# Why Didn't Obama Mention Sikhs In His Inaugural Address?



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 23, 2009)

Dear Cyber Sadh Sangat, this is what Obama said in his inaugural address in one of his lines: *"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."*

 Many Sikh forums I have visited since the inauguration are full of ire because of the ommission of the Sikhs in the above. Many of them are planning to boycott Obama, writing petitions and demanding the reason why Sikhs were excluded and want an apology from him.

It is sad to notice that our Punjabi spirit of hastely conclusion make us trip on our own mound of ignorance and shows although Sikhi teaches us to be openminded, how much parochial we still remain in our non-Sikhi way of thinking.

Following is what Thomas Jefferson said when the state of Virginia wanted to add Jesus Christ in its constitution.


Thomas Jefferson:

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "*a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the *** and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." -*-Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67 

I thought I would share this with you.

Thanks and Regards

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Randip Singh (Jan 23, 2009)

VaheguruSeekr said:


> Dear Cyber Sadh Sangat,
> 
> This is what Obama said in his inaugural address in one of his lines:-
> 
> ...



Maybe someone should e-mail him about Dalip Singh Saund?


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 23, 2009)

Its simple according to him sikhs are either part of hinduism or a non existant community In USA


----------



## Archived_member7 (Jan 23, 2009)

I belive he is gone through my post that Hindu is for Hindustani people ...and has no connection to a religious identity...:happy:


----------



## Archived_Member_19 (Jan 23, 2009)

he also did not mention the red americans and natives...

does it mean he considers them non existent?


----------



## Jaspreet08 (Jan 23, 2009)

He probably believes us to be too small a community for him to mention. I don't think he believes us to part of Hindus. I think he is more alert and intelligent than that. 

I think Hilliary Clinton would have mentioned Sikhs. She had a lot Sikh donors during her campaign.


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 23, 2009)

I agree that he should have mentioned Sikhs, Buddhists, American Indians etc. etc. He should have added those lines. But on the other side you all are missing the point. He was quoting Jefferson what the state of Virginia tried to do was to add JESUS CHRIST in its constitution which he objected to. Those are Jefferson's words. Not President Obama's.

One can find Jefferson's quotes on this site: http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 23, 2009)

Jaspreet08 said:


> He probably believes us to be too small a community for him to mention. I don't think he believes us to part of Hindus. I think he is more alert and intelligent than that.
> 
> I think Hilliary Clinton would have mentioned Sikhs. She had a lot Sikh donors during her campaign.


 
Jaspreet, you may be right but Obama was the only one to vote for the easing of restrictions regarding Sikhs on the TSA bill. Hillary did not nor did McCain.

Tejwant


----------



## anders (Jan 23, 2009)

Jaspreet08 said:


> He probably believes us to be too small a community for him to mention. I don't think he believes us to part of Hindus. I think he is more alert and intelligent than that.


Living rather half the Earth away from those happenings, I think it's mostly a matter of statistics and general US ignorance. Your current President probably knows lots more than most USAians on ethnological/religional/cultural interactions and problems that might arise in such areas, and seems to be willing to face problems in that field on his short listed priorities. Teaching the US general public that a Sikh or Rajasthani or whathever head gear isn't automatically mean that somebody's about to kill you should get massive federal education effort.


----------



## Shiva Singh Khalsa (Jan 23, 2009)

Wahe Guru Ji Ka Khalsa, Wahe Guru Ji Ki Fateh,
Sadh Sangaat Ji,

For those of you who may not know his background, President Obama has had  great relationship with the Indian, and specifically Punjabi Sikh community in Illinois.

Typically I am with some of the others in our sangaat who are annoyed, at best, with scholars, and other experts on world religion when they either ignore or merge Sikhi with Hinduism in books, documentaries, etc. 

In this case, I am pleased and inspired at the overall inclusive language, choices of speakers, etc. at the inauguration and in his actions in the first few days.

I was a little dissapointed that I saw no turbans evident in the crowd, but since his issues and mine are in sync I find it is easier for me to avoid going over the deep edge about any apparent slight.

In the same feeling, perhaps those who are insulted and not so ready to forgive an apparent slight may be on the political right spectrum of American politics who do not feel as comfortable or invested in his policies and the direction he is taking the nation.

Whahe Guru
Shiva Singh Khalsa


----------



## therebirthofkhalsa (Jan 23, 2009)

Oh My Waheguru, I cant believe the fuss about something so trivial, yes he is the president of USA but he is not GOD he is not our True Guru, if we cared that much about what Guruji says and wants from us i cant imagine the kind of Sikh we will be, so please lets not waist energy on things that dont matter, and focus on what is really important, but too bad that some people only care about stirring problems and making unnecesary drama.


