

To me, an outsider looking in, this is not at all wrong.

Catholics and people from other faiths, for example, are permitted to be married. The Catholic Church actually allows this to take place in a Catholic Church, which would be the only difference, however non-Christians cannot have a sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church because they are not baptised and the marriage is to be celebrated outside Mass (but not necessarily outside a Church if they so wish). A sacramental marriage in the Catholic Church can only be had by two baptized Christians (need not both be Catholics ie one could be Protestant or Orthodox).

A marriage between a Catholic and a non-Christian is thus a fully recognised, valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church but not the Sacrament of Matrimony because one has to be a baptized Christian and a believer in the doctrines of Trinitarian Christianity to partake of this sanctifying grace from God.

A Catholic marrying a non-Christian thus cannot celebrate their wedding as a Nuptial Mass.


Read:


"...Marriage is only a sacrament when between baptized Christians. When a Catholic marries a non-Christian their marriage can be celebrated, as a covenant bond in a Catholic wedding ceremony, but it is not a sacrament...Marriages between Catholics and non Christians, while they may still be valid in the eyes of the Church, are non-sacramental. With permission, a priest or deacon may witness such marriages...A Nuptial Mass is a Mass which includes the celebration of the sacrament of marriage. It has special readings and prayers suitable to the Sacrament of Marriage. The Sacrament of Marriage between two baptized Catholics should normally be celebrated within Mass. If the situation warrants it and the local bishop gives permission, a Nuptial Mass may be celebrated for a marriage between a Catholic and a baptized person who is not a Catholic, except that Communion is not given to the non-Catholic since the general law of the church does not allow it. In such instances, it is better to use the appropriate ritual for marriage outside Mass. This is always the case in a marriage between a baptized Catholic and a non-baptized person...If a Catholic marries a non-baptised person, the marriage is to be celebrated outside Mass...The Rite for Celebrating Marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person is set outside Mass within a Liturgy of the Word.
Given multiple options for various elements, a couple can make choices that reflect their aspirations for marriage and are most appropriate for their family and the local community. The wedding liturgy can be personally expressive while proclaiming the Catholic vision for their union. The third form of the Rite for Celebrating Marriage, between a Catholic and an unbaptized person, while not a Sacrament (an unbaptized person does not celebrate a sacrament) is a complete and valid rite, signifying a permanent bond, that offers the couple many options. When the couple makes choices that reflect their own prayerfulness, religious practice, and social responsibility, their individuality and hopes for marriage will shine out in their Scripture, prayer, and music selections. Their wedding will be the holy, hospitable, and happy celebration it is meant to be, reflective of the Church’s vision for their marriage... "


However the Catholic Church stills prefers that the spouses have some kind of Catholic wedding at least alongside a civil one or one in another religious body, which is the only difference I suppose We have a whole Rite and ritual for marriages between Catholics and non-Christians. And of course, it likes if they celebrate their wedding at some point in a Catholic Church too.

I suppose that a non-Sikh trying to partake of Anand Karaj would be not that dissimilar from a non-baptized, non-Christian person walking into a Catholic Church and declaring that he has a right to a sacramental marriage and a Nuptial Mass without any understanding of the Catholic teaching on marriage nor a commitment to Jesus Christ?

Am I right? peacesign

 

[kds1980]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

BTW..the two in the photo at the gate DONT LOOK like SIKHS at all. IF Most of them are like that..the title of the article should be..a GANG DISRUPTS Gurdawra Programme...and the MAJORITY SIKHS should have stepped IN and ENDED such a sacrilege as its the cowardly way out to just keep quiet and ignore this. Next time the GANG will disrupt any programme it doenst agree with. SIKHS must Always have FULL Control of their Gurdwaras....not getting LOCKED OUT by Babas (Daljit of chaicago did that..or by Shady trustees ( NY Rochestor Gurdwara is like that ) or by Gangs of youngsters...its going on too long...

Just because the two of them are not sporting turbans and beards so they are not looking like sikh.If tomorow any of them will win Olympic medal then most of the sikhs will go gaga over them and tell everybody how a sikh has won gold medal.We need to accept that if some mona do something wrong or acheive something then should he/she be described as sikh.

