☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Mixed Marriage In Gurduaras
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JourneyOflife" data-source="post: 202995" data-attributes="member: 20695"><p>I'm going to give my honest opinion on this. I know there are likely people who will disagree, but I assure you my goal is not to offend anyone with my remarks so apologies in advance if that does happen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, they should not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The two are not mutually inclusive. I.E. you can come in and "enjoy the blessings of the Guru and the sangat in congregation" without being married in the Gurdwara. I think anyone should be able to come in and bow their head before the Guru regardless of whether they are married to a non-Sikh or not. But marriage in a Gurdwara? No, that is for two Sikhs.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Note that I am not trying to argue against Sikhs marrying non-Sikhs in this post, only against Sikhs marrying non-Sikhs <em>inside of Gurdwaras. </em>What anyone chooses to do outside of the Gurdwara is none of mine or anyone else's business.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are other reasons as well. I can elaborate if need be.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is not creating "stone walls", this is just a matter of common sense. A stone wall would be if we didn't let anyone who wanted to enter Sikhi be able to join the Panth. Our fence <em>is </em>"porous" because anyone who wishes to step on the path of the Guru is able to do so at any point of their lives. It is logically inconsistent to say we should bend over backwards and allow non-Sikhs to get married in Gurdwaras so as not to "create stone walls" but then not allow people to enter the Gurdwara without taking off their shoes, covering their head or not being under the influence of mind-altering substances. Because under this logic, isn't that "creating stone walls" as well?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As before, it would only be an "impenetrable stone wall" if we didn't allow others to join the Guru's Panth. But that is certainly not the case.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This does not aid the argument at all. Christianity has become so diluted and cherry-picked in the west that it's ridiculous. If we want Sikhi to go down the same path then by all means let's follow the example of the Catholics but if we actually care about maintaining the core and foundation of Sikhi intact then let's not engage in the {censored}ization of our Panth just because "other communities are doing it."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then they are more than welcome to get married in court or elsewhere. There's only two ways I can see this going:</p><p></p><p></p><p>a) Either we let people do whatever they want in Gurdwaras in the name of "humanity and love" even when it goes against Sikhi or</p><p></p><p></p><p>b) Recognize that there are certain <em>house rules </em>which must be respected and then decide who has the authority to implement them.</p><p></p><p></p><p>We already don't do the first. As just one example, Guru Amar Das ji banned the veil for women and this has carried over into the modern Sikh Rehat Maryada which forbids women who are covering their faces to enter into a Gurdwara. Where is the "humanity and love" when we tell Niqab-wearing Muslim women they cannot enter the Gurdwara if they do not show their face? It is therefore inconsistent to use this as an excuse to let non-Sikhs marry in Gurdwaras.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So we’re left with option B. We already have house rules in place, all that’s left now is to decide whether the ban on non-Sikhs marrying in Gurdwaras comes from the appropriate authorities.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What do you think is the “origin of this law” in Sikhi?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Fear of dilution: attempts at dilution are almost unavoidable in Hindu-dominated India. Read Rehatnama literature and British accounts of the damage Hinduism had done to Sikhi back in the 19th-20th centuries and it soon becomes apparent that this ‘fear’ is firmly rooted in reality, not irrationality. On the contrary, it would be irrational to close our eyes and pretend this threat doesn’t exist because we don’t want it to be real.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Insular barrier to “outsiders”: I wouldn’t call it that when anyone is allowed to become a Sikh. But in some sense yes, the whole point of a unit like the Khalsa Panth was to distinguish and in a way separate Sikhs from other religious groups. But the Khalsa is open to anyone wishing to join so the comparison is not wholly accurate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is not the primary purpose of the ban. But I would love to see an actual study which showed the rate of success of marriage when the couple was of the same faith vs. different faith.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Guru Nanak ascended to the Gurgaddi in 1499. He married Mata Sulakhani in 1487. It is unlikely Sikhi even existed at the time of their marriage so the question itself makes no sense. Furthermore throughout most of human civilization history it has been the norm for wives to adopt the religious customs of their husbands. So even if she wasn’t a ‘Sikh’ at the time of their marriage- which is fine because who’s Sikh would she be if Guru Nanak was not yet ‘officially’ the Guru?- it is probable that she adopted the Path when Sikhi came into the world in 1499.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The Harmandir Sahib may have four doors, one on each side, to indicate that it is open to people regardless of wherever they may come from, but there is still only one queue that leads into the complex itself. People from all corners of the world are welcome, but we must all still adhere to the same basic guidelines as we are going in otherwise if we are coming from the opposite side we will drown in the sarovar that surrounds Harmandir Sahib.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, so why are we screaming at each other instead of looking to our Gurus for the answer?