----------



## gascosikh (Jan 24, 2009)

WJKK! WJKF! This is ridiculous. It is so petty to be upset by such trivia. Obama had 15 minutes to deliver his speech. There was no way he could include everyone in it: in fact, he did not say "Buddhists", "Jains", "Taoists", "Baha'i's", the countless tribal religions in Africa (where his father hails from), Native AMerican religions, Australian native religions...and the list goes on and on. The important thing is the big picture. Will he do the best job addressing issues important to you, or could someone else (McCain/ Palin, for example...????) do it better. Um....I think Obama certainly will have a heck of a better job listening to Sikhs (Which he has already in his campaign) than I have seen really...from most...if any ...past US Presidents. Thank you Shiva Singh Khalsa for keeping a healthy perspective.


----------



## guisingh (Jan 24, 2009)

Did you spot a single turbaned sikh amongst the crowd that gathered to witness obama's swearing in ceremony. We did not. Could not a few hundred sikhs band themselves into a group, sport saffron turbans and be at the ceremony. Surely they would have caught obama's eye! And pray how many splinter groups of sikhs are there in washington alone. Which group represents the sikhs as such!


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 24, 2009)

amarsanghera said:


> he also did not mention the red americans and natives...
> 
> does it mean he considers them non existent?



We are taking about religions not races or ethinicities.I don't know whether red Americans
and natives have their separate religion or not but if they have then He should have mentioned them.

BTW Just tell me the reason why he mentioned Hindu's and left out sikhs,why sikhs were not initally invited in religious ceremony?


----------



## NavjeetSingh (Jan 24, 2009)

Well, there's a lot that can be debated regarding the issue but I think such a endless debate would be of some use if we put the topic for what can be done now?

My solution is it would be better if the Sikh Community gives him some present as token of congratulations for becoming the President. Then this issue could be taken up with him so that in future, such things don't happen. 

I would like to hear some replies.

Navjeet Singh
Have u gone through Who Are Sikh?


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

Shiva Singh Khalsa said:


> Wahe Guru Ji Ka Khalsa, Wahe Guru Ji Ki Fateh,
> Sadh Sangaat Ji,
> 
> 
> ...



Obama did not mention Wiccans,Satanists,druids,thelemites,jains,sufis,budhists,vampires or werewolves.
I always knew this man was full of religious bigotry:}8-:


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

And he did not mention me!
I am offended!


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

As Sikhs, there is little that we need from Washington.
We are a self reliant and industrious ethnic minority in the united states that  have not looked to the government for help in our success.
Lets keep it that way.


----------



## shearwater (Jan 24, 2009)

*There are so many ethnic minorities in the US that it would have been impossible to name them all.  *I think of the Amish who renounce military force and have relinquished their right to vote in exchange for the requirement to serve in the US military.  Quakers are another of the passive groups allowed the same right but who can vote as well. 

*Obama as leader of the party of the "big tent," (Democrats) is identifying himself with all of these fringe groups and ethnic minorities which includes gays and lesbians, which renounce the so-called Judeo-Christian Ethic which includes morality framed by the Ten Commandments and Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.*


----------



## starforce (Jan 24, 2009)

Because Sikhism is a minority religion (no disrespect) compared to the other religions he mentioned.  There are many other minority religions of the world he didn't mention, he could be there all day in his speech if he mentioned all of them.


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

you are so right waheguru
lets get back to work!


----------



## DONNA (Jan 24, 2009)

I'm surprised to read such negative comments.  President Obama made a great speech and he exuded intelligence and integrity-a quality much lacking today, especially amongst world leaders.  So he didn't mention Sikhism-he didn't mention other religions either.  He cant cover everything in his inaugural speech.  Why get hung up on something he didn't mention ?  He may well implement some great  policies which may help towards greater peace in the world and a better environment.  His omission of Sikhism in his speech does not reflect what he thinks about Sikhism-he strikes me as very multicultural and aware.  I wish him lots of luck, he has worked very hard to get where he is and certainly deserves it.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa
Waheguru ji ki fateh


----------



## therebirthofkhalsa (Jan 24, 2009)

Can it be that it just sliped his mind, and if it was so, who is control anyways, how wrote and direct this drama called life, and if the people who are so desperate in finding out why the did not mention Sikhs, why dont you send Mr Obama a letter or email asking him why? I believe it will be the most simple thing to do. As for my self I dont need recognition from no country, no president, no high figure to know that Im Sikh of Waheguru and in the end what can any human really do for us, tell me Who has and always taken care of us and all of our needs? who else than Waheguru. The problem is that we as Sikhs dont realise who we are, and how fortunate we are to be Sikhs, if we did as I mention before we would give the importance and full autorithy to the only authority that realy matters to a Sikh, our True Guru, Guru Grant Sahib Ji, I know Sikhs most behave and give respect and be thankfull that other countries has taken us in, and let us have our true religion but that dont mean that Sikhs outside from Punjab most kiss *** and act as if we owe something them, we certainly dont, all credits all praises all kiss *** should be offered to our True Guru in the love of our Waheguru, this world and no countries belong to no man, its all temporal illusion, it all belongs to Waheguru, so please lets share truth, lets share light, lets help each other apreciate and love Waheguru and give Guruji the respect and thanks the He deserves.