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

KDS JI..I said they dont "Look" like SIKHS..and they WONT until they wear a dastaar and beard. Period. You see SIKHS have a special IDENTIFYING ID..clear as Glass !! and anyone who fails to be seen through this clear glass is NOT having THAT ID. I am not judging anyone..and I for one never go Gaga over anyone..bearded or muchh-less... Baldy...afro hairstyle..or even lady gaga type or ...I only Go GAGA over the SGGS..

Just Last MONTH we had a Gurdwara President who "looks" like the Sikhs in the picture..,,and he appeared in the Media picture alongside the Catholic priest, the Buddhist chief, The Hindu Chief...and as a SIKH he should have been the EASIEST to RECOGNISE..but he blended into the Background becasue he wasnt in Turban and freshly shaved...I wrote him an immediate EMAIL..to which he too immediately replied saying SORRY. Next Media Interview he was sporting a DASHING TURBAN and had an inch long stubble. It turned out I was the ONLY one to point it out that in any GURDWARA RELATED NEWS..the persons claiming to be SIKHS must LOOK LIKE SIKHS as the Public generally believes SIKHS look LIKE. BTW..the Dashing Turban and beard stubble was ONLY for the MEDIA...( and he was honest enough to let me know too ) as he has always been a MONA Sikh and wishes to remain one...and THATS his perogrative...BUT NOT as a GURDWARA REP.)

 

[Gyani Jarnail Singh]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

Vouthon Ji is Right about the similarities in the Sacramental and Nuptial mass as in Anand karaj.
No one except a Catholic gets to receive he blessed bread/wine too. Not every body who feels like it can go line up in front of the Catholic priest and demand the sacrament...( IN Malaysia we had a scandal some time ago when two Muslims supposedly underground detectives doing investigation work on Christians converting Muslims (which is a CRIME by law here) who went and had the Blessed sacrament placed on their tongues - pretending to be catholics...and then spat it out when outside the Church...they were observed and unmasked...hence the scandal..

 

[Archived_Member16]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

AS A MATER OF INTEREST:

S.G.P.C. says a Sikh is one with untrimmed hair. And so makes half the community apostate.

This legal hair-splitting may strip Sikhs in Punjab and elsewhere of their religious identity. On January 16, the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (S.G.P.C.), which runs all Sikh religious institutions in Punjab and is commonly referred to as the Sikh parliament, filed an affidavit in the Punjab and Haryana High Court defining who is a Sikh. Going by this definition, all those with shorn or even partially trimmed hair are 'patit' or apostate, even if they practise the faith in all other ways. Given that a lot of Sikhs today trim their hair, and many have done away with the turban too, the S.G.P.C.'s definition would render more than 70 per cent of Sikhs apostates.

It all began quite innocuously, when some students from Amritsar filed a petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for being denied admission under the 'Sikh quota' in an S.G.P.C.-run educational institution on grounds that they did not qualify as 'Sikhs' because they had trimmed their hair.

The students contended that they were 'Sehajdhari Sikhs', a term loosely used for Sikhs with shorn hair. At this, the high court asked the S.G.P.C. to define a 'Sehajdhari Sikh' exactly and the importance of hair in Sikhism. Its response triggered a furious debate within the community on a subject that is vital to their identity.

The S.G.P.C. had filed an affidavit in December, where it said it wasn't mandatory for a 'Sehajdhari Sikh' (which it defined as novices entering the Sikh faith) to preserve body hair. However, if a Sehajdhari took the next step and became a 'keshdhari', any trimming of hair subsequently would make him 'patit'. Conservative Sikh religious bodies and institutions baulked at this accommodating definition, accusing the S.G.P.C. of diluting the faith and playing into the hands of 'R.S.S. elements within its ranks'.

