Hi Frank. You're back again. Thought you didn't want to waste any more time. Or is it different when you are doing the lecturing? Did my revision and clarification of my sources move me to the 'too hard' basket?

Nah, Jack, I didn't want to waste any more time on you. Wasting it on BOAZ instead.

Happy Saturnalia!

People need to understand that the Kirpan is just one of the symbols or the Sikh’s religious tradition and is not meant to be a weapon. For example, this article, written by a Sikh, it says: “The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways its religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapons than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.”
And “The Reht Maryada does not specify the length of the Kirpan or how it is to be worn by the devotee. Kirpans can be anywhere from 3 foot swords carried by Sikhs on religious festivals, marriages and parades, to a few inches in length.”
http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm
I understand from other sources that the Kirpan can definitely be blunt if required.

Pericles first suggested ‘bluntness’ of the Kirpan and I reiterated that point several times but this point was ignored.
I can agree with opposing SHARP Kirpans, but what I don’t understand is why you would so strongly oppose the concealed wearing of small, blunt Kirpans by Sikhs in a controlled environment e.g. a school.

You are either for or against religious tolerance, and you are either for or against the wearing of religious symbols including the cross symbol.
But it’s simply a matter of being judgmental if you allow SOME religions to carry/wear a symbol of their religion but not others.

To say that Sikhs should not be welcome to attend public schools when they carry their BLUNT, concealed religious symbol creates divisiveness.
Things like religious symbols such as the Kirpan provide a great opportunity for schools to discuss differences with all the children and their parents to prevent misunderstanding.

I oppose religious traditions or symbols at the point where one religion clearly interferes with the safety or freedom of other people. I cannot see how a blunt, concealed, covered Kirpan encroaches other people’s safety.

Most regulars here would acknowledge that I'm a pretty tolerant person, particularly when it comes to culture. However, my tolerance of the cultural phenomenon of religion reaches its boundary when adherents of religions want special consideration under the law for their beliefs and rituals, and those special considerations might impact on my (and by extension my children's and grandchildren's) peace and wellbeing.

I have no doubt that the kirpan is a purely symbolic implement that is only carried for religious reasons. However, I understand that adult Sikhs who wish to travel on commercial airlines are willing to compromise to the extent of checking their kirpans in as luggage, rather than carrying them in their cabin baggage or on their person. Given that any other concealed weapons are prohibited in schools, how hard would it be for them to make similar concessions?

As I've said before, we'd be far better off removing all religious trappings and symbols from public schools. If parents want their kids to be indoctrinated in hocus pocus, by all means let them send them to religious schools - which of course shouldn't attract any government funding ;)

FrankGol: "We're looking for the last time, or any time really, when a kirpan was used as a weapon in an Australian school.
Nobody has yet found an instance."

When was the last time a kid dynamited their school?
Can't think of a single instance?
Then we can't stop kids taking dynamite to school.

When was the last time a kid poisoned the cafeteria food with arsenic?
Can't think of a single instance?
Then we can't stop kids taking arsenic to school either.

When was the last time a plane was hijacked with a box cutter?
Hang on!

Kirpans are *only* worn by Khalsa, the baptised Sikhs originally formed as a *military order*.
(When was the last time a military order was aggressive?
Can't think of a single instance!).

Khalsa are "Saint-Soldiers".
Saint first, then Soldier.

Saints must have *total control* over their vices (pride, anger, greed, attachment, lust).
Do hormonal teenagers qualify as self-controlled saints?
Can't think of a single instance!

Sarbat Khalsa is a gathering of a representative portion of the Khalsa Panth theocracy, where they discuss matters that affect all Sikhs.

Surely this matter has created enough international controversy (including a Supreme Court case in Canada) to warrant examination of possible solutions at the next Sarbat Khalsa.

The Jathedar is the supreme religious authority of Sikhism.
If the Pope can revise Catholic practices, why can't the Jathedar do likewise?

I note your usual flippant diversion from my questions about Jewish and Satanist schoolchildren.

Can 13-year-old ("adult") Jews leave school before they're 15?
Can Satanist schoolchildren wear an inverted cross which insults the beliefs of other students?

Please answer this time.
Or is the paint getting disturbing too close to your corner?
It's black hole time!

CJ Morgan: "There is nothing 'racial' about 'Arab identity'".

When was the last time you saw an black Arab?
Or one with red hair and freckles?
Can't think of a single instance!

And before you call me a knuckledragging boofhead, remember I *agree* with you about the kirpan issue.
And have no problem with turnips or anal sex, or combining the two.

Shockadelic

You're a rank amateur. Your analogies are not just false - they are preposterous.

Dynamite and arsenic are illegal and dangerous and rightly forbidden in the hands of children. And no-one is advocating that kids should be allowed to take them to school (except you). Kirpans are neither illegal nor dangerous and are therefore not forbidden.

The extension of your weird argument to 'military orders' and hormonal teenagers is arrant nonsense. Work on your logic, mate.

Shocker syllogism #1:
* Military orders are aggressive.
* Baptised Sikhs were "originally" part of a military order.
* Therefore, Sikh teenagers wearing ceremonial kirpans are aggressive!!

Shocker syllogism #2:
* Baptised Sikhs are saints first and then soldiers.
* Hormonal teenagers are not saints.
* Therefore, Sikh teenagers wearing ceremonial kirpans are dangerous!!

Really, you are a shocker.

I suppose you'll annoy me until I answer your inconsequential questions. So here you are:

"Can 13-year-old ("adult") Jews leave school before they're 15?" No, it's illegal.

"Can Satanist schoolchildren wear an inverted cross which insults the beliefs of other students?" That would probably be a ruling each Principal or governing body would make.

Neither question bears any relevance to kirpans. The law allows Sikh initiates to wear them; and they pose no threat to human life.

I'll leave CJ Morgan to comment on whether you are a knuckledragging boofhead, but I have to say you really do lead with your chin.