Well, color me furious after perusing ye olde News tab. Well, the new News tab, but still. Via the Beeb (Thanks, chicagodesidiva):
A 14-year-old girl has been excluded from a school in south Wales for wearing a Sikh bangle, or Kara.
Sarika Singh refused to take off the religious symbol because it is “a constant reminder to do good”.
As you can see from the photograph, Sarika’s kara is hardly ostentatious or luxe– I mention that because that was the rational which my private school had for outlawing jewelry…so girls couldn’t flaunt wealth by dripping in gold, diamonds, filthy lucre.
Aberdare Girls School said it has a clear code of conduct and it had temporarily excluded a pupil for refusing to accept a governors’ ruling.
The school also stated that a “code of conduct” had been distributed to every student before they commenced attending Aberdare AND that it was reissued before every semester. Said code only allows a watch and “plain metal stud earrings”. I guess that means crosses, pentagrams, and super-cute star-of-David pendants aren’t permitted. Then again, none of those necklaces are part of anything like the 5 Ks:
The Sikh Federation UK said that the bangle was an “article of faith” and Sikhs had no choice but to wear it.
Sarika’s parent, Sinita Singh, is not being unreasonable:
She said the teenager would remove the bangle for gym classes, or wood and metalwork, for safety reasons.
Mrs Singh said: “It’s not jewellery, it’s part of our faith and symbol of our belief.”
She said they had a meeting with the school and argued the case with the board of governors, but they refused to allow her to wear it.
“We feel very strongly that Sarika has a right to manifest her religion – she’s not asking for anything big and flashy, she’s not making a big fuss, she just wants a reminder of her religion.”
Apparently, Sarika has been suspended (hey, UK types…is that what “excluded” means?) for wanting to wear her kara.
Sarika said of wearing the bangle: “It’s very important to me, it constantly reminds me to do good and not to do bad, especially with my hands.”
Her mother said the Sikh Federation had supported them and she would do “whatever it takes”.
Maybe the law is on Sarika’s side?
Jagtar Singh, secretary of Sikh Federation UK claimed the school was breaching the 1976 Race Relations Act in its treatment of Sarika.
“The department for education and schools in England have said that if a headteacher or governing body were to deny a Sikh child one of their articles of faith such as the bangle then they would be breaking the law,” he said.
“If you are a practising Sikh, you have no choice, you have to have the kara. It is the one symbol that virtually every single Sikh wears.”
Personally I find it more offensive that Hindu men do not wear any piece of jewelry indicating their marital status, but the women are made to feel it’s compulsory for them.
Last time I checked, my dad wears a wedding ring–and my mother makes sure he feels the need to wear it.
I didn’t realize it was pompous and chauvinist to be proud of who you are or admire someone else’s faith. But since you and Sam can read minds, perhaps I stand corrected.
You can pry my wedding ring from my cold dead hindu finger.
We’re talking about schoolchildren, not adults.
for a child brought up within a specific faith it can be shattering to lose or to have some of the symbols of faith brought into question. it can be life changing. i have a feeling parents will support the child at such moments, rather than risk confusing the child at a vulnerable phase in her life. of course i am not basing this on a deep survey. just knowledge of people who’ve suffered when they first realize that their prtective cocoon is not all that protective or not as sacred as they’ve been led to believe. it can take different forms. a person’s first sexual experience, or the first taste of a forbidden meat, or shearing of hair, or the realization that the parents are very fallible, or (in my case) saying that first swear word :-).
i had a vision of a hairy full-uddered jersey with a unibrow guiding traffic. we miss you gary.
Interesting that plain metal pierced into an ear is allowed but not plain metal around a wrist. It reflects what Ennis refers to above (#40) about biased neutrality. I wonder if they would allow a plain metal stud nose piercing?
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.
however, when it comes to freedom of religion under US law, it actually doesn’t matter how established your religion is – all that matters is that you have actual faith in your religion, whatever it may be.
people regularly say that, but in practice that’s not really true. the impossibility of religious freedom covers a case study in florida in relation to a cemetary that illustrates the problem. but specifically consider the debates which have cropped up with regard to accommodation of prisoners; religious like islam had to slowly gain respect and muslim prisoners initially had to petition to get their religious precepts take seriously. some groups, like wiccans, are still going through the process. more religious, the authorities have to decide what is, and isn’t, a religion, before they agree to accommodate.
Where in India is it common for men in India to wear any jewelry item to indicate their marital status? I’ve never seen it, across regions and religions.