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I’ve highlighted just how illogical and inconsistent it is for us to allow mixed-faith marriages to take place in Gurdwaras and if someone disagrees, I’d love to have a discussion on it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a false dichotomy. Sitting down to listen to Kirtan and getting married in Gurdwaras are not even remotely the same thing. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation; we can allow people to do one but not the other, and vice-versa.</p><p></p><p>EDIT: Okay so regarding the point about how there are "many unhappy and broken marriages between people of the same faith, whether Sikh or not, and many successful and loving marriages between a Sikh and a non-Sikh", I went out and actually dug up some numbers to see what I could find. I can't say the results are shocking.</p><p></p><p>"But the effects on the marriages themselves can be tragic -- it is an <strong>open secret</strong> among academics that tsk-tsking grandmothers may be right. According to calculations based on the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, people who had been in mixed-religion marriages were <strong>three times more likely to be divorced or separated</strong> than those who were in same-religion marriages."</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060402011.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060402011.html</a></p><p></p><p>"Couples in interfaith marriages are, on average, less happy than same-faith ones. In certain faith-combinations they are more likely to divorce. While roughly a third of all evangelicals’ marriages end up in divorce, that climbs to nearly half for marriages between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. It is especially high for evangelicals married to someone with no religion--61%"</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/19/seven-things-dont-know-about-interfaith-marriage.html" target="_blank">http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/19/seven-things-dont-know-about-interfaith-marriage.html</a></p><p></p><p>"Emmanual Clapsis writes:</p><p></p><p>"Controversy abounds on the topic of survival rates, but the best studies show a higher survival rate for single faith marriages than [for] interfaith marriages."<em> </em></p><p></p><p>Another old study published in 1993 by Evelyn Lehrer of the <em>University of Illinois at Chicago</em>, found that at the five-year point in marriage:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">About 20% of marriages between two mainline Christian denominations are divorced.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">About 33% of marriages between a Catholic and an evangelical are divorced</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Over 40% of marriages between a Jew and a Christian are divorced.</li> </ul><p></p><p>Egon Mayer, a professor at <em>Brooklyn College,</em> published another study confirming that inter-faith couples experience higher divorce rates. Referring to the case where one spouse abandons their religion and adopts their spouse's faith, he wrote in <em>USA Today</em>:</p><p></p><p>"When you bury something that is really important to you, all you're doing is building up a kind of pressure within the family relationship, which becomes a source of tension, which ultimately becomes a time bomb. If there's any reason why intermarriages break up, it's because of that time bomb.""</p><p></p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>So while the <em>main </em>reason for this ban may not necessarily be to promote more successful marriages, it does seem like there is a greater chance for successful marriage anyways when you marry within your faith than when you marry outside it. Of course there will always be outliers and "exceptions to the rule", but national studies do seem to indicate that in general if you want your marriage to have a higher chance of lasting, marry someone who shares your religious convictions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JourneyOflife, post: 202995, member: 20695"] I'm going to give my honest opinion on this. I know there are likely people who will disagree, but I assure you my goal is not to offend anyone with my remarks so apologies in advance if that does happen. No, they should not. The two are not mutually inclusive. I.E. you can come in and "enjoy the blessings of the Guru and the sangat in congregation" without being married in the Gurdwara. I think anyone should be able to come in and bow their head before the Guru regardless of whether they are married to a non-Sikh or not. But marriage in a Gurdwara? No, that is for two Sikhs. Note that I am not trying to argue against Sikhs marrying non-Sikhs in this post, only against Sikhs marrying non-Sikhs [I]inside of Gurdwaras. [/I]What anyone chooses to do outside of the Gurdwara is none of mine or anyone else's business. There are other reasons as well. I can elaborate if need be. This is not creating "stone walls", this is just a matter of common sense. A stone wall would be if we didn't let anyone who wanted to enter Sikhi be able to join the Panth. Our fence [I]is [/I]"porous" because anyone who wishes to step on the path of the Guru is able to do so at any point of their lives. It is logically inconsistent to say we should bend over backwards and allow non-Sikhs to get married in Gurdwaras so as not to "create stone walls" but then not allow people to enter the Gurdwara without taking off their shoes, covering their head or not being under the influence of mind-altering substances. Because under this logic, isn't that "creating stone walls" as well? As before, it would only be an "impenetrable stone wall" if we didn't allow others to join the Guru's Panth. But that is certainly not the case. This does not aid the argument at all. Christianity has become so diluted and cherry-picked in the west that it's ridiculous. If we want Sikhi to go down the same path then by all means let's follow the example of the Catholics but if we actually care about maintaining the core and foundation of Sikhi intact then let's not engage in the {censored}ization of our Panth just because "other communities are doing it." Then they are more than welcome to get married in court or elsewhere. There's only two ways I can see this going: a) Either we let people do whatever they want in Gurdwaras in the name of "humanity and love" even when it goes against Sikhi or b) Recognize that there are certain [I]house rules [/I]which