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.”
Wjhat did you not press – the cross or the breasts.
Religion and sex – a potent combination. I nearly cracked a fat.
HMF I’m too much of a fan of your quick wit, &depth of knowledge on many things to try and engage you here, because I would end up just throwing web links at you,besides, Im not Manju. I’m sure you’ve heard “render to Cesar what belongs to Cesar”. Pop culture, vs “the moral majority/Pat Robertson” etc have sullied the waters on that, but doctrinal distinction is there. To be sure, as pointed out by others, our personal belife’s and public space/behavior overlap.
I do think your larger question is answered, if you care, in my first link to this You have to take the totality of the belief, and not just proof text; I don’t think your statement would hold based solely on the N.T.
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.
Sarika’s intentions are not being questioned here. It is extremely clear that they are religious – that is precisely why I compared the kara and the cross, both are items that hold religious significance. They are symbols of their faith. I called it jewelry since it is something that is “worn”, but is not specifically an accessory (like a belt) or an item of clothing. I am in no way implying Sarika wants to wear it out of vanity!
I was laughing so hard, until I realized that you must not have read this yet.
Do you normally laugh hard at humorless, true statements? Here’s a few more
A. Water is comprised of 2 hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule B. Hydrogen has 1 proton C. 3 + 3 = 6
You should be completely in stitches by now.
Karas/Bangles are mostly made of steel. Some “Sainis”, from what I understand, fashion theres out of gold-alloy, since their historical occupation has been goldsmithing.
The true essence and goodness of Sikhism is not from external symbols, but the purity of the Sikh’s heart. Did you know that Guru Nanak-ji was against external symbols (i.e. long hair [kesh], brahmanical threads, etc.)? The depiction of Nanak-ji with a beard and all is a an artists depiction.
The Sikhs are superb with or without their karas/kadas. However, I think that this girl should be allowed to wear the kara if others are allowed to wear their star of David or Cross signs.
Miss Singh is mounting a legal challenge against the school, with help from the “local race equality council.”
Students of the world Let us unite. ALL studenst who support this girl lets go on strike!! Dont attend school on Friday 30 November 2007. Pass it on.
I don’t think your statement would hold based solely on the N.T.
Dilettante: I guess what I’m saying is, if someone in the Christian faith chooses to be intolerant, they don’t have to search far or make large interpretational leaps of scripture to find a foundation or backing for it. One could make the argument that Hindu’s have the same thing with the Bhagavad Gita (all references to “me” and “mine”), but only the ISKCON people have the narrow intolerant interpretation, and introduce the derogatory “demigod” for other gods (in the BG as just “devas”)
It was funny because you’re obviously not aware of the raft of unworkable rules present in the OT, and the book i was referencing (which you have obviously not read, and had to supply snark for your usual pseudo-intellectual piss-take) was the lived experience of an agnostic Jew who attempted to live according to all of them. He failed miserably as most of them aren’t even allowable under law if not physically impossible to observe.
Your asking of Anna about the OT verse in question was very similar to someone asking her about the passage which prohibits the mixing of fabrics in garments or the command to slay livestock at the scene of an accident–obviously it’s a horrendous rule and obviously the visible and vast majority of self-identified xtians don’t follow it. If they did follow the commandment to slay competing prophets, as a rule they could follow in daily life, there would be an epidemic of xtian terrorists blowing up mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, temples, etc.
As with the commandment to slay, the commandment to not listen to other prophets is obviously not a hard and fast rule–you must have not known the xtians that I have as most main-line protestant congregations do not go on crusades ’round the neighborhood, identifying all the evil heathens that the flock must ignore or the little heathen children that they must single out for non-xtian religious jewelry.
This is obviously a simple case of other v. familiar and the school administration being unecessarily dogmatic in their application of the rules. I don’t see how it’s an xtian issue at all.
It was funny because you’re obviously not aware of the raft of unworkable rules present in the OT,
Doesn’t mean the rule doesn’t exist.
which you have obviously not read,
Yes. I haven’t read every book in the world. Does this make you feel better?