You see how “neutral” is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I
this is exactly right. sat. & sunday are conventional days of rest in the USA, how convenient for jews and christians! why shouldn’t friday be added for muslims? now, what if there is another religion with proclaims monday the sabbath. ok, add that too. and so on. there are only so many days to go around….
Re: The impossibility of religious freedom
Razib: Is the book any good?
What’s at heart here is the question of assimilation. How far do we assimilate? Why is it so important that we’re all the same? When people start discussing accommodation, I always wonder why they can’t see the obvious- the fact that this is far from a secular society. Christianity is privileged above every other religion, and we entirely accept that state of affairs. Our society would be very different if Christmas was not a holiday, or Saturdays and Sundays were not taken off. Diversity is a key to overall human health globally because if one group inadvertently adopts a harmful practice, it won’t spread to all comers if they’re all practicing different cultural regimes. Similarly, if one people are discover a way of being that protects them from some human ill in the face, of say, an outer space meteoric apocalypse, so much the better for the chances of humanity as a whole. Yet if we all live exactly the same, then we die exactly the same. And that’s not too wise. Some people would sacrifice this potentiality in favour of Eurocentric dominance of the entire world. Because that’s really what this debate is about, not religions or schools or anything else. The kara is not going to hurt a fly if it is around that girl’s wrist. Its an ideological battle- and even in spite of the fact that it embodies an ideology that rejects any of its own potential for imperialism (Sikhs never convert others), embraces tolerance, respect, gender equality, and civic volunteerism, its not going to be allowed to survive. And you guys would support the rusting out of any heritage that opposes anything but a western paradigm? So we can all read out of the King James Bible and take communion from the Defender of the Faiths? Never mind that even though they once conquered your country, up until now your forefathers zealously sacrificed to protect your soul? That’s pretty sad.
Oh yeah- Razib: even atheism is an ideology. And a relatively western one, at that.
What’s next- Hindus forced to eat meat..(?)
Razib: Is the book any good?
well, she’s a lawyer. the specific details of the boca raton case might be of interest to you. the general principle is pretty obvious, the gov. has finite ability to accommodate the full sample space of religious diversity, so it picks and chooses a few ‘respectable’ ones.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA.
I’m not sure if you mean to, but it sounds like you are conflating Christianity with the English, when some of us were taking communion a millenium before they showed up. I hope you can see why that would be offensive.
the general principle is pretty obvious, the gov. has finite ability to accommodate the full sample space of religious diversity, so it picks and chooses a few ‘respectable’ ones.
Furthermore, they also pick and choose the more mainstream positions of the ‘respectable religions’.
I am reminded of a case where this African dude told me that he wanted accomodation at his work place for prayers. At that time, his shift included 3 prayers (duhr, maghrib, isha) I called up the employer told them to accomodate him by changing his break schedule, having him take his lunch early so that he could pray all 3 prayers within the time limits. He rejected the compromise because he wanted to pray at the exact time and not in the window between the two prayers. He told me that his granddad had told him to drop everything when he hears the adaan and he had set his cellphone to adaan times. The problem was that the adaan time would change everyday so he wanted 3 breaks everyday for prayer and the timing of the breaks would change everyday by a few minutes!
I’m sorry, Anna- I don’t want to bite Christians, I was just referencing the Sikh Raj, when Maharajah Ranjit Singh’s heirs were abducted and taken to England and forcibly made Christian. You’ll notice that I said nothing about Catholicism- its Anglican Christianity, which was the dominant force in the British Raj, and which engendered determined resistance, that I meant to exemplify.
BTW- a very thoughtful and timely post, this.
they also pick and choose the more mainstream positions of the ‘respectable religions’.
yeah, that’s why i said numbers matter. people act as if sincerity is all that counts, and rhetorically people can act that way, but when beliefs have material consequences sincerity is modulated by how many sincere people there are and how the beliefs of those sincere people intersect with majority values. after all, many african muslims believe that islam mandates female circumcision, but westerners basically don’t care, they’re not having that (sometimes they notionally nod to ‘normative’ islam where this isn’t practiced, but even if normative islam advocated this i doubt that would matter).
ANNA, I’d be interested in however your response to #39 where actual scripture prescribes intolerance and the ending of lives of those “go after other gods”?
ANNA, I’d be interested in however your response to #39 where actual scripture prescribes intolerance and the ending of lives of those “go after other gods”?
dude, she gets asked this all the time (and has tried to respond many times). i’m an a**hole, but i know when to give a girl a break 😉 in fact, there has to be some sort of equivalent to godwins’ rule which encapsulates the fact that any religion thread will come back to anna’s religion.
