I'm a Sikh, and that's very correct. Sikhism discourages living as a recluse or retreating from the world. You are supposed to actively participate in the society, while continuously learning how to become a better person. That's the literal meaning of the word 'Sikh' - a disciple or learner.

Protestant Christianity is the same. It doesn't preach living apart from the world.

Not entirely sure about Catholics. Orthodox have always struck me as living apart to some extent but I may be wrong and would be interested in hearing from a follower of Orthodoxy.

There are thousands of protestant sects. Just about any generalization you make about them is going to be wrong. Many of them teach that the secular world is sinful and to be avoided.

The great commission essentially makes it impossible for Christians of any denomination to say that.

I’m not saying some don’t, but doing so requires participants who don’t read the Bible on their own at all. It’s kinda like open source that way.

I do agree with you, but sadly many Christians do ignore the fact Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, and generally mocked the "perfect" moral police (for their hypocrisy).

But individual Christians are like every other human, imperfect.

Some quick googling turned up this page, which most Evangelical Christians I know would nod along with, and many arguments from it I have heard directly from them:

https://biblereasons.com/being-set-apart/

That's talking about being set apart in behavior, not physical / social isolation.

Moderation is a pretty consistent thing throughout the Bible.

Just as an example, that page mentions "drunkenness", which is explicitly bad. At the same time, it's perfectly okay to have a glass of wine or a drink now and then as long as you're not getting drunk.

Granted that comes with some caveats, mostly boiling down to good judgement and self control. You don't want to make someone stumble, such as encouraging people to do things that they may struggle with (whether it's alcohol, meat or anything else).

"Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." - 1 Corinthians 8:13

If you have a friend who wants to have a tough conversation over a beer...by all means it's the right choice to go have that beer to talk to that friend. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 makes that pretty clear.

"Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men, so that by all possible means I might save some."

There are a lot of things that people have "heard in church" or have been pushed as part of church culture that are either misunderstood or not biblical at all. There are far too many people who nod along rather than reading the Bible on their own.

I always try to drill into people, you cannot be mislead if you've read.

By far the largest denominations do not teach that.

I am sure 0.0001% of the world's 1 billion protostants like the handful of westbro baptists nut cases might believe that. You can find extremists in every religion.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) is a pretty big denomination.

On the bright side, they are gradually adopting more progressive views - black people are no longer cursed by God (as of 2013), and drinking soda is no longer forbidden (as of 2017, at least on BYU's campus). Tea and coffee are still haram, however.

The LDS Church doesn’t teach to retreat from the world but rather teaches that some of the natural tendencies of people are self destructive and should not to be indulged in.

Now to correct some of your bright side points: - The church never held as a belief that black people were cursed. There were some leaders that did not have the authority to speak authoritatively about doctrine that expressed that belief. [1] - Drinking soda has never been forbidden. You may be thinking of caffeine, though that was never explicitly forbidden but BYU did act like it was. - Tea and coffee. Yes, we avoid drinking these and also alcohol.

[1] https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topi...

"In the following year, Smith taught that the curse of Ham came from God, and that blacks were cursed with servitude.[83] He warned those who tried to interfere with slavery that God could do his own work.[84] Without reversing his opinion on the curse of Ham, Smith started expressing more anti-slavery positions starting in 1842.[85]:18[86]:18–19 After Smith's death, leaders of the LDS Church continued to teach that black Africans were under the curse of Ham and that those who tried to abolish slavery were going against the decrees of God, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[87] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Brigham Young believed that, as a result of this curse, negroes were banned from the Mormon priesthood.[88]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham#Latter_Day_Saint_...

>and drinking soda is no longer forbidden (as of 2017, at least on BYU's campus). Tea and coffee are still haram, however.

Wow, that's really backwards. Tea and coffee are known to be healthy in moderation (especially green tea), while soda is basically poison and is a major contributor to making Americans fat. There's literally nothing healthy about soda.

In the mid 19th century people were becoming aware of the addictiveness of caffeine in the light of the emerging science of modern chemistry.[1] Joseph Smith took that trending concern and ran with it.