If they did follow the commandment to slay competing prophets, as a rule they could follow in daily life, there would be an epidemic of xtian terrorists blowing up mosques, synagogues, gurdwaras, temples, etc.
No you are misreading my statements. I’m not asking for explanation why these edicts aren’t followed literally, I’m aware that religious texts are replete with metaphor, however, I’m saying given this absolutely lucid metaphor, it’s a hard sell to say Christianity is a tolerant religion given this absolutely clear verse, and other verses that encourage proselytization. Again, this doesn’t mean that individual Christians (or any religion) cannot themselves be tolerant people. But to say the religion as a whole preaches tolerance is a wide stretch.
I haven’t read your book, but I’ve seen the movie Dogma (It’s actually my psuedo-intellecual toilet brush)
This is obviously a simple case of other v. familiar and the school administration being unecessarily dogmatic in their application of the rules.
It may not be a Christian issue, I wasn’t necessarily saying it was, rather I was responding to the claim that Christianity preaches tolerance.
I don’t want to get into this, but HMF you are taking Leviticus and Deuteronomy way too literally. Most mainstream Christians in my peer group (including the evangelical variety) understand that many of these “rules” (and some are not really rules) are not applicable or relevant today. If you are a wingnut, you can find a religious justification in any text, including those that are very open-minded. E.g., the SGGS Ji says “There is no Hindu nor Muslim” — is that a call to arms against other faiths? No, it absolutely is not, but I have heard wingnuts use that rhetoric to debase Hinduism and Islam. If you have an agenda of hatred, all you need is opportunity.
At any rate, the short version of that babble is — please separate the wingnuts from the text.
I am actually frustrated by this case (in the post) but don’t want to talk about it. You can get by playing competitive and contact sports while wearing your kara, though. No it is not a piece of jewelry. I don’t really buy most of the explanations in this thread re: why Sikhs wear the 5 K’s. I am with chachaji (it was chachaji, right?) on “backdating” meaning or reasons behind the 5K’s.
And more to the point, theologically Christians argue that the arrival of Christ rendered most of the old testament rules irrelevant. So it’s not just convenience, there is a theological justification here. Sociologically, these commandments were dropped when Christianity spread beyond Jews …
but HMF you are taking Leviticus and Deuteronomy way too literally.
Aww Camille. I thought you’d respond better than that. I’ve already stated that I am indeed not taking it literally:
Most mainstream Christians in my peer group (including the evangelical variety) understand that many of these “rules” (and some are not really rules) are not applicable or relevant today.
I’ve lived in the midwest for a reasonable chunk of time (north central Indiana), and there wasn’t any tolerance going on there. Likewise, many of my Muslim friends weren’t about tolerance either.
you have an agenda of hatred, all you need is opportunity.
I understand this, but it’s still incorrect to label Christianity as a “tolerant” religion.
that the arrival of Christ rendered most of the old testament rules irrelevant
Maybe by that time, all the non-believers were dead, so there was no reason to restate it in the new testament.
No I’m kidding.
But I find this “new testament supercedes..” line of thinking very selective. Firstly, it goes against the “these rules are not really rules at all, they’re just metaphors and can’t be followed to a T, practically” argument. You have to choose a side, are they edicts? or metaphors?
Secondly, then no Old Testament statements can be taken as representative of Christian theology, you cannot simply say the “bad image creating ones” are superceded and retain the rest. It’s selective.
Let us assume a school has a no makeup rule with no exceptions, and a very traditional Hindu wanted to put on a dot, bottu, bindi, or even one of thoese big vibuthi lines some Tamilians have on their forehead. Do you think a school that goes to the extreme will consider that to be a violation of the no makeup rule?
The school is stupid to make this a big deal. Thewy could have granted an exemption and if someone complains about inconsistency, the school should explain that exceptions can be made and the rest will have to deal with it.