Rattled, the S.G.P.C. filed an amended affidavit on January 16, categorically declaring that those with trimmed hair had no place in Sikhism. This, in effect, extended recognition to only two categories of Sikhs - Amritdharis, or baptised Sikhs, also called 'Khalsas'; and Sehajdhari or novice Sikhs. Amritdhari Sikhs, who are few in number, undergo an 'amrit chakhna' baptism, taking vows that bind them to a set of very stringent rules. The new definition puts those who are not baptised and also trim their hair, beard or eyebrows as 'patits' even if they are born Sikhs, believe in the Granth Sahib and the gurus, and perform prayers and other ceremonies as per Sikh traditions. An overwhelming number of rural Sikh youth and N.R.I.s born in Sikh homes fall in this category.

This amended definition, though it has appeased conservative religious bodies, has caused considerable unease, even disgust, within the wider Sikh community at what is being seen as increased rigidity and intolerance in a religion that was born out of a reaction to fundamentalist forces in medieval times.

Even some 'hardline' Sikhs have expressed disapproval. Declares advocate R.S. Bains, best known for his determined defence of Khalistan extremists in the courts: 'I am a shorn Sikh and till his retirement, my father, Justice (retd.) Ajit Singh Bains (a well-known Khalistan sympathiser too), also had shorn hair. If we are not Sikhs, then who is? Even at the height of the Khalistan movement, most militants were clean-shaven. By ignoring reality, our religious clergy is risking cutting itself off from the mainstream with its narrow vision.'

The all-pervasive presence of 'shorn Sikhs' was starkly brought before the courts when, in the course of a hearing, one of the judges noticed that the counsel for the S.G.P.C., Gurminder Singh Gill, was himself an apostate, as per the definition he had placed before the court. Nevertheless, Gill told Outlook: 'For myself, I am very clear that if I am in a faith, then I should conform or be prepared to be tagged as an apostate. The physical form of a Sikh is manifested through unshorn hair. Not only does he have the duty to keep his own hair unshorn but also that of keeping his child's hair intact.'

Well-known theatre director Neelam Mansingh, who hails from a prominent Sikh family of Amritsar that boasted of several priests, adopted a more liberal interpretation of her faith when she agreed to the wish of her two growing boys to shed their turbans. 'Soon after the boys had cut their hair,' she recalls, 'my father came to live with us. I was very apprehensive of his reaction. But he did an 'ardas' for the boys and told me that Guru Nanak never had long hair. And that it is written in the Guru Granth Sahib, 'Baal mein na dharam hota hai, na karam' (Neither duty nor honour lies in the hair)'. Mansingh added: 'We Sikhs need to become more open, and preserve the beauty of our faith rather than get dogged about external forms. The S.G.P.C. is alienating a whole generation of youngsters . . . It does not really represent the vast majority of Sikhs.'

One of the first to raise his voice against the new definition of Sikhs was the resident editor of the Hindustan Times Chandigarh edition, Kanwar Sandhu. In a candid weekly column, he wrote about his own failure to adopt the rigorous rules followed by a baptised Sikh, yet argued persuasively that it didn't affect his right to be a believing Sikh.

Opposition to the S.G.P.C.'s rigid stance is also coming from within the clergy. Bhai Ranjit Singh, a former jathedar of the Akal Takht, told Outlook, 'As I see it, 'patits' or apostates are only those who have defaulted (trimmed their hair) after getting baptised. It does not apply to non-baptised Sikhs. The rights of a Sikh, born into a Sikh family, cannot be taken away on these grounds.'

Almost everyone agrees that the S.G.P.C., having been far too busy with politics, has done precious little to inculcate Sikh norms and values among the community, and is now trying to assert itself by dictating rigid rules and conditions. Sandhu, for instance, points to the inability of the ruling Akali Dal, the all-powerful political limb of the S.G.P.C., to enforce Sikh rules and tenets despite having been in power several times over in Punjab. 'Though all forms of Sikhs can enlist in the armed forces, only those who strictly follow the Sikh Rehat Maryada (religious code) can enlist in the Sikh regiment . . . Ironically, there is no such stipulation in any wing of Punjab's own police!' he points out.

