[shkkmo]

While I understand that "Khalistani" have significant doctrinal differences from "traditional Sikhs", it seems like claim the Khalistani are not Sikhs is like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians. It is a prejudice based exclusion of a group in contradiction of the groups own identity.

I think explaining the differences between groups is totally worth wile, but denying the label seem like prejudice to me.

I rather doubt that Sikhs have been accosted in the US based on being confused with Khalistanis, as few americans have ever heard of Khalistanis. The attacks I heard about all had to do with ignorant Americans not knowing the difference between Sikhs and Muslims.

[reducesuffering]

> like claiming that Mormons aren't Christians

Do you agree the fundamental difference with Abrahamic religions is their choice of holy books and introduction of a holy prophet? The Jews have the Torah. The Christians had Jesus and appended the New Testament to the Torah, hence new religion, Christianity. The Muslims had Muhammad and appended the Quran to the Torah, hence new religion, Islam. The Mormons had Joseph Smith and appended the Book of Mormon to the Bible. I struggle to see how that doesn't make them a different religion just like the rest, worthy of a different name.

[freedomben]

This is the evergreen debate about what makes one a "Christian." Is it simply one who worships Jesus Christ? Is it self-labeling as Christian? Is it adherence to some arbitrary specification that mandates a "Christian" must accept specific extra-biblical doctrines?

Depending on how you define Christian, it either includes or excludes Mormons. No discussion about "Are Mormons Christian?" is productive without first agreeing on a definition.

[shkkmo]

> The Muslims had Muhammad and appended the Quran to the Torah, hence new religion, Islam.

Islam views both Old and New Testament as the word of god, but the Quran is not viewed as an appendment to them but rather as a replacement.

> I struggle to see how that doesn't make them a different religion just like the rest, worthy of a different name.

Other religions add new holy books and new holy people without transforming. The Sikhs had 10 gurus over the course of more than 200 years.

Fundamentally, it is a question of cultural identity. Here, the key point is that the Mormons claim a Christian identity. What non-prejudiced purpose does it serve to deny them that identity?

[mistrial9]

> claim the Khalistani are not Sikhs

you misunderstand - I did not say that.