----------



## lotus lion (Jan 24, 2009)

Hi,

I would have to agree with Brothers such as Star Force.

On the surface, yes i too would agree that arguing about this could be deemed petty, but when we scratch beneath it, one cannot deny that this is merely the result of The Sikhs not caring, respecting and internalising The Dharma.

I sometimes feel that we pay The Dharma mere lip-service, if that, but then for some reason expect everyone to know us and give us recognition and when it does not happen, we have a shocked/blank look on our face. 
It is almost as if we as a whole suffer from dillusions of grandeur from 300 Years ago.

Ask almost any person about Islam and they can tell you the name of their place of worship, 'The name' of their God, and the name of thier Prophet Plus a basic understanding of their religion.
I sincerely doubt that they could do the same for The Sikhs.

From my perspective our values as a whole are becoming secular, (No spiritual Base) and are what the rest of the World dicatate to us, so we are but another face in the crowd.

I do not know what else we as Sikhs are expecting in all honesty.



> You shall harvest what you plant.


 
Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ang 4

Could be deemed that it has been taken out of context, but i feel it illustrates how i feel about the issue.

Had we made ourselves known in a constructive and organised manner to the wider population, influenced society to move in the right direction and contributed beyond the mere financial, I do not see why we would have been left of the speech. 

Please note i am not crying out for attention, though it may seem like it. 
To me it is an indicator that we are not being recognised because we are not practicing or propogating the Dharma the way it should be and that is a cause for concern.

Please also note i am not having a gripe about President Obama not speaking of The Sikhs either. I sincerely wish him every success in his presidency irrespective of speaking about us, But this act implies to some degree that we are hardly on the radar of awarness fo the billions of people out there, which can not be a good for anyone.

As a whole we need to get our act together.

In the UK there is the Sikh Course which is explaining the Dharma to the Sikhs to begin with and hopefully to others further down the line.

Bit of a rant for myself i must admit, and bordering on the Non-positive which is never my intention, but at the end i hope something positive comes out of it.

My best regards,

Lotus


----------



## gudia (Jan 24, 2009)

Wahe guru ji ka khalsa,
  First thing it seems our sikh brethren ,in spite of being his great supporters have not been able to assert themselves, may be because of their miniscule minority.
Secondly sikhs, in general, are very libera land simpleton and become pleased very easily even on personal pleasantries and small consideration.
Last, because Hindu leaders generaly, inspite of our protests, repeatedly term us part of Hinduism.
Sikhs MUST ASSERT THEMSELVES AS A SEPERATE RELIGEON IN EVERY SPHERE (including the PAPER WORK IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.)


----------



## therebirthofkhalsa (Jan 24, 2009)

minuscule minority? and in other post i read minority, small group,  that is the problem, if we keep viewing ourselves as small, or less, cause in my opinion we are not, maybe you mean that your mentality and your love for Waheguru is minuscule or small, but who on earth can determine majority or minority? 
And we cant compare the affair relating to Waheguru and our True Guru with the affairs of this material world, start thinking spiritual, start meditating Sat Nam Waheguru and hopefully you will realize that Sikhs are not small or minority, lets get for real please.


----------



## Jaspreet08 (Jan 24, 2009)

shearwater said:


> I think of the Amish who renounce military force and have relinquished their right to vote in exchange for the requirement to serve in the US military. Quakers are another of the passive groups allowed the same right but who can vote as well.


I didn't know that. Interesting.


----------



## Amritdhari_grl (Jan 24, 2009)

Maybe everyone is making a bigger deal out of this than necessary. I mean Obama didn't mean to leave the Sikhs, Buddhists, and other religions like that out. It's just that there are so many religions out there that there would be no point in saying them ALL. So he proably just used the religions which the MAJORITY of people followed. I mean you have to admit Sikhism has way less followers than Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism and there are ever more atheists than there are Sikhs. I know he didn't forget about us though and does not plan to leave us out.


