Terrorists vs. Freedom Fighters

A lot of people have asked me how I square my support for George W. Bush, and his "war on terror" with the obvious responsibility and duty of being a panthic Gursikh who supports shaheeds and feels sympathy and outrage at the treatment of Sikhs in the Punjab during the '80s, who were hunted down as "terrorists" themselves.

I actually see no conflict in my position whatsoever, but I do feel the need to clarify a few things.

First off, although some people might think otherwise, there's no moral equivelancy between (most) Sikh shaheeds of the 1980's and current Muslim jihadists. None.

Almost all Sikh fighters in the '80s fought against the ideas of taking the lives of civilians. If anyone watched Ajaib Singh Bagri's famous Madison Square Garden speech, he specifically said that the lives of women and children should be spared from any retaliation.

Second, the treatment and actions against Sikhs by the government of India were far worse than any grievances that Muslims have with America today. Sikh women were raped at the whim of barbarbic army soldiers, civilians were killed indiscriminately, innocent Sikhs were rounded up and executed with little to no justification.

Does anyone see Americans committing these actions around the Arab world? Delhi police stood back and helped with the November riots; the actions of Indian army soldiers would make Abu Ghraib look.... meaningless.

Besides extremely isolated incidents, Americans do not torture innocents. Americans do not purposely target civilians. Americans wish for success in Iraq. There is absolutely NO comparison between Sikh fighters and Muslim terrorists and also between the Government of India and the Americans.

Sikhs did not target civilians - those that did are inexplicably evil and are not Sikhs. Even when they targetted the army soldiers, they did not randomly kill soldiers unless in self defense. And besides, Indian soldiers were far more likely to inact harm and injustice than any American soldiers would do currently. American soldiers in Iraq are not raping villages and rounding up civilians for execution - They seem to genuinely hope for success and democracy in Iraq, unlike the barbaric Jihadists who seek only chaos.

Ok, my thoughts have been all over the place, so let me just wrap things up:

1) Sikhs never sought to create chaos in Punjab. Jihadist terrorists seem far more intent than Americans to plunge Iraq into a bloody civil war.

2) Sikhs fought in self-defense. Jihadist terrorists target civilians and Americans without reason. If they saw one of the Abu Ghraib torturers out on the streets, then sure, go ahead and inact your revenge, but otherwise, their actions have been completely unjust and unwarranted on an occupying power that by inlarge hopes for success, in their own interests as well as in the interests of the Iraqis.

3) Civilians. This is the main area of moral difference. Anybody who targets civilians is evil. Anybody who has the lack of mercy to behead innocents needs to be brought to justice.

Things that annoy me - #3

Ok, so you know in Ardaas, near the beginning, second paragraph or so, when they get to the part "Punj Pyareh... Chaar Sahibzaday..." and some people actually name them all!?!? "Baba Ajit Singh... Baba Jujhar Singh..." "Bhai Daya Singh... Bhai Dharm Singh..."

What a bunch of pathetic, misguided show offs right?

I THINK Guru Sahib might know the names of the Punj Pyareh.

And especially at the end of a longgggg, tiresome program, I don't need someone to extend Ardaas for another 15 seconds for absolutely NO REASON. :@

PS. I just needed something to post, because I thought having a topic titled "Homosexuality" at the top of the blog might scare a couple of people away.

Homosexuality

There's a thread going on right now on Tapoban.org, about the potential for same-sex relationships within the Sikh community.

I think 'AnotherSingh' sums up my thoughts almost perfectly:

We are soul. A soul is beyond gender and sexuality. It is our kaam (lust) that is a hurdle on the path to meet God. Homosexuals have this just like heterosexuals. However, God created a male and female for a reason. We must live within God's hukum. Therefore, any homosexual acts are wrong and gay marriage is clearly against Sikhi.

I agree with the above statement on a religious level, exclusively. I still believe that all levels of government should provide legal protection to homosexual couples in the same way that legal protection is provided to straight couples. (Whether they want to call it "marriage" isn't important, if they do - great, if not - whatever.)

How does any rational minded person reconcile their belief in a secular government while being against partnership legal protections for homosexuals? On what basis do you deny these legal recognitions? The only basis is that "homosexuality is wrong". Sure it is (in my personal opinion - but in my opinion LOTS of legal things are wrong), but how can a secular, church/religion-free state make that judgment?

The reasons given by most people, i.e. "it will hurt the structure of the family", "it will tear down society's moral values", "its unnatural" are so ridiculous. By that logic all of the following things should be illegal: divorce, adultery, breaking abstinence, old people getting married (they can't have kids, can they?), single parents raising or adopting kids, etc.

