Comments

March 10, 2008 at 9:34 pm

(1) Maxine says:

Again the stupidity and ignorance of the secret service is not a surprise, they need to know that terrorists now will not use a turban or any kind, as to pass security easier. They should be called the “dumb service” instead…

March 11, 2008 at 1:39 am

(2) Michelle says:

The Secret Service is paranoid….just like the person they serve.

March 12, 2008 at 3:40 pm

(3) Mark says:

This reminds me of the police officers in Canada being allowed to wear turbans and even on motorcycles where helmet laws are mandatory for “other” citizens. Sikhs have a history of terrorist violence. I certainly do not agree with the current paranoia rampant in the US government, but sometimes reality has to be considered.

March 13, 2008 at 2:52 pm

(4) eric says:

this is idiocy, the sihk council would never harm the pope, especially with a sacred dress kirpan, it would never happen

March 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm

(5) Arvind Singh says:

The word “kirpan” is derived from Sanskrit “krpa” meaning mercy and “an” protection. During the medieval period, Sikhs protected common people from invading armies. Sikhs have a proud martial tradition, however they are strictly forbidden from harming others.

The kirpan is one of five religious articles that an initiated Sikh wears as a sign of outer discipline. The Secret Service surprisingly lacks knowledge of this major faith community. The number of Sikhs globally is slightly more than the number of Jews.

I hope the Secret Service will take steps to redress this gap and avoid embarrassing situations in the future such as denying practising Sikhs the opportunity to meet the Pope in this particular case.

March 18, 2008 at 7:37 pm

(6) John O'Connor says:

“Indira Gandhi had numerous bodyguards, two of whom were Satwant Singh and Beant Singh, both Sikhs. On October 31, 1984 they assassinated Indira Gandhi with machine guns in the garden of the Prime Minister’s Residence at No. 1, Safdarjung Road in New Delhi.”

Ah, but they didn’t use their kirpans, so I guess that’s ok then!

March 29, 2008 at 4:44 pm

(7) caringtruth says:

As is the case with all religions and groups of human beings, one may find a person within whom is willing to commit acts of evil. This does not in any way suggest that this is practiced by all persons within any said group.
Muslims have killed for selfish personal reasons, Christians have done the same, as have many of other faiths, yet many Muslims and christians, and jews, and sikhs, etc, would never harm another human bieng in their entire lives. Some people just make everybody in a group look bad. A terrorist group is much different than these, in that they unite in a belief that one or any form of violence will achieve their ideals and goals. If a group unites in the belief that blowing up schools will bring a disired change in polotics, then they are terrorist. Here is where “Antichrist” takes over, when a small group claims to be speaking for the much larger community. No religion as a whole, is a terrorist group, but terrorism is a radical position. If we can judge people because they simply wear an object on their heads, such as Sikhs, Jews, Muslims, etc, then I shall pass judgement on all whom have eyes to see. Belief is inward(subjective), action is outward(objective). It is our actions upon others which are to be condemned. Killing in the name of God, is the truest interpretation of what is condemned in the commandment, “Thou shall not take the name of the lord, your God, in vain”. For it is vanity to justify an act of murder.