As for the down-to-earth Punjabi farmer, he couldn't care less about quibbling theologians. He would rather go by what the state's best-known floriculturist Avtar Singh Dhindsa has to say: 'Whether I display the outward forms of my religion or not is a personal matter. It does not take away my Sikhism from me.' In fact, he adds, 'I may be a better Sikh than them in many ways.' Amen.

http://www.sikhtimes.com/news_021609a.html

************************************************************
The Code for Anand Sanskar (Marriage Ceremony):

English version:
Code 2: Anand Sanskar (K): The marriage of a person of other religion cannot be solemnized according to the customs of Anand.

Such marriages where one spouse does not belong to Sikhism are being performed by many Gurdwaras without any realization that they are violating the code of Anand Sanskar. This type of marriage is becoming common among the Sikhs especially in the Western world. Yet no Gurdwara has ever refused to perform such marriages and even no Sikh authority has ever raised any objection to the violation of this code. If "unmat walian" is interpreted as "Non-Kesadharis" or "Non-Amritdharis" then the violation of that code becomes more prevalent and serious one that has been ignored by many Gurdwaras and the Sikh authorities.

http://www.iuscanada.com/journal/articles/art003.html
**************************************************************
Q: What are Sikh beliefs on Inter-Faith marriage?

A: Sikh: A follower of Sikhism. Sikh is a word derived from Sanskrit. Literally translated, the word means disciple or student. In the Sikh faith, the word Sikh means someone who strives to learn about God, is a seeker of God and truth, and someone who follows Guru Granth Sahib Ji to achieve such goals.'). Sikh Guru: A spiritual leader sent by God. Gu means Darkness and Ru means Light. Literally translated, Guru means \'The Light that dispels darkness\'. Guru is a highly spiritual teacher who has been sent to Earth by God and is in direct communion with God. There has been a total of 10 living Sikh Gurus, who brought knowledge of God. The eternal Guruship (spiritual and temporal authority) lye in the Guru Granth Sahib Ji (the Sikh Holy Scripture compiled by Sikh Gurus and other devotees who themselves have attained salvation).')Gurus showed a lifestyle which one can follow to meet God. It is better to get married to someone with whom you share similar beliefs than to marry out of religion. Sikhism does not state that marrying out of religion is wrong or a sin. However, the marriage has a far better chance of success if the couple belongs to the same religion. Since beliefs can differ and can cause conflicts, it is better to be with someone with the same belief system.

The more a married couple has in common, the more likely their marriage will be successful. When a couple disagrees on basic core values and beliefs, it can lead to additional stress, conflicts, and disappointment. The issue of how kids are raised can be especially problematic. The decision regarding which teaching and beliefs should the children be taught can become difficult to deal with.

Sikhism is a modern religion, and instructs that all humans are created equal. In no way Sikhism states that one should not marry another human because they are less of human or inferior. All humans are equal but people from different religions have different beliefs. The difference in beliefs system and lifestyle is the main reason to marry within the religion.

A Sikh: A follower of Sikhism. Sikh is a word derived from Sanskrit. Literally translated, the word means disciple or student. In the Sikh faith, the word Sikh means someone who strives to learn about God, is a seeker of God and truth, and someone who follows Guru Granth Sahib Ji to achieve such goals.')". Sikh can get married out of the religion if they choose to, however they cannot do so in the Gurdwara Sahib: Sikh place of worship or Sikh Church.

Gurdwara Sahib is a compound word created by combining Gur, meaning Guru and Dwara, meaning door or house. Thus the word Gurdwara means the door or house of the Guru. Sri Guru Granth Sahib is always present at the Gurdwara Sahib.')" "Gurdwara Sahib since Anand Karaj: Anand Karaj is the Sikh Marriage Ceremony. Anad Karaj is held in the present of the Sikh Scripture, Guru Granth Sahib Ji by reciting four verses. Sikh Marriage is a spiritual bond between a man and a woman in the presence of God.')" .Anand Karaj (Sikh Marriage Ceremony) is very spiritual, religious and a promise with God.

In order to live a peaceful lifestyle to accomplish the purpose of the human life, one should get married to a Sikh so that the couple can together carry on their journey on the path showed by Sikh Gurus.

http://realsikhism.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1253135932&ucat=7

 

[ugsbay]

SSA,
Why are these Sikhs been labelled as Militants, in other word's when any sikh stands up for what he or she believes in then they are millitant. The name is just another one on the list to make sikhs look bad. This marriage to me looks like it was just there with the sole intension of show nothing else. The brides parents should have known how sensitive this issue is but it looks like they cared for their own image more than the "Guru Granth Sahib" and the gurdwara as a whole.

