[angler57]

Must admit, DerbyX caught me dead to rights. And like those with key chains I also display my faith. Wearing a thread thin gold chain with a gold cross that is toothpick thin. 3/4'high x nearly 3/8 inch wide.
With my dark complection, year round and worn carefully it is a invisible to most.
And, is totally harmless. But it is a symbol that gives me joy.

A nice Italian boy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=XT2kHxSFMS0

[herbie]

My grandparents came from Italy. My Dad didn't go to confession, married a Protestant and raised us all as Anglicans. Matter of fact he 'conformed' so much (point out he was a teen during WW2) he abandoned too much of his heritage. None of us kids speak or converse in Italian.
One of us kids maintained her faith. Another has changed half a dozen times. I won't follow any church. One of my kids isn't even christened.
This whole discussion is a continuation of stereotyping which isn't valid.
There's a large Sikh population here. Only a couple of kids carry a kirpan. Only half a dozen wear a turban. Almost all are clean-shaven and have fancier hair styles than you or I.
But they go to the temple and would be offended if you implied they aren't Sikhs.
There's almost a million Sikhs in Canada, and this is the first kirpan 'incident' in years.
Let the thread die, the whole discussion ain't worth the bandwidth.

[andyt]

herbie herbie:

This whole discussion is a continuation of stereotyping which isn't valid.
There's a large Sikh population here. Only a couple of kids carry a kirpan. Only half a dozen wear a turban. Almost all are clean-shaven and have fancier hair styles than you or I.
But they go to the temple and would be offended if you implied they aren't Sikhs.
There's almost a million Sikhs in Canada, and this is the first kirpan 'incident' in years.
Let the thread die, the whole discussion ain't worth the bandwidth.

Come to Vancouver, and you'll turbans galore. Presumably those with turbans also wear the kirpan. Numbers don't matter, as far as I'm concerned. Even if only one Sikh wanted to wear the kirpan, it would still be a question. As has been pointed out, it's purpose is ceremonial, and a very small one worn as a pendant will do. As will one that is permanently set in it's sheath, can't be removed. Let em wear those.

The symbolism of the kirpan is being willing to fight for your religion. I guess that includes fighting other Sikhs if you don't agree with their interpretation of your religion, or just belong to a different faction. Seems sickening to me to use a symbol is this way, and we should not tolerate it. We don't give special consideration to machetes and 2x4's, which are the usual weapons of choice for Sikhs settling their religious disputes around here.

[GreenTiger]

I could think of any number of Islamic Groups that claim that it is their religious duty for them and their kids to carry switch blade knives to devotion to Allah or Cali (take you pick).

The time to stop carry weapons is now freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to wear deadly concealed weapons. If that were the case I'd wear a Walther PPK (To show my respect for God of course).

What ever happened to the idea that that to show you devotion to God relied on how you live and how you treat others. I guess that only counts sometimes.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Who are these people you speak of?

Those who would support the freedom to carry a gun but not the freedom to wear a kirpan.

And those are?

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Lemmy Lemmy:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Who are these people you speak of?

Those who would support the freedom to carry a gun but not the freedom to wear a kirpan.

And those are?

Shall we take a poll?

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Shall we take a poll?

Why not? I don't think people are going to be THAT hypocritical to support concealed handguns and not support kirpans. I assume that if handguns aren't allowed in area A, neither are any other weapons as well.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Shall we take a poll?

Why not? I don't think people are going to be THAT hypocritical to support concealed handguns and not support kirpans. I assume that if handguns aren't allowed in area A, neither are any other weapons as well.

There's a fundamental error in your assumptions, though, commander: kirpans aren't weapons. They may be used as weapons, but so could a bic-pen or a crucifix, for that matter. How about we ban Catholics from wearing the cross in case they use it as a weapon?

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

There's a fundamental error in your assumptions, though, commander: kirpans aren't weapons.

They're ceremonial daggers. But they're still daggers. I'd still consider them a weapon even if they hold religious significance.

$1:

They may be used as weapons, but so could a bic-pen or a crucifix, for that matter. How about we ban Catholics from wearing the cross in case they use it as a weapon?

Anything can be a weapon, sure. Even people can be weapons, unless you never watch movies where people have their necks snapped, or they're beaten to death. There's a difference between banning anything that can be a weapon, or objects that are weapons.

A kirpan, historically, was used as a defensive weapon to protect the innocent. It literally means "weapon of defense". Just because they are now a part of religious significance, does not change their status as weapons, even if said weapons are used for the protection of the innocent and good.

