UK: Sikh soldier becomes first guardsman to parade outside Buckingham palace in a turban

IBN live ^ | 12 12 12 | AP

[Cronos]

London: Britain's Ministry of Defence says a Sikh soldier has become the first guardsman to parade outside Buckingham Palace while wearing his traditional turban. Fifty family members were on hand on Tuesday as Guardsman Jatinderpal Singh Bhullar as he took part in the changing of the guard at the London home of Queen Elizabeth II.

[RummyChick]

I am quite rational. It is a simple question. Should a Muslim Marine wear a hajib or a taqiyah when standing at attention next to his fellow service member.

This is not about whether a certain religious sect are good guys.

You can’t discriminate and give the “good guys” authorization to wear religious headgear and not give others the same authorization.

[ansel12]

US Army Captain, later President Ronald Reagan, banned this kind of nonsense in 1984.

Barack Hussein Obama has brought it back.

“”FORT SAM HOUSTON, Texas (March 25, 2010) — For the first time in 23 years, the U.S. Army is allowing a pair of Sikh Soldiers to keep their hair and beard intact and wear a turban.””

[colinhester]

Keeping that quote for later use. Beautifully said.

[RummyChick]

Tomb of the Unknown soldiers don’t wear rank insignia when walking the mat.

Buckingham Foot soldiers are NOT ceremonial. They are real soldiers. They are protecting the Sovereign.

You could argue that the soldiers at the Tomb are ceremonial but you can’t say that about the Soldiers at Buckingham Palace.

Frankly, I don’t care what they do.
But you can’t sit here and argue it is okay for them and then have a problem when someone wants to wear a Burka here. I have seen so many people here get outraged at the idea of exceptions being made here in the US for Muslims but because Shikhs are good guys - let them wear their turbans.

[RummyChick]

“Barack Hussein Obama has brought it back.”

And where does it stop????????????????????????

Why can’t a Muslim woman in the Navy wear her Hajib???

[PeteB570]

RummyChick and everyone posting on this thread.

I hate to bust your bubble but the battle to allow a Sikh to wear his turban in the US Army was fought years ago and he’s wearing it now as an Army Officer.

Because of that many other folks of different religions are using that to allow them to wear their’s.

Also being used by the Ft Hood (workplace shooting) terrorist as to why he should be allowed to keep his beard.

Once you open the door...............

[Mr. Lucky]

That IS a regulation uniform. He's the first to earn the honor of wearing it at Buckingham Palace duty.

Sikhs have a long and honorable traditon in the British military.

[Squawk 8888]

Sikhs have served on the battlefield with our allies in their turbans for a very long time. The way they fight they can wear anything they want.

[RummyChick]

Yeah, that was really my point.Once you open the door for the “good guys”....

Here is a Supreme Court decision. I doubt it would be decided this way today.

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_GoldmanWeinberger.htm

[RummyChick]

And because you open the door for someone you think is a good guy- you can’t close it.

[Timber Rattler]

I have no problem with Sikh's or their traditional head gear. They've been fighting Muslims for 400 years and also served honorably in the British Army during all its conflicts and wars since the 19th century.

Let them wear the turbans...they've earned it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

It’s their country. They can do what they want.

[RummyChick]

Still completely missing the point.

So I guess we won’t be seeing any posts from you decrying the special treatment that Muslims get because of their religion.
You know, the kind other non muslim people don’t get.

[Zippo44]

...except when they turn from their assigned post to assassinate their Prime Minister (see Indira Gandhi).

[PieterCasparzen]

There is an unexplainable Sikh cult here at FR.

This nonsense is destructive of the West and is the loss of our own culture and common sense.

Conservatives for multiculturalism, even in the military.

IMHO...

Interesting concerns. The Bible says:

Romans 12:18 "If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men."

Sikhs have no standing offensive order, such as killing those who are Christian, Jewish, atheist or any non-Sikh. They're quite easy to get along with.

Sikhs are not out to establish their domination over other nations. In general, people of Indian extraction do not have any "world domination" plans, so they are a nation like any other.

This Sikh fellow is in the British military, which, as the military of an ex-empire, has a long tradition of nations in the Commonwealth having their own traditions which are celebrated by the entire Commonwealth. Scots, Irish, Australians, etc., have long histories of their own unique identities and yet also proud Commonwealth traditions.

America is a different deal, having broken completely away in a legal sense. The beginnings of our military traditions are our own that are just rooted in British tradition, and our military has been historically not reflective of the traditions of nations that we once had as colonies because we never had colonies in the sense that empires did (yes, we had protectorates, etc.). Consequently, when our guys wear the uniform, it's "the" uniform, with the only distinctives being by unit, not country of origin.

Conservatives (I'm almost ready to drop that term to describe myself and go with no label at all) understand the difference between racism and multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is a thinly-veiled technique of mobilizing people to unwittingly support globalist agendas.

That is completely different from saying that as a Christian I am commanded by the Gospel to have a general affection for people.

More from Romans 12 (mind you this is written to Christians at Rome, meaning that the plural "you", the word "saints", etc., should be interpreted as addressing Christians - of course, Christians personally, not necessarily for Christian nations, for which other Scripture must also be considered):

"9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.

10 Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

11 Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;

12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

13 Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitality.

14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not.

15 Rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep.

16 Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.

17 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

The Apostle Paul thus asserts that with patience, diligence and perseverance we will help advance Christ's Kingdom. One of the great lies is the accusation of racism that gets pointed at Christians who happen to be of northern European descent as a group (the "divide and conquer" tactic of the multicultural strategy). The honest Biblical viewpoint on preserving national and ethnic heritages is quite simple: Biblical courtship. This provides for the bride's father, as well as, of course, the bridegroom and bride giving consent to a marriage; whatever preferences they have that are subjective are theirs to decide in Christian liberty and the only requirement is that the prospective spouse be a believing Christian. We are all entitled to our own personal preferences, and, IMHO, if children would be raised well by their parents (and parents would have enough children), Western culture and common sense would not be lost.

[Jonty30]

His Sikh religion is what compels him to serve the crown without compromise.

I’d trust him in a heartbeat.

[stormer]

The man in the picture (although here he is a Captain): http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Pursuing+path+serve+others/7247032/story.html

[ansel12]

For crying out loud, what was that supposed to be?

[fattigermaster]

I remember after 9-11 when they had members of different faiths saying prayers for the dead, a very old man representing the Sikh religion came forward and sang a prayer in his own language.

Every other minister, rabbi and imam was delivering these politically calculated speeches they were calling prayers, but this old man was singing a melody that was clearly between himself and the man upstairs, and his compassion truly communicated.

At that moment I had more in common with that man than the representatives of my Christian faith who had clearly tailored their public prayers for the ears of men.

I wish I could have found that prayer service on YouTube, but I couldn't. While I was searching, I found this 2011 10th anniversary Sikh memorial service for the victims of 9-11 and it reaffirms my thoughts that they are people I could hang with and pray with.

And BTW I think the turbans look badass cool.

[RummyChick]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/12/05/the-beard-alleged-fort-hood-killer-nidal-hasan-wouldn-t-shave.html