 

[Archived_member15]

Re: Militant Sikhs ruin wedding after barricading temple

Vouthon Ji is Right about the similarities in the Sacramental and Nuptial mass as in Anand karaj.
No one except a Catholic gets to receive he blessed bread/wine too. Not every body who feels like it can go line up in front of the Catholic priest and demand the sacrament...( IN Malaysia we had a scandal some time ago when two Muslims supposedly underground detectives doing investigation work on Christians converting Muslims (which is a CRIME by law here) who went and had the Blessed sacrament placed on their tongues - pretending to be catholics...and then spat it out when outside the Church...they were observed and unmasked...hence the scandal..

Yes you are 100% correct my dear brother Gyani ji mundahug Even when two baptized Christians have a sacramental marriage with nuptial mass, the non-Catholic spouse cannot partake of the Blessed Sacrament.

I once encountered a situation on a forum whereby a Hindu member who was married too a Catholic created a huge controversy on the forum by saying that when he went to mass with his Catholic spouse he joined the queue and took the Eucharist with all the other Catholics, even though he knew that he wasn't allowed to do so!

He protested, quite angrily, his "right" to take the sacrament even though he wasn't Catholic, didn't believe in the teachings of the Church nor our belief in transubstantiation concerning the Eucharist. A lot of people found it too be incredibly disingenious since he was essentially fooling the priest and the people serving the Eucharist into believing that he was a Catholic. He just couldn't accept that he wasn't allowed to take communion because he wasn't baptized.


He felt somehow "discriminated" against and couldn't understand it from our perspective at all. He also refused to accept that there was anything disrespectful about joining the queue, blessing himself as if he were a baptized Catholic and taking the Eucharist against 2,000 years of Canon Law saying otherwise. The thread had to be closed because despite how often posters told him otherwise, he protested that he was stil going to go up for the bread and wine along with his wifeNo one could convince him otherwise.

I found his actions to be incredibly disrespectful to our beliefs, even though they were pretexted on a kind of religious indifferentism which went along the lines of, "all religions are the same so your Church has no right to tell me not to take communion if I feel like it".

And that story about the Muslims in your own country is outrageous! How terribly disrespectful too the rules of another religious body, to partake of the consecrated bread and wine illicitly and then to spit it out. Disgusting actually.

 

[Randip Singh]

I don't really agree with how these guys did this, but from what I understand, if you both don't believe in the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib, what is the point of getting married with it?

It's just a meaningless ceremony surely?

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

Actually the point that they are raising is that such marriages have been happening since decades.Why did these people stand up against this issue now? Anyway the couple is allowed to go and marry anywhere.

Question is just that because you are born in Sikh family (either the bride or groom), is that sufficient enough for you to feel like a Sikh and be eligible to stand before Guru Sahib for Anand Karaj? Wasn't there a pratha that first one should take Amrit before one can go for Anand Karaj (I think it is still practiced in Hazur Sahib and Hyderabad).

ਗਉੜੀ ਮਹਲਾ ੫ ॥
Gauree, Fifth Mehl:

ਜਾ ਕਾ ਮੀਤੁ ਸਾਜਨੁ ਹੈ ਸਮੀਆ ॥
Those who have the Lord as their Friend and Companion -

ਤਿਸੁ ਜਨ ਕਉ ਕਹੁ ਕਾ ਕੀ ਕਮੀਆ ॥੧॥
tell me, what else do they need? ||1||

ਜਾ ਕੀ ਪ੍ਰੀਤਿ ਗੋਬਿੰਦ ਸਿਉ ਲਾਗੀ ॥
Those who are in love with the Lord of the Universe -

ਦੂਖੁ ਦਰਦੁ ਭ੍ਰਮੁ ਤਾ ਕਾ ਭਾਗੀ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
pain, suffering and doubt run away from them. ||1||Pause||