I don't know if Smith personally knew about caffeine as a specific component, but I think that was the background context--the mainstreaming of chemistry kick-started another cultural cycle of prescriptive living. The trend ultimately grew into the widely popular Clean Living movement in the latter part the 19th century, so Smith was way ahead of his time. See also Seventh Day Adventism and John Kellogg.

I don't mean to belittle the disciplines of the LDS church by putting them under a microscope. I just find the history interesting. Religious disciplines are obviously products of their environment, but that doesn't mean that's all they are. Anyhow, there's still good reason to avoid caffeine, depending on your priorities and concerns.

[1] Doing some Googling to confirm my memory and that I'm not completely talking out my a--, it seems caffeine was first isolated in 1819. The Clean Living movement (which I didn't remember by name until Googling), was later than I seemed to remember.

That's very interesting of course, and explains the history, however it's been well over a century now since this stuff, so people should know better about relative safety of different foods and not just stick to what John Kellogg said. We see here that the Mormons are now OKing soda, which wasn't around in the 1800s, despite us now knowing just how horribly unhealthy it is, yet they don't want to reverse their stance on tea, which has been used for many centuries starting in Asia and later spread to every corner of the planet, and isn't really associated with any significant health problems (in fact, green tea is consumed in large quantities in Japan, which has the highest life expectancy in the world).

"No tea and coffee" is literally the only thing you got right in your entire post.

There are about as many Mormons as there are Southern Baptists, which most consider "a pretty big denomination" of Protestantism. To my knowledge, BYU has not re-banned caffeinated soda. Regarding the Curse of Ham:

"In 1931, Joseph Fielding Smith wrote on the same topic in The Way to Perfection: Short Discourses on Gospel Themes, generating controversy within and without Mormonism. For evidence that modern blacks were descended from Cain, Smith wrote that "it is generally believed that" Cain's curse was continued through his descendants and through Ham's wife. Smith states that "some of the brethren who were associate with Joseph Smith have declared that he taught this doctrine." In 1978, when the church ended the ban on the priesthood, Bruce R. McConkie taught that the ancient curse of Cain and Ham was no longer in effect.[9]:117

General authorities in the LDS church favored Smith's explanation until 2013, when an LDS Church-published online essay "disavowed" the idea that black skin is the sign of a curse."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism#Cur...

They might not teach it but many do practice it in lots of more or less subtle ways.

Orthodox here, there's a couple distinctions. Unlike our friends the Catholics, we maintain that physical bodies and the physical world are good and natural. Eating delicious food can bring you closer to God, exercise can bring you closer to God, admiration of nature, etc.

There is a separate concept of "living apart from the world". My understanding of this is not "go live in the woods" bur rather "don't be complacent". It's striving for the best possible value system regardless of how people choose to act around you. Society can (and should!) be improved.

I grew up Catholic, and I don't recall any teaching that eating delicious food, exercising, or admiration of nature would take us farther from God.

One thing I do remember from when I was a kid: whenever our priest stopped by the house for a visit, my parents always offered him a shot of whiskey!

Some of the healthiest, longest living, most joyful and expressive societies are traditionally catholic. E.g. Italians. I think you are confusing Catholics with Calvinists, but the Swiss are pretty good at enjoying themselves also. If you are going to rampantly stereotype, then maybe it's a north south thing, but I doubt that too as the Swedes love their saunas and can certainly have a good time.

Catholics believe the material world is good too? Perhaps youre confusing us with the puritans?

Monasticism is a big part of the Orthodox tradition.

Yes not but all are expected to be monks, and they live apart from everyone, not just "the secular world"

I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're trying to make. Most (reasonably practical) religions do not expect everyone to become a hermit. The notion that Eastern Orthodoxy is some kind of super-worldly religion of communing with a tub of ice cream just doesn't strike me as very accurate at all.

I wasn't trying to portray as some kind of super-worldly religion, simply saying the exception does not prove the rule.

I'm not saying you're trying to portray it as anything (especially since my comment was in reply to someone else), I'm saying that as a branch of Christianity, the Monastic tradition has lasted longer than in the Eastern Orthodox churches than in many others and this is not a particularly difficult thing to notice. It pops out at you if you decide to, say, inflict The Brothers Karamazov on yourself or read news like:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/world/europe/mount-athos-...