[andyt]

And as we've seen, there are options available that make the kirpan not a potential weapon, or at least less so than a pen. Why not just go there and make the whole discussion moot.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

kenmore kenmore:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

I met a really nice Sikh gentleman on a train in France in the early 90s.
This was around the time the question about kirpans in Ontario high schools popped up. I was relaying this to the gentleman and this is what he told me.
That some Sikhs that come here rely on our ignorance of their customs and religion.
The kirpan itself is generally ONLY worn at ceremony. In public, they generally carry a symbolic version of the kirpan. He showed me his kirpan that he carried around in public. It was a beautifully polished and carved piece of wood without a sharp, pointy end.

Hmm..actually they all carry the kirpan all the time, its one of the five tenets of their faith.. you are referring to the longer ceremonial sword...

Nope, I'm referring to the kirpan. That's what the discussion was about and that is what he showed me.

As for the anything can be used as a weapon argument, well, I saw a guy on TV a while back that could fuck you up with nothing more than a deck of playing cards.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

They're ceremonial daggers. But they're still daggers. I'd still consider them a weapon even if they hold religious significance.

And I don't consider them a weapon any more than I consider a crucifix a weapon.

commanderkai commanderkai:

Anything can be a weapon, sure. Even people can be weapons, unless you never watch movies where people have their necks snapped, or they're beaten to death. There's a difference between banning anything that can be a weapon, or objects that are weapons.

Exactly. Anything CAN be a weapon. I would argue that a kirpan CAN be a weapon, but is NOT a weapon. I don't think there's any debate about what a gun is.

commanderkai commanderkai:

A kirpan, historically, was used as a defensive weapon to protect the innocent. It literally means "weapon of defense". Just because they are now a part of religious significance, does not change their status as weapons, even if said weapons are used for the protection of the innocent and good.

As a Scottish-Canadian, I freqiently wear a sgian dubh. Is it a weapon? No. It's a ceremonial dagger that COULD be USED as a weapon but is not one. Like the kirpan, the modern sgian dubh is not sharpened and is carried in protective sheath. For many kirpans, they cannot even be removed from those sheaths, at least without significant effort and delay. No, a kirpan is not a weapon. Of that I am certain, despite its historical roots.

[Choban]

$1:

As for the anything can be used as a weapon argument, well, I saw a guy on TV a while back that could fuck you up with nothing more than a deck of playing cards.

His name's Gambit, and Wolveriene held his own mostly.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Choban Choban:

$1:

As for the anything can be used as a weapon argument, well, I saw a guy on TV a while back that could fuck you up with nothing more than a deck of playing cards.

His name's Gambit, and Wolveriene held his own mostly.

No no..for real dude. It wasn't a movie or anything like that. This guy could embed a regular playing card several inches into a watermelon from about 15 ft or so. He was even doing damage to part of a pig carcass with 'em and their skin is quite a bit thicker than ours.
Now I remember the show, it was called Time Warp where they do cool shit and then view it on super slow motion to watch the physics of it. It was on the Discovery Channel.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And I don't consider them a weapon any more than I consider a crucifix a weapon.

And the Sikh, the name of the dagger, and the entire history and purpose of the dagger will disagree.

$1:

Exactly. Anything CAN be a weapon. I would argue that a kirpan CAN be a weapon, but is NOT a weapon. I don't think there's any debate about what a gun is.

Except the kirpan purpose is to protect the innocent from evil, and to a lesser extent, to protect themselves from evil as well. A police officer has a pistol and a baton to defend the innocent from criminals, as well as himself, but that doesn't change the weapon status of either the gun or the baton.

$1:

As a Scottish-Canadian, I freqiently wear a sgian dubh. Is it a weapon? No. It's a ceremonial dagger that COULD be USED as a weapon but is not one. Like the kirpan, the modern sgian dubh is not sharpened and is carried in protective sheath.

Eh, half true. You might have a sgian dubh that is not sharpened and is carried in a protective sheath, but not all kirpans are, nor are all sgian dubhs. If they were purely ceremonial, and had no real value as weapons, then we wouldn't be hearing about stabbings, would we?

$1:

For many kirpans, they cannot even be removed from those sheaths, at least without significant effort and delay. No, a kirpan is not a weapon. Of that I am certain, despite its historical roots.

And if they cannot be removed, they're not weapons anymore, but rather a part of their warddrobe. You said kirpans aren't weapons, and used its PURELY ceremonial form as proof, when there are still many kirpans who do not have the same protections as those purely ceremonial examples. If I show you an antique gun in a case, it's still a firearm, no matter how protective the case or display is, because once I smash that display, and point it at you, it's a lethal weapon. If somebody, who is not wearing the purely ceremonial kirpan that cannot be removed from its sheath, pulled his kirpan out and pointed it at you, you would really not feel threatened?

If some sikhs want to wear the non-ceremonial form of kirpans, which can easily be used as a weapon, there is an issue here and there is legitimacy to discuss it. If all Sikhs decided to wear the purely ceremonial dagger, that cannot be removed from its sheath, then there would be no issue, and I wouldn't care.