Skip to comments.Sikh-led prayer and GOP convictions
Posted on 08/29/2012 2:01:48 PM PDT by bimboeruption
(CNN) -- The Republican National Convention will make history Wednesday night. Ishwar Singh, wearing a turban and beard, will take the stage and lead thousands of conservatives in prayer.
For the first time in U.S. history, a Sikh American will give the invocation at a Republican National Convention.
The inclusion of a Sikh prayer on the stage comes just a few weeks after a gunman opened fire on Sikhs praying in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, killing six and hospitalizing three more in what could be the largest racially motivated mass shooting in recent U.S. history. Many praise the invocation as a mark of progress in the Sikh community's 100 years in America.
Visuals matter. And in a racially charged political climate, a turbaned and bearded man will be presented to the country by Republicans as a fellow American. This is a remarkable step forward.
But speech also matters. If Mitt Romney and Republican leaders want the historic Sikh invocation to be more than tokenism -- and are serious about preventing another Oak Creek -- they cannot continue to let hateful speech within their own party go unchecked. In a time when hate groups are on the rise, the Republican Party must accept responsibility for fostering a political climate that often casts people of color as foreign and inherently suspect.
GOP leaders have not only stood silent while fellow Republicans fan the flames of anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim bias, they have given them the megaphone. Singh will speak on the same stage as Sheriff Joe Arpaio, infamous for shaming and rounding up undocumented immigrants, saying that it's an honor to be compared to the KKK. Newt Gingrich, who is presiding over "Newt University" at the RNC, has compared Muslims to Nazis.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
....the GOP-e might as well go grab priests of B’allah while they’re at it....
America is on the road to Hell and one of our traveling companions is “DIVERSITY.”
Christians should walk out now. There’s no place for them in the GOP. We should start our own party.
Unbelievable. Screw em.
“Ishwar Singh, wearing a turban and beard, will take the stage and lead thousands of conservatives in prayer.”
CNN abusing the term “Conservatives” again.
In fact, Sikhism is a specific repudiation of shamanism.
While I don't believe in it, Sikhism is one of the nobler world religions in terms of its moral code and practices.
Historically, Islam has treated them quite brutally - so they have that in common with Christians.
You might want to read up on the Sikh and their history. Of importance is their relationship with islam, illustrated by these events:
“Protecting the religious and political rights of all people and preventing discrimination is an integral part of the Sikh faith. The 5th Guru Arjan Dev was martyred by the Mughal ruler Jahangir on 16 May 1606 for refusing to convert to Islam. The martyrdom of Sri Guru Teg Bahadur Ji 9th Guru to protect Hindus from religious persecution, in Delhi, on 11 November 1675 AD, is another example of upholding minority religious freedom; he gave his life to protect the right of Kashmiri Hindus to practice their own religion when they were being forced to convert to Islam by Aurangzeb, the Mughal emperor at the time.”
Things went downhill from there...
The Sikh are formidable allies, and good folks.
Sikhs cannot be conservatives? Only Christians can?
Our Founding Fathers and our Constitution insisted upon freedom of religion, and the GOP should follow them.
I don’t know what to say or think about this because I don’t have a clue what Sikhs believe. I don’t know if it’s possible to listen to a Sikh praying and direct the same thoughts toward the God of Abraham. Of course, if the prayer starts, “In the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful...” we got some big problems.
Good allies and it would seem that lines are being drawn. I would rather have Sikhs on our side than the Muslims who are obviously on theirs.
Sikhs are a different breed of cat. I’m ok with inviting a sikh to lead a prayer.
As for the rest of the piece, the writer is a fool.
They are monotheists who believe in an omnipotent, eternal deity who is invisible and who created the universe from nothing.
Their religion is completely unconnected with Islam, and they have historically resisted to the point of death forced conversion to Islam.
From the article: “Romney and Republican leaders must check extremism in speech. They can start by meditating on the Sikh prayer to be offered by Singh: “Nanak nam chardi kala, tere bhaanai sarbat da bhala.””
Dear Enlightened Wideawake One,
Please tell me what this prayer means. I being a foolish, Christian American, who speaks only English, don’t have a clue.
> America is on the road to Hell and one of our traveling
> companions is DIVERSITY.
Who brought “diversity” to N. America, the Europeans or did it arrive before that?
If the GOP limits itself to white Christians it will become impossible for them to win federal elections within 10-15 years.
I admire Sikhs. Glad to have one as an ally.
To what aspect of diversity are you referring?