----------



## KAUR13 (Jan 24, 2009)

umm thanx to the indian government SIKHISM is not considered  a religion ON ITS OWN so i dont see y he would mention us... we're considered the sect of HINDUISM and he sed HINDUISM so according to all the official **** that shud be fine 
buht of course its not ... we are separate from hindus .... plus we havnt been able to tell the world yet... the difference between sikh and a hindu and the difference between a sikh and a muslim... its not their fault... its our own fault


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

Even a Waheguru must still tie up his camel.


----------



## jonathan (Jan 24, 2009)

would you please explain to me how if President Obama the all merciful messiah thinks that Sikhism is a sect of Hinduism,what books has he been reading or who has he been getting his information from. I do not consider Sikhism to be a sect of Hinduism which last time I checked was a polytheistic religion that is considered paganism by the Muslims and the Christians. I believe Sikhism is a blended religion of Sufism and Judaism.
correct me if I am mistaken for I am just a student who is fresh on this path to the State of  Waheguru.


----------



## JimRinX (Jan 24, 2009)

It's good to see the defense that many of you have put up for Barack Obama; as he really is the most open minded, multi-culturally aware, and well traveled President that the United States has ever had; with the possible exception of - guess who - Thomas Jefferson (though one should not discount Benjamin Franklin, either; read His many writings, you'll get a lot out of it!), so those comments were very pleasing to reads, too!
Also, as you pointed out, he didn't mention Buddhism - even though the Dalai Lama was awarded the Freedom Medal two years ago!
Calm Down, my good Jis - it was just a speach; and those not only have to have a nice 'flow' to them, they also need to be as concise - as in as short - as possible, or people will begin to yawn and turn away.
If that happens, then it won't matter what he says - or how many people,religions, or whatever Barack mentions - as no one will be haering him any more.
Please! This man will be 'getting it' on all fronts - and especially from those who would want the name of Jesus in the Constitution; the least that we - the minority religion practitioners - can do, is to lay off this kind of stuff; he doesn't need any more of that kind of negativity!:yes:


----------



## Sidqui sikh (Jan 24, 2009)

Maybe I think that Sikhs are still being confused and considered as being part of hindus.


----------



## ssingh (Jan 24, 2009)

Gur Fathe Syber Sangat. As far as I see a "SINGH" does not care about mention non mention or praise from a politician. I am sorry to hurt the feelings of the patriotic Americans. A "SINGH" has only one president and that is who you all know; what all other presidents say it does not matter. The 10th Jama had made all this clear and he has promised you and if you do that you do not have to bow down to others all will look up to you. The idea of not hurting others feelings is what keeps you from breaking the normal civic laws of any Government, but if the SINGHS attach or take pride in being a part of those Governments, sorry than you will have to be punished as SINGHS for the deeds of those Governments. The Sikh state was not formed by the Guru as with the character layed down by the Guru for the SINGH would not need a seperate state that was proven by the last living Jama in his life time. I hope I have been able to convey what I feel and if I have hurt any body's feelings beg your forgiveness. In light of what I have said may be my more learned brothers would be able discuss it in that light better.
WGJDK-WGJDF


----------



## Dr. Harbhajan Singh Seth (Jan 25, 2009)

Respected Sirs,  
 The main reason, as I think, why Obama did not mention Sikhs separately in his address because our own Indian Govt. does not recognize Sikhism as separate full fledged religion and we are always clubbed together with Hindus like Jain, Budh etc.  Let Indian Govt. first recognize Sikhism as separate full fledged Religion in the Constitution.

 Respectfully,
 Harbhajan Singh Seth


----------



## phagwara (Jan 25, 2009)

Khalsa Ji,
 Waheguru ji ka khalsa waheguru ji ki fateh,
 Yes it is true that Obama is not likes the sikhs and it is also possible that he is thinking that sikh is not a religion, but hindus. But very sad news for al guru nanak nam leva sikh sangat in the crucial period.


----------



## tejinder singh (Jan 25, 2009)

obama did't mention sikhs in inaugural address bacause we have so many jesus who suffrered their life for us like bhai mani singh, bhai diala ji, 4 sahibjade, guru gobinad singh ji whole family............but we did't any sikhism awareness in people around the world including america...although christians have just one jesus and they explore him all over the world. more over even we ourseves can't stick to our religion (nobody is having 5 k's n doing nitnem) so how we can blame muslims doing namaaj even on jobs. we are bad including me or obama or anybody else.


----------



## surajcap (Jan 25, 2009)

Hindus and Sikhs are one (not in religious sense but culture and nationality) and will remain united for eternity.

 Just as Sikh Gurus saved the lives of and fought for rights of Hindus against Muslim Mughals the Indian Hindus also returned the favour by settling Sikh refugees from Pakistan after 1947 Independence when they were being butchered by Pakistani Muslims in central Punjab - the homeland of Sikhs, now in eastern Pakistan.

