|
Post by bigdawgs on Jun 16, 2009 15:10:06 GMT -5
Sikhism is not an abrahamic religion. It is not related to Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Originating on the Indian Sub-continent it probably has more in common with Hinduism than any other well know religion, even though Sikhs and Hindus have had a long rivalry themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2009 15:11:24 GMT -5
Klink, it depends on how his citizenship was obtained and what his intentions are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some of the 9/11 highjackers American citizens too? Citizen or not I don't trust the guy. If I met him perhaps I'd feel different but my first reaction, after what our country has been through, is not to trust him. And either way, when somebody joins our military they conform to OUR standards. Not their own. No, they were not citizens. They were here on visas.
|
|
|
Post by Life's too short. on Jun 16, 2009 20:35:13 GMT -5
Sikhism is not an abrahamic religion. It is not related to Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Originating on the Indian Sub-continent it probably has more in common with Hinduism than any other well know religion, even though Sikhs and Hindus have had a long rivalry themselves. That's what I was going to say earlier, but wasn't sure if I was remembering correctly. The Sikhs and Hindus have had a rather violent relationship between themselves in India. Two rather peaceful religions, but not averse to blowing the shit out each other.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Jun 16, 2009 20:41:14 GMT -5
Sikhism is not an abrahamic religion. It is not related to Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Originating on the Indian Sub-continent it probably has more in common with Hinduism than any other well know religion, even though Sikhs and Hindus have had a long rivalry themselves. That's what I was going to say earlier, but wasn't sure if I was remembering correctly. The Sikhs and Hindus have had a rather violent relationship between themselves in India. Two rather peaceful religions, but not averse to blowing the shit out each other. I wish someone would have pointed out the definition of a Sikh, earlier in the thread. I was thinking that they were like a Kurd, or one of the other factions. My only basis for supporting the idea was the example it would show to the Arabs that distrust us.
|
|
|
Post by bigdawgs on Jun 16, 2009 20:44:53 GMT -5
Pakistani Moslems love Sikhs almost as well as they love Hindus. Had I known you didn't know about Sikhs I would have said something. I must admit I was having difficulty understanding how Iraqis or Afghans would have looked positively about Sikhs serving in the U.S. Army. Hell, it might have the reverse impact with the Pakis.
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Jun 16, 2009 20:49:32 GMT -5
Well, you should have said something, earlier. I'm still looking for a foot-in-mouth emoticon. ;D
|
|
|
Post by LaylaGator on Jun 16, 2009 20:52:35 GMT -5
When I first saw the thread had been yanked, I got scared that I had started something bad. But now that I've had a chance to read it, I see the thread brought just the thoughtful posts I was looking for. All good points. Except this one: LOL, Tony. Why in the world would it be OK to make an exception for an Arab religion, but not any other? Your own commentary debunks your whole point. Your willingness to "try something new" had nothing to do with trying anything new at all. It's all about kissing Arab ass with you. Anyway, I'm not about to turn a good thread bad. I just wanted to tell Tony he's a dork. Thanks for everyone's input. (Even Tony.) ;D
|
|
|
Post by tonythegator on Jun 16, 2009 20:57:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by LaylaGator on Jun 16, 2009 21:01:56 GMT -5
LOL Tony. +1 for taking my smart-assness for what it's worth ;D
You're always a good sport. A hopeless, naive sport. But a good sport.
|
|