Your last name checks out ;) Thanks for the reply.

I don't know much about Protestants, despite having lived in England for a while. I live in Canada and regularly travel to the US, and still don't know about Protestantism deeply. The little bit I do, has generally led to a positive opinion, as it aligns somewhat more with what I'd believe in.

Some Orthodox monks deliberately sought isolation from worldly life to better practice spiritual virtues, like most monks of any faith.

Some other Orthodox monks practiced the reverse: living among regular people and keep their monastic status secret. The latter was (is) considered a more difficult feat.

I agree that Protestant Christianity ought to be the same. In practice, books like 'The Benedictine Option' suggest that Protestants are not of one mind about the matter.

Dreher isn't a protestant; he's Orthodox. Really, he's kind of a LARPer, and that book has received vastly more attention than it deserves.

I'm thinking of all the Protestants I know who have it on their bookshelves. I only have it on mine to try and understand what's gotten into their thinking.

Dreher is an (ineffective) algorithm oligarch types have latched onto to try to bring right wing christians under social control. As far as I can tell, Dreher's career consists of being a consumerist hipster (muh microbrews, muh foodie whaddevers) and pretending to be a right wing christian. He's not actually any more Christian or right wing than any other hipster type, and is certainly not conservative at all, despite the outlet he writes for. His psychological furniture is precisely that of a hipster atheist; just a particularly chicken chested one with certain prejudices he finds convenient to excuse with religion. He's changed religions ... I think 3-4 times now, for what amounts to hipster "not cool enough" reasons. Actually religious people in America such as your protestant friends think completely differently. I mean; actually religious people die for religious conviction; Dreher changes religion like a preppie changes ties that go out of fashion. There is no fear of God's wrath in Dreher, no wonder at the mystery of life and the universe; he just thinks gay people are icky, and modernity is kind of groace. His Benedict book is preposterously shallow; it is abundantly obvious he's barely skimmed the history of Christianity, even Benedict's rule: his book is basically a glorified 23 year old hipster's blog post. If you really want to understand protestantism; study the 30 year's war and the paintings of Cranach. Or the Taliban. At least they actually believe in God.

Source: I'm not particularly religious, but I know Dreher, and was at one point considered a thinker in this domain.

Protestant Christianity was what I was brought up with and I never heard anything specific about that.

That sounds like a plan for a better world, a world where all people reach fulfillment and die in peace. Im curious, do people convert to your religion often? Are Sikh an inclusive religion?

People do convert to Sikhism, but Sikhs don't focus as heavily on getting people converted. The religion is inclusive, and is generally quite welcoming, but there's hardly any appetite for forcing it upon others. This is primarily because the religion is secular at its very core. It had a pivotal role in standing up for rights of other religions during the Mughal rule in the Indian sub-continent. And, there's also the belief that just by putting on the 'Sikh' label, you don't really gain anything. The ultimate purpose is to just become a better human being (the barometer here being the teachings of Guru Granth Sahib, which is generally quite humanistic in its approach. The authors in fact include a number of non-Sikhs). As long as you're a good human being (as in help others, meditate and earn honestly to be basic), it doesn't matter what label you are, is one of the core beliefs. Converts aren't looked down upon, because almost everyone really converted at some point in time, as it's around 500 years old as a religion. On a side note, you'll sometimes hear its 300 years old, but that's incorrect, as that event refers to the birth of Khalsa. A Sikh should generally aim to become a Khalsa. Becoming a Khalsa is kind of similar to baptism, but it's voluntary and mostly done when you grow up and feel you're ready for it (some teens do it under the influence of parents, but I, along with many other Sikhs probably, tend to believe that is against the spirit of the religion. People in early teens don't have a full understanding of what they want, and that's why parents shouldn't do it for them IMHO). I'm in my late 20s and not a Khalsa, for example. And, there are many (probably the majority) like me, not Khalsa but just Sikh.