 RSS and Hindu Nationalists helped much in Sikh rehabilitation in Indian Punjab which was then 2/3 Hindu majority and also due to severing of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana from it Indian Punjab is now Sikh majority due this voluntary grant by Hindus and re-merger with HP & Haryana as the original Indian Punjab will make Sikhs again 1/3 minority. So question of Khalistan in India don't arise as also in truncated Indian Sikh majority Punjab as gifted by Hindu majority India, still 40% are Hindus and their security and rights will be always safeguarded by 90 crore Hindus of the globe! During 1984 anti-Sikh riots in India by Congress again the RSS saved many a Sardars!

 But, unfortunately many Sikhs are angry and scared of RSS as they say Sikhs are Hindus!

 The reality is Hindu Nationalists call all Indians as Hindus (not by religion but cultural nationality alone) due to thousands of years of same culture which continued even after Sikhism after it started 500 years before. They also call Indian Muslims and Christians as Hindus by Christi Hindus and Muhammadi Hindus per nationality.

 Now if Sikhs despise this they can use the term Indian for Hindus to differentiate from Hindus (by religion actually called Sanatan Dharmis).

 There would have been no problem for Sikhs and neither they would get annihilated if they believed them as a sect of Hindus like Jains (still very strong) and some current Sikh sects as there is nothing in Sikhism which is against Vedas rather Ek Omkar is dereived from Ekam Sadbiprah Bahuda Vadanti and Hinduism allows total freedom of faith!

 As for casteism and such social evils, all Indian religions and not just Hinduism have them so Dalit Sikhs are moving away from Jat Sikhs and joining such non-Sikh, non-Hindu organisations like Dera Saccha Sauda of a fraud Baba!

 Still Sikhs have the right to be seperate religiously but even then they can't seperate from Indian Nation which they and Hindus jointly formed from Vedic times as Indian nation was born then in Punjab first at the hands of their same ancestors! Now Hindu Nationalists call this Indian Nation as Hindu Nation (not religiously but by cultural nationalism) as we really are or else there is no difference with Paksitan or Afghanistan where Sikhs are even now tortured - IRIN Asia | Asia | Afghanistan | AFGHANISTAN: Focus on Hindus and Sikhs in Kandahar | Conflict | Feature

 Till 1947 it was the practise of many Punjabi Hindu families to send their eldest and ablest sons to be Sikhs and likewise many Sikhs even now worship Mata Vaishno Devi and Lord Amarnath in the belief that Sikhs are part of Hinduism.

 Akalis the true Sikhs resent these but then these so called Sikhs worshipping Hindu deities or Punjabi and Sindhi Hindus worshipping and adoring Guru Granth Sahib and photos of Sikh Gurus are syncretists and neither Sikhs nor Hindus should discourage their freedom of be afraid of them as per laws of religious liberty taught by Sikh Gurus.

Hence, if Sikhs still want "Khalistan" it must be created in Pakistan (eastern part) as it was the homeland of Sikhs with all major Gurudwaras except few like in Bihar and Maharastra are in Indian Punjab. Ranjit Singh's Sikh empire was also made of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan and Indian Punjab i.e, cis-Sutlej Missles were under British Dominion.

 Hence in Indian Punjab there were never any independent free Sikh land and neither will be! 

 If Khalistan is created in Pakistan and Afghanistan Khalistani Sikhs may remain sure that Indian Govt will giv ethem their holy city of Amritsar which only falls in India as Hindus are always liberal!


----------



## paramsarinarchana (Jan 25, 2009)

Your point is well taken and thanks for sharing it.

I am not sure if numbers are that important. I believe Guru's themselves did not aim at numbers ... but on quality.  If we are that passionate about Sikhism, and it matters that Sikhs be recognized ..... then please share the biggest treasure Sikhs have ..... please spread and make accessible 'Guru Granth Sahib' and its teaching through translations, discourse, workshops ....

For the statistical minded, here's a site ranking religions by size, notice how #Sikhs ranks 9:

Major Religions Ranked by Size

Nanak Naam Chardi Kala
Teray Bhaney, Sarbat Ka Bhalaa

SSA!

Param


----------



## B.S Aulakh (Jan 25, 2009)

Dear Khalsa ji,
Waheguru ji ka khalsa, waheguru ji ki fateh

In this subject that why OBAMA did not say a single word. I want to say that every where in the word sikhs are ignored always. Right from 1947, the leaders of Congress specially Nehru Family, was against of sikhs, but they want to join sikhs in their party to show that congress is party of sikhs also. If in our country sikh are ignored then how we can hope from other country. In gurbani written "GHAR SUKH BASIA BAHAR SUKH PAYA, KOH NANAK GUR MANTRA DRIDAYA" In same if we are not got respect in our country, for that country where maximum myrtyrs are from sikh community for freedom fight. Then should not hope from Obama or any other foreign leader.

