Mutatis mutandis is a Latin phrase used by philosophers to indicate that an argument made in one circumstance carries over to another, "the necessary changes having been made."
Most of us don't know much about Sikhs, which is why this dispute, which has escalated into violence and civil disorder in the Punjab, displays its irrationality to us so easily. We aren't burdened by any associations, historical resonances, political nuances. The whole thing can be seen in its pristinely pure stupidity:
Sikhs are angered over an advertisement in local newspapers earlier this week showing the head of a breakaway sect - Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh of Dera Sacha Sauda - in attire akin to that of Guru Gobind Singh. The Sikhs described it as an act of blasphemy."If this incident is given political colours then all factions of Sikhs will oppose it," said Rupinder Singh Khalsa, a Sikh leader.
"Whatever Saccha Sauda leader has done, it has given a big blow to the entire community. We will not tolerate this. All Sikhs across the country are very angry with this," said Rachpal Singh, another Sikh leader.
Meanwhile, the groups which are sympathetic to Dera Sacha Sauda, who consider that no mistake has been committed by them, are meeting at Sirsa.
The State Government has appealed for restraint and harmony. (HimTimes)
I'm not minimizing the importance to Sikhs of these particular beliefs. I have no doubt this is a deadly serious business for the believers on each side, just as deadly serious as religious disputes between Protestants and Catholics, Jews and Muslims, Baptists and Mormons. Deep disagreements worthy of the same respect.
None.
- Log in to post comments
What? They wore the same shirt? Well I, for one, am shocked...!
It's not clear if it is the same shirt or same headgear. A crucial difference, wouldn't you agree? Or do you want to fight about it?
It's a false advertising issue? Like having the guy promoting his product wearing a white coat and stethoscope to appear more authoritative?
Imagine the bloodshed if they had both turned up to a party with the same outfit!
It does seem petty. Particularly considering one greater misuse of religious iconography in advertising in India: corporations like Monsanto using Hindu deities to sell supposedly improved GM seeds. Which even if they don't fail (as they tend to do outside the labs), by design require Monsanto-made pesticides which can cost as much as the entire price of the crop. (As related by Vandana Shiva, in a public appearance and various books.)
But no more petty than bickering over trans and conssubstantiation. Oh, I know -- that's a Big Deal, religiously. Bwa-ha-ha.
My vote goes to "clownsubstantiation," Revere. I'm still waiting for someone to articulate an explanation as to how Christianity qualifies as a monotheistic religion, that makes the slighest bit of sense. When that goofy (retarded) old bastard in the Vatican isn't busy violating alter boys, maybe he could take a stab at it. He was ranting about Hell, recently; civil suits emptying the coffers?
My invisible sky fairy objects to pretty much everything you do. You will now conform to my wishes!
I'm no expert but it looks like this has to do with the 5Ks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ks
If all 5 articles are warn at once, it signifies you are a Sikh, which would be kind of a provocative thing for the head of a breakaway sect to do. In fact, you might call it 'mockery', something that is wise to avoid.
But by whose definition are they "breakaway"? The majority, or the people from whom they are "breaking away", probably. In their own terms, they may see themselves as an outgrowth of Sikhism, or a reform movement. In which case it is not a mockery.
Mind you, I know nothing about this guy, whether he's closer to a Martin Luther or a David Koresh, but wherever he falls on that scale, I'm sure he considers himself a Sikh, just as both those men considered themselves Christians.
It's not like the guy is, say, Jain, and is dressing up as a Sikh to be provocative.