The recent debate over the refusal to allow Sikh daggers into the Quebec National Assembly has brought forth the usual distortions of meaning and logic in defense of the indefensible. The Globe and Mail, Jan.20/11, always in support of anything religious, regardless of its baselessness, clearly misstated the issue as banning four Sikhs from the National assembly. In fact four men were denied entry because they insisted on wearing hidden weapons – just as would have happened if anyone else tried to enter with the identical weapons. The men chose not to enter because they were denied the privilege of taking the daggers into the assembly, not because they were Sikhs.
    The sophistry of the “kirpan” not being a dagger, but a ceremonial item, is once again dragged out, and the advocate-sycophants senselessly embrace it in spite of the absurdity of trying to change the concept by renaming it. The present and historical concept and purpose of this thing is as a weapon. Airline security doesn’t accept this fatuous “ceremonial” argument, as my loss of a number of nail-clippers, shaving cream dispensers and one small knife, over the last few years of air travel can attest. Considering that neither I, nor my ilk, have a history of murdering newspaper editors, having furniture fights or bombing airplanes, I can claim that there is less likelihood of my attacking flight personnel with a nail file, than there is of a Sikh with a dagger. 
    Then, the bright lights will point out that there are potential weapons everywhere; ballpoint pens, belt buckles and pillows. Certainly, a resourceful psychopath may find a way to kill someone with a banana, but neither this or the forementioned are designed primarily as weapons. Indeed, all have served successfully as writing implements, clothing accessories and items of comfort, with only negligible, if any, incidence of aggression. Their social benefit far outweighs their potential detriments – which cannot be said for daggers. Advocates often appeal to reason in defending this religious privilege. The blade is “only” so long; it is blunt; it is concealed or constrained in a sheath… Well, my knife – used for smearing fois gras on bread in France – had a smaller blade than a kirpan; my nail files were blunter, and all were concealed and away from my body and easy access. Nevertheless, it is better to err on the side of safety, and I willingly relenquished these items in the interest of overall public safety. To allow anyone else, while forbidding me, to carry these things is a denial of my right to equal treatment.
    The singular excuse for this aberration is that its religious interest overrides rational interest. Atheists and secular people are denied the rights granted to the brainwashed, as well as the devious. This promotion by the state, for superstitious beliefs and practices unsupported by evidence, reflects the political power of religious groups at the expense of rationalism and critical thought. The right to believe whatever one chooses is not challenged – but the capacity to impose these beliefs on others should be opposed vigorously by reasonable people. No person should be demanded to “respect” ridiculous ideas of others. The absurdity of religions, all of which depend on the belief that their originator had a personal covenant with God, is an affront to the principal distinction of humanity – rational intelligence.
    Since the issue here is on Sikh demands for religious privilege, let’s look briefly at the origins of this belief system: In the 15th century, Nanak was bathing in a stream when he received a call from God. He disappeared for three days, came back with a lot of spiritual revelations, and that is the basis for a line of nine more gurus to lead followers to believe in a litany of rewards for Sikhs, including reincarnation. The final guru is Gobind Singh, reportedly astute in the arts of poetry and warfare. Sikhism is a relatively modern religion, and certainly aware of the effect of material acquisition and accumulation in keeping a self-identifying group together; gold is a big attraction, as is land. Sikhism’s militant history coincides with its political nature. Its current focus is control of the Punjab, the most productive area of India. But the most frightening aspect of this aggressive, militant cult with its requirements (of men) of socially-isolating eccentricities; bracelets, leather underwear, no haircutting ( the turban is an add-on to reinforce distinction from the rest of society), commandment to carry arms, and more, is that all this emanates from a guy, apparently under the influence of strong drugs, who said he spoke to God! What sane person would accept such bullshit? And we let them carry knives!
Advertisement