Bhagwan singh Aulakh


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 25, 2009)

Respected forum members,

After some early comments I wanted to back out of this discussion and let members all have their say. But this morning it appeared that maybe I needed to say something again. Especially in reaction to those who think that Obama confuses Sikhs with Hindus. Please understand my remarks in the context of a US citizen who has been following presidential politics her entire life.

First of all on the subject of "sanatam dharma." Perhaps less than 1 percent of the US public knows what sanatam dharma is. With the exception of that percentage of Hindus, Sikhs and religious scholars who have actually studied this subject, virtually no one has heard of it. There are even Sikhs in the US who do not know "sanatan dharma." This could be a display of shocking ignorance on the part of the general US public, but it is true. I wager that even President Obama has not heard of "sanatam dharma." So I doubt it played any part whatsoever in the fact that Sikhs were left out of the inaugural address.

Same thing with "hindutva" agendas. The people who would know about "hindutva" more than any other in the US would be political science professors who study South Asia. Maybe some other academics have a vague memory of hearing about this. To the average American, even the highly educated, the political landscape of India is hard to comprehend because "we" do not have the kind of press coverage that takes the time to examine the layers and layers of history that are needed to understand the "saffron agenda" and its impact on Sikh identity. Believe me when I say this. President Obama was not confusing Sikhs with Hindus -- even if the Indian Government itself is not clear on this point.

Finally -- in the US, a very small fraction of people have an informed understanding of the word "Sikh." Most in fact do not have this word in their vocabulary. Americans are very "insular" people. We live on a continent but think we live on an island. Now this percentage who do recognize Sikhism as an independent religion is larger than the group who never heard of "sanatan dharma."  This group, who do know about Sikhism and who do have the word "Sikh" in their minds, still  are not really sure what that means. They recognize that men with beards, and turbans are Sikhs. Sometimes they recognize the kara and the kirpan are symbols of Sikhism. They know that Sikhs originated from India. That is all they know... strange as that may seem, it is true. (Example, my 88 year old mother actually spent 4 years in India when she was in her 20's during World War II. When I told her I was a practicing Sikh, she said "What is that? I saw Sikhs in India, but what who are they?"   OMG? I thought to myself.)  This is America -- most people are very tolerant, but they are not intellectually curious. Those who are intolerant are also not intellectually curious. (And this second group is the group to be worried about.)

There are also some in the US public that do understand that Sikhism is a separate religion. This group does not confuse Sikhism with Hinduism. Again their comprehension is very limited. All they know is that Sikhs follow a monotheistic religion and they mistakenly believe that Sikhism is some kind of religious combo of Islam and Hinduism. THIS IS THE MORE EDUCATED GROUP!  By now you should see what Sikhs are up against in the US. Mostly it is cavalier ignorance and that is bad enough.

Conclusion: US presidents depend on aides to provide material for their speeches. These aides come from academia and think tanks. If the most educated layer of the US does not really comprehend Sikhism, what kind of information do you think they are going to bring to the table when a president writes a speech?

VaheugurSeekr ji has summed up the Obama perspective in the most concise and helpful way -- judge Obama by his deeds and his values. The oversight of Sikhs in his inaugural speech should be understood as unfortunate. I asked myself the same question you are asking now -- WHERE ARE THE SIKHS? But then I remembered that the presidential aides are the ones who needed to go to school on this one.

Forgive me if I have offended any Sikh in my comments.   I do not mean to offend you. Everyone else who is offended should go to the library and read a book on comparative religions.


----------



## kds1980 (Jan 25, 2009)

surajcap said:


> Hindus and Sikhs are one (not in religious sense but culture and nationality) and will remain united for eternity.
> 
> Just as Sikh Gurus saved the lives of and fought for rights of Hindus against Muslim Mughals the Indian Hindus also returned the favour by settling Sikh refugees from Pakistan after 1947 Independence when they were being butchered by Pakistani Muslims in central Punjab - the homeland of Sikhs, now in eastern Pakistan.
> 
> ...




What are you saying?.The ratio of undivided punjab was like 55:30:15 , muslim,hindu and sikhs.Jinnah at at all cost want whole punjab in pakistan.For this he even gave white paper to master tara singh,but he refused .Sikhs decided to be with India that's why the Eastern punjab was given to India.Sikhs were butchered in partition because they refused to be with jinnah.So don't try to portray sikhs as beggers or refugee's


----------



## stupidjassi (Jan 26, 2009)

Saint Soldier said:


> Sat shri akal,
> 
> *Warning: Do not instigate emotions. The member has been warned.*



hey Aman singh and *aad0002*
Sorry for overreacting....  but couldn`t  help myself. anyways , i will  try to use the 'Report this post' option in future.

thanks again


----------



## Admin (Jan 26, 2009)

Thank you!! the member has be officially warned. Please use *Report this Post* option in future so that we can take necessary action promptly. Thanks again for the feedback. Regards


----------



## Saint Soldier (Jan 26, 2009)

Sat shri akal,



stupidjassi said:


> What the Heck ????
> it isn`t funny man.........