Anyways, everything I've wrote above was all besides the point, I wanted to raise another issue entirely:

How would a Gursikh treat the "coming out" of a gay child?

Anyways, I hope it sounds nothing like this.

Are you aware that you are evil?

I just found this absolutely FANTASTIC, inspirational post on someone else's blog.

It basically sums up a lot of what I believe as well, just expressed better than I could ever hope.

There's two or three happiness-hating "Chomskyites" who apparently read what I have to say, and I hope this gives them some insight on their depraved way of looking at the world.

For those of you who don't know, Chomsky is some philosophical intellectual guy who tries to make everyone as sad and depressed as possible, based on his cynical, pessimistic outlook on... just about everything.

So Incredibly Relevant

Recently, someone was kind enough to point me in the direction of Ayn Rand's writings.

And out of everything I saw, nothing was as striking or relevant as her view on dictatorships. Rand herself fled from Soviet Russia as a young woman, moving to America in an effort to avoid Stalinism back home. Her views on ethics seem so in-line with Gurmat. If anyone has the time, read the analysis of her view on ethics in the link I provided above. One passage from her book, The Virtue of Selfishness (written in 1963), which developed her view on ethics and ethical theory is really, so true:

Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent "rights" of gang rulers. It is not a free nation's duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it chooses.

She goes onto talk about how the right to invade outlaw dictatorships is conditional on the intention to build free societies, built on the principles of individual rights; but really, who cares about individual rights anyway? Bush is a crook: who cares if people end up being happy or free in the end. As long as the entire universe is depressed, unhappy and angry because they realize that Bush is a thief, everything will be okay, all of our problems will be solved.

Things that annoy me - #2

"Amrit-Dharee" meat eaters.

Oxymoron right? Exactly.

Or, or, even worse, vegetarian Amrit Dharees who claim that eating meat is ok, although they don't do so themselves.

Why do people take Amrit? The answer is relatively obvious: to develop a relationship with God, to become more spiritual, to make life purposeful.

What makes us think that life has purpose? What makes us have faith in spirituality and in god, in general?

I'd say mostly the examples of Gursikhs. If we didn't have Gursikhs to look upto, we'd never feel encouraged to increase our spirituality.

Can anyone honestly give me an example of a highly spiritual Gursikh who ate meat? When someone thinks of historically relevant and highly spiritual Gursikhs, at least within the past century where we have first-hand evidence, did any of them eat meat? Bhai Sahib Bhai Randheer Singh? Baba Jarnail Singh? Sant Attar Singh? Baba Harnaam Singh? Bhai Fauja Singh? Anyone else of note? No. They did not. They considered it unjust, lacking mercy, and most importantly, highly unspiritual.

How could any "Amrit-Dharee", who is supposed to devote their life's purpose to meeting god be on the opposite end of all of these Gursikhs? Were they all wrong? Do these scholarly-type intellectual Sikhs know more than real, genuine Gursikhs?

I've never understood how someone can honestly believe that eating meat is alright for an Amrit-Dharee.

If someone can't even give up the pleasures of their tongue/taste in the name of mercy, how could they ever be spiritual in any form whatsoever?

I'm not THAT crazy

As anybody who knows me should know, I'm a "Bush Supporter". A small minority, in my household, my community, my country, etc.

I'm not THAT enthusiastic about Bush. Most of the time, I probably seem more enthusiastic than I really am, because Bush-Haters get me really motivated by their stupidity to act as supportive of Bush as possible.

I just think he's a good guy. The better guy. Like if this was a movie, and we saw what happened behind the scenes, I'm sure Bush would be the sincere "good guy", while Kerry, behind the scenes, would totally be the deceptive, disingenuous, elitist, "bad guy".

That's probably the core reason behind my support for Bush. I want the "good guy" to win. This is just a movie to me; a really, really long, boring movie, but who wouldn't really have their hopes set on seeing the good guy win?

Anyways... all of that is besides the point.

To anyone who thinks I'm crazy and over-the-top in my support for George W. Bush, I ask you to read this article.

I'm not even close to as crazy as that guy.

Things that annoy me - #1

Periodically, I will rant and complain about things and people that I dislike.

Today, I will talk about people who are Anti-Khalsa School.

Most people who are anti-Khalsa School, have the most misguided, ill-informed, and essentially, stupid reasons for believing what they believe.

A lot of the people who dislike Khalsa School never went to Khalsa School, and those that did go to Khalsa School, usually only went for 1 or 2 years back in Elementary School. I know a number of people who were 'forcefully' sent to Khalsa School by their parents for a few years, and those years turned out to be their favourite years of elementary OR high school.