It means, “God in Your Name we ask for Well being of all of humanity, Prosperity for everyone in the worldwide community and Global Peace for the entire planet”
Sikhs always end their prayers on this phrase. I have heard it numerous times during my visits to my company’s Punjab office.
Found this on the web:
“nanak naam chardi kala tere bhane sarbat da bhala” (which is part of the Sikh prayer called the Ardas), which translates roughly as: “In the name of the Supreme Power, do something good for someone else in your life.”
More globalist BS.
That is not correct
“Sarbaat da bhalla” is specifically targeted towards goodwill and blessings of the entire world. So the Sikhs are asking God to bless the entire world in the Name of God
I am told that it translates as: "May your name (meaning the deity's name) be exalted, as Nanak (the first Sikh guru) said, and may all men prosper."
Apparently it is the most common invocation used by Sikhs.
This is the link I found
I responded to a comment containing the word “diversity”. What aspect of “diversity” was meant?
I thought that Darshan Das was considered kind of a liberal, non-orthodox Sikh by the larger community.
I guess some on this forum would not vote for anyone of the Jewish faith.
This is a political operation so their goal may be to attract more votes than if an orthodox Sikh was selected. I am guessing that there are more non-orthodox than orthodox folks in the community.
Stealing their victims right from under their noses. No matter how sincere, the move will expose and highlight the Muslim pandering coming up in Charlotte.
Come on Chris Mathews. Just start throwing those racist soundbites at this one. They will go so well in commercials in October.
Why wouldn’t we vote for a Jewish person?
There's one other things about the Sikhs that appeals to me as a "redneck." We are often accused of "worshiping a book." Well, the Sikhs really do worship a book. Sounds downright "Baptist."
[humor]Actually, widey, considering their radical claim that G-d’s religion suddenly changed 2000 years ago, I’m not sure chrstians can be conservatives! ;-) [/humor]
> Of course, if the prayer starts, In the name of Allah, the
> beneficent, the merciful... we got some big problems.
Yes Islam must not be allowed in the civilized world.
As for the rest of the piece, the writer is a fool.
One hundred percent correct. White liberals have this silly idea that "people of color" all think alike and are all white liberals under the skin. At least I hope they do. If they don't, their championing of every religion on the face of the earth other than redneck Bible-thumpers would be terribly hypocritical--wouldn't it? [/sarcasm]
NO, NOT what I was saying at all. Cnn is identifying Republicans in general as “Conservatives” in the article as though all Republicans are of Conservative bent, which we all know is not true.
This is what I have been railing about on FR for the past eight years. The media, the Leftists, the RINO’s redefining “Conservative” to the Left for their benefit.
John/Jane Q. Public have to be made aware nowadays of what a true Conservative is, and what a true Conservative is actually about. The public has to be educated as to what they once knew as truth about Conservatism, because of this sort of BS practiced by those that have been incrementally sweeping the Conservative Movement under the Leftist rug.
What I’ve been saying for eight years here, and longer at another site is the Left is trying to redefine Conservatism, corral true Conservatives, and force them into an irrelevant third party. Effectively creating a one party political system in this country with many a follower believing they are “Conservative” as defined by the party, but actually in name only. It’s what I see as their goal. They have us almost where they want us.
We have to wake up, and realize what is happening, and cease this one sided follow the leader game they have been freely playing us, as many were not catching onto their ploy.
This move by Team Romney RINO’s yesterday is a prime example of their devious ploy IMO.
In a time when hate groups are on the rise, the Republican Party must accept responsibility for fostering a political climate that often casts people of color as foreign and inherently suspect.
Well there in lies the problem. The Republican Party does not cast people of color inherently suspect. The MSM does that in the Republican Party’s name........
“I admire Sikhs. Glad to have one as an ally.”
Roger that, I have worked with a couple in the service of my country, My back always felt safe.
Please tell me what this prayer means. I being a foolish, Christian American, who speaks only English, dont have a clue.
First of all, don't impugn wideawake's conservatism. He is one of the most consistently conservative people on this forum (and probably its most intelligent). Furthermore he is a staunch champion of Biblical inerrancy, including the first eleven chapters of Genesis which so many so-called "inerrantists" want to dance around. That's right--he's a creationist. Some respect is called for.
Why wouldnt we vote for a Jewish person?