OMG

oh yeah it isnt funny!
and i thought il only be warned when caught driving a car without a license.
Allah,Ram,Jesus,waheguru all of them refer to the same power and i haven't done anything wrong by replacing one with another doesn't Ram Ram and Allah Ram sound equally good.Waheguru can be replaced by Jesus and if not why so?
Guru Sahib was the one to teach that Ram and Rahim are one and the same.what kind of Sikh are you cant you understand the teaching of your Guru.:down:


----------



## Admin (Jan 26, 2009)

Saint Soldier Ji, we all here are learning. Our understanding is limited to our knowledge. It would be great if you could look into your dairy and share with us your understanding on Waheguru? What do you interpret by the term Waheguru and enlighten us? 

Thank you,
Warm Regards


----------



## Saint Soldier (Jan 26, 2009)

Its the name of God in your religion if I'm not wrong .:yes:


----------



## Admin (Jan 26, 2009)

Saint Soldier said:


> Its the name of God in your religion if I'm not wrong .:yes:


So, by your own (mis)-interpretation are you not limiting the scope of Waheguru when you replaced the word with Jesus? In my limited understanding Jesus/Guru Nanak/Mohammed (pbuh),Ram were the messengers of God/Waheguru. Here lies the offense. Do not try to limit the scope of Sikhi with your mischievous comments here and there... :idea: 

Best Regards


----------



## Saint Soldier (Jan 26, 2009)

wasn't Ram the name of a prophet too why did Guru ji used it then?
where is Jesus(the one you called prophet right now) right now isn't he a part of God.
plz do not force your limited thinking on me you Sikhism following creature's have turned out to be nothing more than Hindus and Muslims sometimes i feel as if one cannot remain a Sikh without accepting Sikhism because people like you never let him live plz let me follow my father the way i want you are free to do what ever you feel like.
and these are not my words out of anger.
~Jesus sahia~


----------



## spnadmin (Jan 26, 2009)

saint soldier ji

My thoughts on the matter now under discussion. The comment that was deleted now has to be included in my comments so that my expression of concern makes sense. Christians and Sikhs alike forgive me for this. 

"Jesus ji ka Khalsa! Jesus ji ki Fateh" is your adaptation of "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa! Waheguru ji ki Fateh." (The khalsa belong to God; Victory belongs to God)

"Waheguru ji ka Khalsa! Waheguru ji ki Fateh" was given to Sikhs. I am not sure that the historical circumstances of this statement, which have nothing to do with Christians,  can be ignored -- but for now I will leave that part out.  In Christian theology Jesus is understood to be an human incarnation of God. Sikhs do not accept the idea of an incarnate God. Jesus is also viewed by Christians as the Son of God.

If you substitute Jesus for Waheguru, then it would appear to some of us that the idea that Waheguru is self-existent, without father or mother, has been repealed by you. 

On the flip side. For Christians your adaptation of "Waheguru ji ka Khalsa! Waheguru ji ki Fateh" can also be offensive. By substituting the name of Jesus for Waheguru it can/does seem as if names are interchangeable. But that is not the case in Christian thinking. You see, Jesus ki ka Khalsa would mean that the khalsa belong to Jesus. Do they? No!

 I am not even certain that the Khalsa themselves want to belong to Jesus. If it takes a lot explaining to sort out your point about Jesus and Waheguru so that no one is offended, then maybe it was not a good idea to begin with.


----------



## Saint Soldier (Jan 26, 2009)

oh what times have come I'm explaining to the Sikhs that Jesus and Waheguru are one those Sikhs who follow Guru Nanak i cannot comment anymore i can smell a feeling of helplessness within me forgive me men's of this world but i was not wrong not at all and I'm not ashamed of it not at all. i hope you will delete all my posts in this topic aad ji its a request for God sake!


----------



## Tejwant Singh (Jan 26, 2009)

Saint Soldier said:


> oh what times have come I'm explaining to the Sikhs that Jesus and Waheguru are one those Sikhs who follow Guru Nanak i cannot comment anymore i can smell a feeling of helplessness within me forgive me men's of this world but i was not wrong not at all and I'm not ashamed of it not at all. i hope you will delete all my posts in this topic aad ji its a request for God sake!