Khalsa School is fun.

Anyways, the reasons used by people who are against Khalsa School are almost always wrong or misguided.

For example, people will say with complete certainty that the education standards at Khalsa School are below average: This is completely UNTRUE. It is a baseless lie. Usually, the standards at Khalsa School are a fair bit above average.

Another example: people will talk about how 'religion is forced' onto kids. Another LIE. I know dozens of kids who went through their entire education at Khalsa School and they never took Amrit or they never kept their hair. And what's so bad about encouraging kids to be religious anyway?

Anyways, I can't stand people who are anti-Khalsa School. If you don't like Khalsa School, then I don't like you ok?

I remember in April, I was talking to Rena Kaur, (the girl who passed away this past May) I barely ever talked to her, and the last time I had a conversation with her, it was an argument over Khalsa School. : Luckily, the argument wasn't bitter or angry. There was a certain light-heartedness to it, but it was still pretty unfortunate I guess... In most cases I would've totally ripped into the person, so I guess I shouldn't generalize people as much as I do and judge them based on a single opinion? I don't know... I'll have to think about that. I like irrationally judging people based exclusively on a single issue.

She's an example of someone who had opinions about Khalsa School that were untrue or exaggerated. I don't blame her for having those opinions, because mistruths were obviously told to her by others, but most Anti-Khalsa School people are idiots.

Anyways..... Khalsa School Rocks!

Another Moral Question

I've always had trouble relating medical issues of a moral nature to Gurmat.

Scientists are looking to create "3-parent Babies".

It'll supposedly make children more resistant to 'mitochondrial' diseases, whatever that means.

Poor, ignorant peasant lad that I am, I have no real position on this topic. Can someone help me out? I personally don't care if this technology is followed by most people, but would it be alright for a Gursikh to undergo this procedure?

Morality in Danger

If morality didn't suffer enough already under Bill Clinton, it'll almost certainly suffer even more under this guy.

What a bad, bad man.

Coolest kid, ever

Whenever anyone gets depressed about the sad state of our nation, or whenever anyone gets sad about anything, this should make them feel better. A 12 year old kid is charging non-striking workers $2 to cut through his back yard in order to avoid picket lines. He's already made over a hundred dollars! :-D

About 50 people used the backyard access to Tunney's Pasture in the hour a CBC-TV camera spent at the Kots' house on Thursday. That was 100 bucks in just an hour for Todd and his friends.

Todd didn't wish to be interviewed, and was overheard expressing some concern about the presence of the camera adversely affecting his business.

Can he say that??!?

Here's something Rahim Jaffer, a Conservative MP from Edmonton said in the House Of Commons, 2 days ago. At first I didn't believe it, but then I looked it up on the parliamentary website and it was there! Its pretty outrageous, but funny as well:

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on October 8 it was reported that a Toronto film company used classified ads to search for “the perfect penis”. The project received three separate grants totalling over $133,000 from the Canadian Television Fund.

Why would the government fund such a project? The answer lies with the Prime Minister and the teachings of Freud. The hypothesis is that the Prime Minister related a search for a perfect penis to the search for the perfect caucus. Not only frustrated by having such a small caucus for a governing party, the Prime Minister suffers the humiliation of having a smaller caucus than his predecessor, Jean Chrétien.

The Prime Minister is distraught over the fact that he could not elect a majority. Worse, Jean Chrétien, a man older than he, brags that he did it three times. If the envy of the predecessor's parliamentary-hood was not enough, the challenges of the passage of the throne speech has created performance anxiety, causing the Prime Minister to order the first two votes of his new Parliament as confidence.

To avoid a crisis we would recommend that the Prime Minister stop popping Velotrin and just accept what he has: a minority.

The Right Reverend George W. Bush

This is one of my favourite articles from the past few months. How any "religious" minded person (or any other person in general, actually) can support Kerry over Bush is BEYOND me. I literally can't understand it.

Here are my favourite parts:

"And one of the reasons I'm seeking the office for four more years is to call upon our citizens to love your neighbor just like you'd like to be loved yourself." After his usual endorsement of the Golden Rule, Bush speaks of souls, which also isn't unusual for him: "We can change America one soul at a time by encouraging people to spread something government cannot spread, which is love."

Bush isn't a fire-and-brimstone preacher, talking about sinners in the hands of an angry God. He's a hippie priest, emphasizing the Christian message of brotherly love. I can almost hear the guitars and tambourines. He says, "I know we can change America for the better by calling on those who are change agents, those who are willing to put our arm around someone who needs love and say, 'I love you, brother. I love you, sister. What can I do to help you have a better life here in America?'"