Really? I didn’t mean it in a demeaning way, nor do I consider Christianity “Anna’s religion” in the sense that she’s the sole defender of it, or anything like that.
Just requesting an opinion.
But I just read through a previous discussion re: this very passage (and it seems a single time, not “all the time”)
From what I’ve read, some schools in the US/Canada don’t allow students to wear crosses, rings, bracelets etc. as it can cause injury during sports/physical activity. If that’s true, and no single religion is being targeted, then that seems like a reasonable policy to me. But then again, I don’t wear any religious artifacts, so I don’t know how strong people’s attachments are to such things.
It’s one thing to challenge someone intolerant, who has attacked other faiths as inferior to his own, with questions like HMF’s, but it’s really too bad to constantly ask someone tolerant, who goes out of her way to respect everyone elses religion, to explain away the worst of her faith. You’re putting the wrong person on the spot.
And how is it even relevant to this thread? Was Anna extolling the virtues of Christianity? No, she was talking about the lack of common sense used in a situation with a Sikh student she felt commonality with. What purpose does it serve, to call her out about Deuteronomy? Especially when every religion has some text which could be cited to make it seem terrible?
Jah Stepper (11):
(emphasis mine)
When Muslim and Jewish males get together to make love, I’m positive that’s very much against their respective religions. Calling Judeo-Islamo-homo-sexuality, sans foreskin, an ostentatious display is kind of an understatement. Keep those damn queer circumsized terrists away from me!
cough
…so, Razib, are you circumsized?
I’m just curious! I’m not gay! I’m only asking because Jah Stepper wants to know.
What did you recommend? What was the resolution?
What did you recommend? What was the resolution?
I told him that the accomodation he wanted was unreasonable and no judge would side with him if we went to Court. He got pissed off and left his job to work for himself or so he told me.
but it’s really too bad to constantly ask someone tolerant, who goes out of her way to respect everyone elses religion, to explain away the worst of her faith.
what do you mean constantly? I asked the question once, and it wasn’t personal against anyone, don’t read it as such. A person can be tolerant, however, as the scripture shows, a basic tenet of the religion seems not to be. (couple that with many Christians who aren’t tolerant)
What purpose does it serve, to call her out about Deuteronomy?
Stop taking it so personally, I was just interested in an opinion. I wasn’t “calling her out about it” as if she wrote it.
HMF, you’ve read this blog for a while. you might not have asked multiple questions, but this has been happening for years. anna regularly gets called on to engage in textual exegesis. unfortunately, i think her degree in is political science, not biblical studies.
but this has been happening for years. anna regularly gets called on to engage in textual exegesis.
The Deuteronomy text, I found once (and linked to it). If you’re referring to other textual exegesis or other “happenings” I don’t really make it a point to note down who’s harassing who.
Haha, the Khalistanis would just love you, Sam, they think that Indians shouldn’t comment on Sikh issues either.
Why don’t you mention what your faith is, so that the next time we hear someone disparage it, we can get a mental picture of you? ;P
I don’t really make it a point to note down who’s harassing who
great citizen of the blog you are! all about you i guess.
ACFB:
was this “reasonable accomidation” part of the civil rights act, other federal law, or state law?
Yes and No. Worshipping together is a public activity done in a private space. If you show up in a bikini to a mosque the Imam has every right to throw you out. It may be public in the sense that many people have gathered together but not public in the sense that it is the street. My position is that folks stick to worshipping in private. A nonreligious ( and that includes atheists) public space would be so much saner.
great citizen of the blog you are! all about you i guess.
huh? because I don’t take note of who’s taking potshots at who, that makes me a selfish blog-reader?
But don’t you see that this is impossible? Sort of like how there’s no such thing as an unbiased journalist.
more like two millenia.
was this “reasonable accomidation” part of the civil rights act, other federal law, or state law?
Manju: The matter never reached the Court in this particular case, but reasonable accomodation under Federal Title VII 1964 Civil Rights Act and its equivalent state statute. Most states have enacted legislation mirroring the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Utopia but that does not mean one does not strive towards reaching the goal.
Manju: Any comments on the House passing a bill prohibiting private employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transexuals?
. U of T’s multifaith center is one such place. It had a very interesting review in a newspaper a while back explaining how the various religious needs were accomodated in the architectural design. if i remember right, the walls are of translucent stone and if nothing else that should make for a dramatic spiritual experience.