 
Saint Soldier ji,

Guru Fateh

I have no idea what kind of cross you are carrying in your mind, but it sure seems quite a heavy one.You seem in a lot of internal agony.

Your decision to folllow whomever or whatever is entirely yours. No one can impede that especially a Sikh because Sikhi way of life is about internal manisfestaion, it is not an external imposition because love can not be imposed. It has to be germinated from the withn.

But whatever your pain and suffering laced with agony and ecstasy  may be, what does this have to do with Obama?

Please help me understand that.

Tejwant Singh


----------



## Gyani Jarnail Singh (Jan 27, 2009)

Ordinarily "Name" is GIVEN BY the PARENT.
Ordinarily  Name is a PROPER NOUN.

Waheguru..Akal purakh has no parents...nobody can give him a "name"..thus there  is NO PROPER NOUN NAME for Waheguru....akal purakh..
ALL the so called "Names" of Akal Purakh are KIRTAM...DESCRIPTIONS....ADJECTIVES...

Raam..the Ramiah houa..one that is immersed throghout....Rahim..the beneficient....

The PROPHETS..Jesus..Moses..Abraham..Muhammad.. all had PARENTS who gave them those Names proper nouns.... so same goes for Guru nanak Ji and the rest of the Gurus... AKAL PURAKH WAHEGURU IS UNBORN>>SELF CREATED>>no name !!


----------



## mein murakh (Jan 27, 2009)

KHUDDI KO KAR BULAND ITNAA KE HAR TAKDIR SE PAHLE KHUDDA BANDE SE KHUD POOCHE,"E BANDE BATAA TERI RAZA KAYAA HAI"---------:happy:-that is the sipirt ------:yes: [ok lets do some positive}


----------



## JimRinX (Jan 27, 2009)

To Gyani Jarnail Singh and VaheguruSeekr.
Many of us have been giving our troubled young friend, Saint Soldier, some - hopefully - Good Advice, regarding Angst, the Illusion of Success, etc., over on the 'Our 4 Days in Maya' thread - which seems more appropriate, as this young fella' has been blinded by a Light that has more to do with Neon Advertising, than The Lord!:yes:
Check It Out!


----------



## shearwater (Jan 27, 2009)

I think the Sikh Religion is only a minority in relative terms.  From my understanding, there are over 80 million Sikhs throughout the world.  Compared to India's population of about one billion, that is a fairly small number.  However, compared to the Roman Catholic Religion which has about 900.000,000, the Sikh religion is almost 10% as large.


----------



## seeker_of_the_path (Jan 28, 2009)

maybe becz. these are the four major religious contributors to our population in the u.s. smarties, he didn't mention buddism, zaoism/zorastrianism, scientology, zenism, and etc. either. like wow. . . ur really good at research your own answers.
  -no he just hates sikh's that's why he picked one as his attorny general.


----------



## singhisking101 (Feb 4, 2009)

he probably doesnt know we exist


----------



## pk70 (Feb 4, 2009)

*In today’s world, for a recognition, it depends who beats the drum loud, Christians and Jews are part of American culture for centuries, Muslims got heard  regardless the way they did it, Hindus have a country beating its drums only in favor of one religion. Poor Sikhs, Buddhists and other people of other faith just have to endure this drama of show off louder drums because I believe if a few more words were added in the speech it would have added only a second in the given time of speech of President Obama, the guy failed to even say “and other faiths” while talking about faiths. Even if he did what would have changed? We have been living without recognition for centuries; we would in the future too. It is better not to chase the illusions of names. Only important thing is how he deals with the problem our world community faced with. I wish him good luck though I didn’t vote for him!!!!*


----------



## NavjeetSingh (Feb 7, 2009)

Very well said P70 Ji...


----------



## kds1980 (Feb 7, 2009)

pk70 said:


> *In today’s world, for a recognition, it depends who beats the drum loud, Christians and Jews are part of American culture for centuries, Muslims got heard  regardless the way they did it, Hindus have a country beating its drums only in favor of one religion. Poor Sikhs, Buddhists and other people of other faith just have to endure this drama of show off louder drums because I believe if a few more words were added in the speech it would have added only a second in the given time of speech of President Obama, the guy failed to even say “and other faiths” while talking about faiths. Even if he did what would have changed? We have been living without recognition for centuries; we would in the future too. It is better not to chase the illusions of names. Only important thing is how he deals with the problem our world community faced with. I wish him good luck though I didn’t vote for him!!!!*



This world only has 1 rule and that is only thing matter is quantity.OBama also proved this
by not even saying "other religions" because only thing matter is quantity


----------



## RANJIT BHOGAL (Feb 15, 2009)

The timing of Obamas election is critical to his speach. It was after the bombay blast.


----------