Bush almost gets weepy later, when he tells a story "that touched my heart," about seven Iraqi men who visited him in the Oval Office. The men's right hands were chopped off by order of Saddam Hussein, and they had X's burned into their foreheads. An American organization provided them with prostheses. "A guy took my Sharpie, wrapped his new fingers and wrote, 'God bless America,' in Arabic," Bush says, his voice choking up. "What a contrast," he says. In America, "We want to heal you, no matter who you are," his voice catching again.

What exactly was that bulge?

During the first presidential debate, some of the cameras caught a picture of George W. Bush's back, and after the debate some left wing loons complained about a 'bulge' under Bush's jacket.

Well all possible concerns have been answered.

Even funnier!

Ok, Ok, I know that I consider myself a Conservative and I always will, but I can't help laughing at how some "Conservatives" think, I just found this article by accident when I was searching for another article online:

I met some strange people. One man demanded to know my position on whether "the rectum is a sexual organ." As he started angrily quoting the Bible and proclaiming the "abomination" of homosexuality, I quickly moved over to the next street.

Another gentleman cautiously accepted my brochure and asked my party affiliation. Upon hearing my answer, he slowly tore the brochure to pieces. As the shreds fell around my feet, he said: "You Democrats are a despicable affront to the moral virtues of this country."

He slammed the door so hard in my face that one of the screws on the "Welcome To Our Home" sign popped out.

And then there was the fellow with whom I had this conversation:

"Hello, sir, I'm Brad Wyche, I'm running for the State House in our district. Nice to meet you. Can I give you one of my brochures?"

Ignoring my offering, he said, "How do you stand on the flag?"

"I think it should be removed and placed at a prominent place on the State House grounds," I said.

With a reddening face, he said, "You obviously didn't have no ancestors that fought in the war."

"Actually, I did, sir," I said. "My great-great grandfather was a Confederate soldier. We still have the letters he wrote home from the battlefields."

"Well, I had four great-great grandfathers fight in the war, and one of 'em was kilt!"

"I respect your opinion, sir, but it looks like we don't agree."

Stabbing his finger in my face, he said, "I'm gonna talk to the SCV [Sons of Confederate Veterans] and we're gonna' whip you."

Hoping he was referring to an electoral whipping only, I turned away, only to hear one last shot: "Minute I saw you, figured you were a damn liberal!"

Why some Conservatives scare me.

"It's in the Bible. It should be in the constitution." - Some Ohio resident, explaining his support for a Constitutional ammendment to ban same-sex marriage.

Not only is that quote scary in itself, considering the fact that the bible accepts slavery and a whole list of other scary issues, but it shows how ignorant and uninformed some people can be when it comes to the issues they support and the reasons they use.

They don't realize the moral reasons that make America better than theocratic Muslim nations, they don't understand how using the Bible as an excuse to legislate morality is just as bad as using the Koran for the same purpose.

Why I can so rarely find things to say.....

When I first started this blog, I thought I would find so many things to say. But things haven't turned out that way, at all.

I know this might sound like I have self esteem issues, but I've come to realize that I don't think my thoughts are worthy or important enough to be shared with others.

Or maybe that isn't the point of a blog anyway? Maybe the point is to exchange thoughts and ideas instead of trying to act like you're particularly smart or clever. I guess it all depends on the intentions.

Anyways, even with the things I *could* talk about, I don't know what to say.

Religion/Gurmat/Sikhi: None of my thoughts on these subjects are particularly interesting anyway. And even if I had original ideas on these subjects, I don't know if a blog would be the best place to showcase them. Message Boards would probably be better.

Personal Life: I don't have much of a life anyway, and even if I did, why would I post it on here? Would I post about my experiences at school? What if I blogged about how stupid I think some of my professors are, what if, by chance, they stumbled upon those comments? Anything else about school would seem totally uninteresting anyway. I couldn't possibly talk about people that I know, because I wouldn't want to seem as if I was violating their privacy, and I wouldn't know if they'd be comfortable with their names on my site.

Politics: I could probably blog about this a bit, but I'm trying to train myself to be disinterested in politics. Blogging about the US Presidential election, or the interesting dynamics of the current Canadian parliament wouldn't really help with that.

Anyways... over the next few days, I'm going to check out some other people's blogs and hopefully steal their ideas and topics.... and if they sound really smart, maybe I'll just steal their entire posts and take credit for them.

Debate Observation....

After watching and hearing reaction to this past Thursday's presidential debate, I only have one thought in my mind: if you vote on how a candidate "performed" at a debate, instead of how you view the substance and content of what they had to say, then you, my friend are a complete and utter idiot.