O course, the concept is nothing new. Most places of worship do not ask oneself ot prove one’s faith prior to entering the sanctuary, as long as one abides with thelocal customs. recently i was pleasantly surprised to see one such space in detroit airport – much better to spend some quiet minutes in there than in the visual turmoil of the waiting lounge listening to cnn and watching people eat large sandwiches.
I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense.
Brother Jah Stepper, I think you missed the sarcasm in my post 😉 one of the problems with the written word.
The kara is a piece of jewelery, that has religious significance. This is the very reason Sarika has been asked not to wear it at school. If the kara were allowed, then the cross would be allowed and so on. I am pretty sure a good argument can be made on how the cross reminds Christians of the message of Christ.
If the school rules stated clearly what was and was not allowed, then her parents should have made the call on whether they wanted their daughter to attend such a strict school.
Hasn’t he written a post about it on his blog, this multicultural ostentatious inheritance of his, of which he condemns, slight though it is, as an affront to secular American values, and linked it to IQ levels of Inuits compared to Morrocan tribesmen with reference to a recently posted article on V-Dare or something? I just want to put this down on the record. Let us know, we need the link.
Deuteronomy (Greek deuteronomium, “second”, from to deuteronomium touto, “this second law”
You quoted the O.T. which is definitely the foundation of Christianity, but as it was before – the Christ, stepped out of eternity , and into human history, it doesn’t *completely define Christianity. As you know, Christians are not Jews, and Jews are not Christians, (unless they are “messianic“) . *The completeness came in the fulfillment of the law in the person of Jesus.
I can’t get all Sunday School teacher on you/ and my exegesis isn’t grand- because I should spend the time I semi/lurk here, reading the bible, but suffice it to say its not really fair of you to quote the old testament and equate that with Christianity. Besides the fact, if you really believe in a particular religion, and its not just a cultural place holder for you… why would you want to go after other gods/prophets etc- if you found the truth that was right for you (passages quoted in your comment 39)
Rom 8.3 *For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, more here
Sorry about that friend, my bad 😉
This thread has it all: sex, religion, defecation, and misidentified sarcasm!
Really? Where did you get that piece of information from?
My kara is no more a piece of jewelry to me than my long, uncut hair is. Yes, it’s worn on my arm but I have never looked at it as “jewelry.” Jewelry is something you take on an off and use to adorn yourself – a kara is not removed and definitely does not serve a vain purpose. I see that you’re trying to make your argument work, but you’re completely dismissing the entire Sikh perspective on this. You might want to read some of the comments above regarding the meaning of the kara before coming to a conclusion.
I knew a woman who would not remove her cross even during sex. So I think there are some Christians who feel like they need to wear the cross regularly. I am an agnostic/atheist(depending on my mood). And it did not bother me one bit. Though I tried to playfully get her to remove it once and she wouldn’t since it was hitting my face at times. I did not press it since I realized that I found the cross dangling near her breasts hot as hell.
I think the school is overreacting. They should just let her wear it. Judgement calls are made everyday in schools. Having a blanket policy is kind of beauracratic. I think the school is afraid that if they cave in here, they would not know when to stop. To this I say, the school should just tell parents who may feel they are not being given the same slack should suck it up and live with real life where not everything is 100% fair. If the bling bling gets too much, then they can object. Or if the objects come in the way of sports, fine. They can bar it during those events.
Besides the fact, if you really believe in a particular religion, and its not just a cultural place holder for you… why would you want to go after other gods/prophets etc-
It’s not a question of not going to other gods/prophets, its a question of ‘putting to death’ those that do. It’s an indicator of intolerance. As for the Old Testament/New testamant argument. Unless the NT has something that directly contravenes the OT (essentially saying or implying, followers of all religions should be equally respected) but none of that such exists.
Also, looking at the history of Abramhic traditions, tolerance is not one of their strong points. Now, this is saying nothing on certain individuals, individuals can personally tolerant, but they are neglecting tenets purported to them by their own scripture.
well, while i’m ideologically opposed to the legislation of morality, property rights have long been exiled since fdr’s court packing threat (what do you expect from a man that gave us the internment), and federalism has long been taboo ever since it was associated with jim crow (although for some reason filibusters have not), and while i do worry about a further chipping away of free speech and religious freedom, i have to say since we already have a civil rights law that’s here to stay, why not extend it to the gays…too bad the trannys got hosed.
I was laughing so hard, until I realized that you must not have read this yet.