must be respected and then decide who has the authority to implement them. We already don't do the first. As just one example, Guru Amar Das ji banned the veil for women and this has carried over into the modern Sikh Rehat Maryada which forbids women who are covering their faces to enter into a Gurdwara. Where is the "humanity and love" when we tell Niqab-wearing Muslim women they cannot enter the Gurdwara if they do not show their face? It is therefore inconsistent to use this as an excuse to let non-Sikhs marry in Gurdwaras. So we’re left with option B. We already have house rules in place, all that’s left now is to decide whether the ban on non-Sikhs marrying in Gurdwaras comes from the appropriate authorities. What do you think is the “origin of this law” in Sikhi? Fear of dilution: attempts at dilution are almost unavoidable in Hindu-dominated India. Read Rehatnama literature and British accounts of the damage Hinduism had done to Sikhi back in the 19th-20th centuries and it soon becomes apparent that this ‘fear’ is firmly rooted in reality, not irrationality. On the contrary, it would be irrational to close our eyes and pretend this threat doesn’t exist because we don’t want it to be real. Insular barrier to “outsiders”: I wouldn’t call it that when anyone is allowed to become a Sikh. But in some sense yes, the whole point of a unit like the Khalsa Panth was to distinguish and in a way separate Sikhs from other religious groups. But the Khalsa is open to anyone wishing to join so the comparison is not wholly accurate. This is not the primary purpose of the ban. But I would love to see an actual study which showed the rate of success of marriage when the couple was of the same faith vs. different faith. Guru Nanak ascended to the Gurgaddi in 1499. He married Mata Sulakhani in 1487. It is unlikely Sikhi even existed at the time of their marriage so the question itself makes no sense. Furthermore throughout most of human civilization history it has been the norm for wives to adopt the religious customs of their husbands. So even if she wasn’t a ‘Sikh’ at the time of their marriage- which is fine because who’s Sikh would she be if Guru Nanak was not yet ‘officially’ the Guru?- it is probable that she adopted the Path when Sikhi came into the world in 1499. The Harmandir Sahib may have four doors, one on each side, to indicate that it is open to people regardless of wherever they may come from, but there is still only one queue that leads into the complex itself. People from all corners of the world are welcome, but we must all still adhere to the same basic guidelines as we are going in otherwise if we are coming from the opposite side we will drown in the sarovar that surrounds Harmandir Sahib. Exactly, so why are we screaming at each other instead of looking to our Gurus for the answer? I think I’ve highlighted just how illogical and inconsistent it is for us to allow mixed-faith marriages to take place in Gurdwaras and if someone disagrees, I’d love to have a discussion on it. This is a false dichotomy. Sitting down to listen to Kirtan and getting married in Gurdwaras are not even remotely the same thing. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation; we can allow people to do one but not the other, and vice-versa. EDIT: Okay so regarding the point about how there are "many unhappy and broken marriages between people of the same faith, whether Sikh or not, and many successful and loving marriages between a Sikh and a non-Sikh", I went out and actually dug up some numbers to see what I could find. I can't say the results are shocking. "But the effects on the marriages themselves can be tragic -- it is an [B]open secret[/B] among academics that tsk-tsking grandmothers may be right. According to calculations based on the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001, people who had been in mixed-religion marriages were [B]three times more likely to be divorced or separated[/B] than those who were in same-religion marriages." [URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/04/AR2010060402011.html[/URL] "Couples in interfaith marriages are, on average, less happy than same-faith ones. In certain faith-combinations they are more likely to divorce. While roughly a third of all evangelicals’ marriages end up in divorce, that climbs to nearly half for marriages between evangelicals and non-evangelicals. It is especially high for evangelicals married to someone with no religion--61%" [URL]http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/19/seven-things-dont-know-about-interfaith-marriage.html[/URL] "Emmanual Clapsis writes: "Controversy abounds on the topic of survival rates, but the best studies show a higher survival rate for single faith marriages than [for] interfaith marriages."[I] [/I] Another old study published in 1993 by Evelyn Lehrer of the [I]University of Illinois at Chicago[/I], found that at the five-year point in marriage: [LIST] [*]About 20% of marriages between two mainline Christian denominations are divorced. [*]About 33% of marriages between a Catholic and an evangelical are divorced [*]Over 40% of marriages between a Jew and a Christian are divorced. [/LIST] Egon Mayer, a professor at [I]Brooklyn College,[/I] published another study confirming that inter-faith couples experience higher divorce rates. Referring to the case where one spouse abandons their religion and adopts their spouse's faith, he wrote in [I]USA Today[/I]: "When you bury something that is really important to you, all you're doing is building up a kind of pressure within the family relationship, which becomes a source of tension, which ultimately becomes a time bomb. If there's any reason why intermarriages break up, it's because of that time bomb."" [URL]http://www.religioustolerance.org/ifm_divo.htm[/URL] So while the [I]main [/I]reason for this ban may not necessarily be to promote more successful marriages, it does seem like there is a greater chance for successful marriage anyways when you marry within your faith than when you marry outside it. Of course there will always be outliers and "exceptions to the rule", but national studies do seem to indicate that in general if you want your marriage to have a higher chance of lasting, marry someone who shares your religious convictions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Mixed Marriage In Gurduaras
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top