How should the state stand in relation to securing the rights and freedoms to which all its citizens are entitled? Should it exhibit State neutrality and impartiality? If so, are these traits in themselves guarantors of the practice and observance of religion by a minority faith? It is often overlooked how the issue has arisen repeatedly in western democracies in the striking case of the Sikh religion because of the religion’s requirement of emblems. These consist not only of the external headwear, the turban, but also the Sikh Kirpan, a blade, which may be worn internally or externally, as well as the Sikh bangle, the kara, worn both my men and women alike signifying the importance of righteous living. Western thinking is apt to misconstrue such emblems. This is because its understanding of an object is rooted in a particular philosophical thinking about what a ‘thing’ normally is in the physical world. It is a form of thinking that goes back to antiquity and derives from Aristotle’s definition of things in terms of their ‘essences’, with a certain property which defines its ‘nature’. Such reductionist thinking is ill-suited for the complexities of the modern world where ethnically diverse communities now inhabit virtually every western democracy. Yet, the Aristotelian form of thinking persists in suggesting that a Sikh Kirpan can only be a common ‘blade’ or a ‘dagger’ or a ‘sword’, and the Sikh Kara can be nothing more than an ordinary bangle on a wrist because of their innate essential qualities by which we all know them. Yet, leading court cases such as Multani, Sarika Angel and Athwal have in recent times challenged the concept of essences in a way that needs to be more widely appreciated, although a case like Jaskeerat Singh Gulshan suggests that there are still limitations to how far minority religious rights can be protected.