Because you seem to be indicating that only chrstians should be elected to political office (or at least the Presidency) in this country. I know that as a devout Fundamentalist chrstian you consider the Hebrew Bible to be from G-d. But this means you consider the Jews to be the "cub scouts" for the "boy scouts" of chrstianity. While this position is mandated by your acceptance of the Hebrew Bible, the fact remains that you accept Jews on chrstian terms, not on Jewish terms (which aren't the same as multiculturalist terms). As a chrstian you have to do this, but I hope you realize that the Jews do not recognize their religion as a preparation for chrstianity at all, to be complete in itself, and that chrstianity is therefore at least philosophically in error and at most idolatrous. I understand chrstians can't accept this, but they should understand that this is the Jewish position.
I myself am a Noachide, and even I can't in good conscious pray to J*sus or the "trinity" or say "amen" to such a prayer--not because it is "intolerant" but because it is a prayer to a false "gxd." At least the Sikhs don't believe in a "trinity" or an "incarnation."
NB to all FReepers: the Left has pushed multiculturalism, "tolerance," and "pluralism" for so long that an Anglo-Protestant nativist reaction has long been inevitable, and I believe is beginning manifest itself. However much this clashes with the modern worldview, I ask you all to remember that the identification of the United States as a nation created primarily for Anglo-Protestants is not Nazism. For most of this country's history bimboeruption's opinions would not have alarmed or surprised anyone. Jews have lived in the US from the beginning, and managed to survive just fine in the old America where abortion and sodomy were crimes and Protestantism was taught in most public schools. You and I may disagree with him/her for reasons of religion or our understanding of history, but there is no barbed wire involved in this worldview whatsoever. It is the standard ethno-identitarian conception that until recently all nations had of themselves.
Let's count to ten and calm down . . . okay?
I’ve been on FR since 1998...
Where in ANY of my posts have I indicated I wouldn’t vote for a Jewish person?
Bigots masquerading as conservatives and Christians are, in fact, neither.
Where in ANY of my posts have I indicated I wouldnt vote for a Jewish person?
I didn't say this. I said you would vote for a Jewish person because you acknowledge the Divine origin and truth of the Hebrew Bible. You do not acknowledge the qur'an or the Sikh holy book (and neither do I). But I said your acceptance of Judaism was on chrstian terms, and since you are a sincere chrstian, it could hardly be otherwise. I asked that you merely understand that Jews do not consider the Hebrew Bible an "old testament" on its way to "fulfillment" but a religion complete in itself and thus chrstianity to be in error.
I don't want to fight with you. Why you think I do and why you think I accused you of not being willing to vote for a Jew is absolutely beyond me, especially since I just defended Americo-chrstian identitarianism as perfectly respectable and no threat to Jews at all, despite what some have come to believe.
Your criticism of wideawake, however, was uncalled for. He's still the world champion FReeper.
Now please kindly stop picking stupid, unnecessary fights with me.
>”Sikhs cannot be conservatives? Only Christians can?”<
Did someone on this tread actually state this? I can’t find it.
I would say that we have had presidents, senators and justices who, while ethnically British, were not Christians in any sense that a modern Christian Fundamentalist would recognize.
That includes John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln.
A general belief in Providence was the preferred religion for much of America's ruling classes in the 1800s.
It wasn't until aggressively atheist and socialist foreign ideologies came to our shores that views began tightening up.
See post 5.
>”Because you seem to be indicating that only chrstians should be elected to political office (or at least the Presidency) in this country.”<
>”Now please kindly stop picking stupid, unnecessary fights with me.”<
Sorry if it seems like I’m picking “picking stupid, unnecessary fights”. I’m just responding to your long-winded, pompous, didactic posts.
Post 5...”Ishwar Singh, wearing a turban and beard, will take the stage and lead thousands of conservatives in prayer.
CNN abusing the term Conservatives again.”
IMHO, the poster isn’t saying that Sikhs cannot be conservatives...that only Christians can.
The poster is saying that thousands of people in the audience aren’t Conservatives because they support Romney.
Please investigate a bit about the Sikhs...
While I am not a Sihk, I find much that is admirable in their religion, and they have much in common with Conservative Christians in the way of values...
I understand the resistance to any but Christian clergy, and perhaps the GOP is going overboard in effort to be inclusive...That’s for each to decide for him- or herself...
The Sihks are decent honorable people and I prefer them as allies...Their beliefs and culture make them excellent soldiers, by the way...
Now that is just rich. The Democrat Party has spewed more hate then any hate group ever in existence! Just this past week we have heard their hope that Republicans all die in the hurricane, that Akin be raped, and they have entered vile things on Wikipedia about Mayor Mia Love...you get the picture. It's time they look in the mirror before they throw accusations around about Republicans and hate!
BTW, Sikhs are the good guys. Many are mistaken for muslim, but they are as far from being muslim as both Christians and Jews are!