[GreenTiger]

andyt andyt:

It's your post that's naive. Sure the world is a nasty place for violence. And we do our best to prevent it. If you think you can run a society where anybody can carry any weapon anywhere, move to Waziristan, or just the US - they're working on it. With predictable results. A baseball bat makes a great weapon - doubt if they allow those in the National Assembly either.

Make that sending him to the American Southern States, they are more into weapons than we are in the North East, better yet the Mexican Border. There you will need your Kirpans.

[fatbasturd]

GreenTiger GreenTiger:

andyt andyt:

It's your post that's naive. Sure the world is a nasty place for violence. And we do our best to prevent it. If you think you can run a society where anybody can carry any weapon anywhere, move to Waziristan, or just the US - they're working on it. With predictable results. A baseball bat makes a great weapon - doubt if they allow those in the National Assembly either.

Make that sending him to the American Southern States, they are more into weapons than we are in the North East, better yet the Mexican Border. There you will need your Kirpans.

You now have my attention and i am in AWE of you.

[EyeBrock]

Yogi Yogi:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

Not all Sikhs wear the Kirpan, only the very religious ones, we have many Sikhs here and I have yet to see one wearing it. And by the "hukum" with literally means order or comandment given by their 10th guru it is a defensive weapon more symbolic than anything else and literally a instrument of non violence according to the comandment.

So any Sikh religious enough to be wearing it believes it to be the instrument of non violence.

A baptised Sikh will always have a Kirpan, even if it's a really small one.

Why not a small 'kirpan pendant' on a chain around their neck. Similar idea to the small cross which many people sport in the same fashion.
Or would it be alright for a baptized catholic to sport a 6" brass crucifix, ( a catholic religious symbol) sharpened to a point, but kept in a sheath?

There is such a thing Yogi and baptised Sikhs wear them.

I dunno on this topic, I kinda agree with FB that anything can be used as a weapon but on the flip side it's hard to convince a non Sikh audience that the metal religous artifact that looks like a dagger, can pierce the skin and is in a sheath isn't a dagger.....

Tough sell. On the accounts of Sikhs in Canada attacking people with kirpans, well there isn't a raft of them. With a post 911 world, weapons and weapons of opportunity are something that causes concern. I think the Sikhs need to re-assess their need or requirement to carry a Kirpan outside the home or the temple. It's just not acceptable to a lot of people.

[EyeBrock]

Yogi Yogi:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

Not all Sikhs wear the Kirpan, only the very religious ones, we have many Sikhs here and I have yet to see one wearing it. And by the "hukum" with literally means order or comandment given by their 10th guru it is a defensive weapon more symbolic than anything else and literally a instrument of non violence according to the comandment.

So any Sikh religious enough to be wearing it believes it to be the instrument of non violence.

A baptised Sikh will always have a Kirpan, even if it's a really small one.

Why not a small 'kirpan pendant' on a chain around their neck. Similar idea to the small cross which many people sport in the same fashion.
Or would it be alright for a baptized catholic to sport a 6" brass crucifix, ( a catholic religious symbol) sharpened to a point, but kept in a sheath?

There is such a thing Yogi and baptised Sikhs wear them.

I dunno on this topic, I kinda agree with FB that anything can be used as a weapon but on the flip side it's hard to convince a non Sikh audience that the metal religous artifact that looks like a dagger, can pierce the skin and is in a sheath isn't a dagger.....

Tough sell. On the accounts of Sikhs in Canada attacking people with kirpans, well there isn't a raft of them. With a post 911 world, weapons and weapons of opportunity are something that causes concern. I think the Sikhs need to re-assess their need or requirement to carry a Kirpan outside the home or the temple. It's just not acceptable to a lot of people.

[Gunnair]

Wonder if this means the ceremonial mace will be removed...

[Saffron]

I'm from Quebec. If I can't bring a dagger into Parliament, then neither can a Sikh. If I can't walk around with a mask on, then neither can a Muslim woman. Simple as that. I don't understand the brouhaha over this.

[Gunnair]

I doubt you want to from the tone of your post, so why bother?

[andyt]

Saffron Saffron:

I'm from Quebec. If I can't bring a dagger into Parliament, then neither can a Sikh. If I can't walk around with a mask on, then neither can a Muslim woman. Simple as that. I don't understand the brouhaha over this.

There it is in a nutshell. One rule for everybody.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Saffron Saffron:

I'm from Quebec. If I can't bring a dagger into Parliament, then neither can a Sikh. If I can't walk around with a mask on, then neither can a Muslim woman. Simple as that. I don't understand the brouhaha over this.

There it is in a nutshell. One rule for everybody.

Hahahaha... oh I'll hold you to that.

[Saffron]

I think the reason Quebec has problems with religeous accomodation is our extremely religeous past. We used to be the most religeous province, but not any more. Gone are the days when families listened to the Pope and had 14 hungry and barefoot children. When the proverbial pendulum stopped swinging, it didn't stop in the middle, and now we're the LEAST religeous province. The churches are crumbling, nobody gets married and most folks are atheists. It's difficult to accomodate others' religeous beliefs when you think it's all a bunch of fairy tales. That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

[Gunnair]

Saffron Saffron:

It's difficult to accomodate others' religeous beliefs when you think it's all a bunch of fairy tales. That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

Guess you understand how the ROC feels about Quebec nationalism then.

[CDN_PATRIOT]

This is why you never vote Liberal.

-J.

[EyeBrock]

Saffron Saffron:

I think the reason Quebec has problems with religeous accomodation is our extremely religeous past. We used to be the most religeous province, but not any more. Gone are the days when families listened to the Pope and had 14 hungry and barefoot children. When the proverbial pendulum stopped swinging, it didn't stop in the middle, and now we're the LEAST religeous province. The churches are crumbling, nobody gets married and most folks are atheists. It's difficult to accomodate others' religeous beliefs when you think it's all a bunch of fairy tales. That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.

All pigs are a equal but Quebec pigs are more equal than others? You maybe shouldn't preach to us Anglos about how it's one rule for everyone.

[Saffron]

Just for the record, I'm an Anglo as well.

[raydan]

Saffron Saffron:

Just for the record, I'm an Anglo as well.

I'd like to know who the "we're" are in your post?

$1:

That's why we're of the opinion that it should be one rule for everyone.