ਜਾ ਕਉ ਰਸੁ ਹਰਿ ਰਸੁ ਹੈ ਆਇਓ ॥
Those who have enjoyed the flavor of the Lord's sublime essence

ਸੋ ਅਨ ਰਸ ਨਾਹੀ ਲਪਟਾਇਓ ॥੨॥
are not attracted to any other pleasures. ||2||

ਜਾ ਕਾ ਕਹਿਆ ਦਰਗਹ ਚਲੈ ॥
Those whose speech is accepted in the Court of the Lord -

ਸੋ ਕਿਸ ਕਉ ਨਦਰਿ ਲੈ ਆਵੈ ਤਲੈ ॥੩॥
what do they care about anything else? ||3||

ਜਾ ਕਾ ਸਭੁ ਕਿਛੁ ਤਾ ਕਾ ਹੋਇ ॥
Those who belong to the One, unto whom all things belong -

ਨਾਨਕ ਤਾ ਕਉ ਸਦਾ ਸੁਖੁ ਹੋਇ ॥੪॥੩੩॥੧੦੨॥
O Nanak, they find a lasting peace. ||4||33||102||

 

[Archived_member15]

I think that the crux of the situation would be that:

Everyone has a right to marriage and this should not be impeded by difference of race, caste/social status, culture or religion however people also have a human right to religious freedom which in the case of Sikhs and Catholics, for example, means that people outside these faiths cannot partake of Anand Karaj (Sikh) or a Sacramental Marriage/Nuptial Mass (Catholic) even though they can be married in a civil or other service because these two groups have unique understandings of these ceremonies that are important to their religious libery.

Since a human right cannot crush or trump another human right, Sikhs and Catholics (and others if they have any such regulations) have the right to their cherished rites, practices and laws being fully respected so long as marriage between members of different faiths is not prohibited if celebrated in another place/different capacity, since this would crush the right to marriage.

None of this means that one is opposed in any way to interfaith marriage rather it is a legitimate defence of one's religious tradition.

 

[Luckysingh]

Vouthon ji, I agree and understand exactly what you are putting across.
I for one, have no objection with interfaith marriages. It just becomes a sensitive issue when they want a sikh ceremony but one party is not a sikh or a believer.

It's just in these cases one has to think thoroughly that they are not defacing the sacred ceremony as one party has no faith or belief.

We should not object to interfaith marriages but we shouldn't just bring in the 'anand karaj' ceremony just for the sake of it. There should be dignity,respect, understanding, belief and respect to the value of this ceremony for sikhs.

Issues occur if the non-sikh is known to be practicing another faith, as in this case. However, the non-sikh may have a complete understanding of the sikh ceremony after some effort and will be willing so, as to honour the respect of their sikh partner. They may be prepared to dedicate much more effort into sikhism. - These kind of cases have to be assessed individually. Infact, I have known of a non-sikh groom that before his marriage was atheist and then became dedicated to sikhism prior to the marriage to a sikh girl. This wedding ceremony was one of the most memorable as his behaviour and actions were noted by everyone to be MORE sikh like than most punjabi sikhs!

The sensitivity is about the 'show'and exploiting of anand karaj just to show yes, so and so got married in a gurdwara. Don't get me wrong there are also many people born into sikh families that have a sikh ceremony and the person may not have even an ounce of sikhism in them. This is also very disrespectful but goes through as it is camouflaged as one will be punjabi!!

In this regard, I understand why someone in the article made the comment that this issue was about 'racism' -They have a valid point because if this black christian guy was just an ordnary punjabi looking indian, but with exactly the same amount of understanding and respect as the non sikh black guy- then it wouldn't have caused any issue!!!

So, I can understand the sensitivity and wrong message that this issue can portray, but in these situations we must 1stly uphold our honour and regard for sikhi and the Guru's ceremony, then base the remaining conduction of unity or marriage accordingly in order of priority without offending anything or anyone.
The priority should be of conducting the formal unity of the relationship without any insult to Guruji and like I said by not defacing the sacred element of anand karaj in any way.
NOTE- this rule should also be applied to not just interfaith marriages, but ALL marriages.