An example is - I studied in two different schools. The first school was Catholic, and I studied there for 12 years. The management used to heavily encourage conversion. For students, there were some benefits like no tuition fees, and maybe some other stuff. For teachers, it was probably a better career. I spent another 2 years in a Sikh school. In that school, rewards were totally independent of religion. If you scored above 90%, you'll get your tuition fees waived. If you were a single girl child (due to female infanticide in the region), I think they did something as well. There was no focus on converting non-Sikhs. This is not to diss on Catholicism, as I've respect for Christians in general and I personally know many good ones, it's probably just that my school didn't do it right. I just find being charitable only to people who are the same religion as yours, not a great idea. Religion shouldn't be a consideration during charity (and in conduct towards people otherwise too).

(edited for clarity)

That is really beautiful.

In today's internet, very, very rarely, do you get to read something that really makes you aware of this big humanity that we're all a part of. I'll save your note and read it to myself every once in a while so that I never forget that lines are drawn by people. So that I can try to become a better human too.

I'm glad you liked it. Exactly! All those lines are artificial, and it's sad the world hasn't yet left behind discrimination, and it's a major problem in almost every society in one form or the other.

Thank you for this. This is probably the most I've learned about Sikhism in one sitting. I appreciate your generosity!

All your comments throughout this thread have been extremely interesting to read. Thanks for taking the time to share with us!

Interesting thing I learned recently is it's pronounced "sick", at least according to the world Sikh council [1]. I always thought it was "seek".

1) http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/commcomm/2012/aug/09/pronounc...

Well, it's "Sick" with an aspirated "k", which is what the "kh" is for. "Seek" is just mangled pronunciation like "goo-roo" for "guru".

Hinduism calls it Karma yoga[1] - the path of selfless action. It is portrayed in no way inferior to other approaches. Do you work well with passion without attachment towards results.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_yoga

> Do you work well with passion without attachment towards results.

I assume by "results" you mean recompense or renown, since you mention doing work "well". I only mention it because to me "results" are what I use to define whether my work was done well, and aren't what I think of when considering whether it was materially beneficial for me.

I think the key there is "attachment." I think seeing the results without being attached to it can also improve analysis of the outcome with respect to the quality of input if there is less personal/emotional attachment to the work that is being accomplished.

The idea is to do one's work without emotional attachment to "results". In modern day psychology it is called "self-distancing". It is nothing mystical but commonsense. The way to understand the rationale is; even though "self-effort" has to be put forth towards a goal, because there can be so many other factors involved in deciding the outcome (most important being random chance) that it is best to have no emotional ties to outcomes. That way one does not fall into despair and a negative frame of mind if things turn out wrong but still can choose to experience joy when things turn out well.

The idea is to focus on doing your job well and release yourself from the pressure of the side effects, like fame and other things that are expected rewards for a job well done.

Getting those rewards might represent their own bit of karma yoga, with separate effort.

It is silly to think a divine entity is going to descend from the heavens to ensure that you get your just rewards for doing a good job.

"but unlike most major religions, they discourage retreating from the world and ordinary secular life."

I think that would be a mischaracterization of major religions. For example Christianity has its mystics and ascetics, but they it doesnt preach that all, or even the vast majority should pursue this path. Instead, Christianity teaches that its faithful should take time to retreat and pray, to go back into the world a more faithful servant of God.

Even the Saints and ascetics don't retreat from the world but rather seek silence. St. Benedict, the paradigm of the Catholic monk would leave the monastery every month to meet up with his sister.

> they discourage retreating from the world and ordinary secular life.

I'm not really an expect in this, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monasticism seems like it's about half the religions that encourage it and half that don't, and some seriously discourage it, like Judaism and Islam.

The Sikh history provides at least one explanation for this. They're a very new group, formed around the 1600s. For a long time they lived in adverse conditions, at odds with local rulers, disadvantaged by numerical inferiority.

Given that monk culture is a form of specialization, similar to how a professional army is a specialization, and that specialization can't appear in adverse, numerically difficult situations, that could explain why Sikhs don't have monkhood, instead preferring rounded jack-of-all-trades social roles.

For an opposite extreme, there's The Kingdom of Tibet, which until Chinese occupation had 1/3 of its (male?) population in monastic life. That's extremely special; if only it had lasted.