Pravin, where do the exceptions end? I prefer the school treating everyone the same, rather than according special treatment (exemptions) to some.
As for your example about traditional Hindus schoolchildren wanting to anoint themselves, well, they don’t have to join this particular school do they if they don’t agree with its rules upfront. Why sign up and then complain? Just seems disingenuous to me to agree to terms of admission and then moan and fight them.
Let’s be reasonable here.
HMF,
I have a feeling that there is no one who could convince you to think otherwise. You’ve made up your mind about Christianity, probably because of the unfortunate experiences you had once and there’s no point in discussing this with you. Why bother even asking for clarification or interpretation, when you’re not trying to hear it? Just for the sake of being combative?
I would like to think teachers should be empowered to make judgement calls. It’s what we do on a daily basis. It’s too bad lawyers have mucked it up where parents sue for every damn thing and schools are afraid to exercise judgement. I really think that in this case, the school would have allowed this kid to wear her religious thing but is afraid of lawsuits if it doesn’t make exceptions in other cases.
61 • razib_the_carvaka said:
As a (formerly Sikh) lazy atheist who rejects the fundamentalist economic theory that unequivocally promotes growth and expansion at any cost, I support this idea.
63 • Jasmine said:
Diversity is a key component of any healthy ecosystem, no need to be anthropocentric.
83 • melbourne desi said:
I’d be happy with a public space that wasn’t dominated by injunctions to borrow money to waste on frivolous crap with built-in obsolescence, to worship at the altar of consumer capitalism. I get one to five new credit card solicitations in the mail every day. What church does that?
96 • Sonia Kaur said:
Semantics. If you see it as setting you apart from others, that’s vanity. My kara is the only kakaar I still wear. I use it to open beer bottles–it serves a utilitarian purpose. I take it off when I practice martial arts because it could hurt my sparring partner. That’s just being considerate; it’d be vain to keep it on in situations like that.
97 • Praniv said:
They’re banning blankets now, too??? That’s cold.
Why bother even asking for clarification or interpretation, when you’re not trying to hear it? Just for the sake of being combative?
Who says I haven’t heard the clarifications? When people assumed I’m taking the text literally, I clarified that. When people made statements of the nature, “
How about you provide some evidence that says Christianity does preach tolerance of other faiths, then we can have a look at it?
And what do you mean by “experiences I had once”? Do you have some psychic ability to know what and where I experienced, and how many times? What a crock. And they call me presumptuous.
meant to say:
“Who says I haven’t heard the clarifications? When people assumed I’m taking the text literally, I clarified that. When people made statements of the nature, ‘That’s the Old testament, and it doesn’t count…” I responded to that.
one example. i went to a school run by a missionary group. we went on school trip. they were handing out some canned mystery meat sandwiches in the train. i would have eaten but it made me feel bad. i expressed discomfort. teacher got me a special meal – and i was one ‘special need’ in a crowd of a boisterous forty. i appreciate that.
look around you for other examples. the faith of a people does not reflect in dogmatic utterances but in their deeds.
I wish you wouldnt be so angry. Have a jalebi yaar.
one example
I meant from Christain theology or scripture. No one is saying that Christians are out and out bad people, in fact many of them are very kind (Like my Baptist roommate, who was very kind and considerate, but was in no way “tolerant” of my faith, and kept subtley reminding me that invitations to his church were always open)
yet another example of Christian scriptures guiding service to all. God’s green acre
Now! you have the jalebi, hear! khoofia’s gone tootling on some o’ God’s green acreage.
Are you intending to be this funny and full of irony? I ask you for an example of Christian theology or doctrine that preaches tolerance of other faiths and you respond with something the Pope said?!
Of course, you’ve conveniently left out statements like these
Jeez, it’s as if I asked for evidence of pop musician sanity, and you retort with Michael Jackson.
Hi HMF, just to add to what was mentioned earlier, Old Testament literally means “Old Will”. As a kid I remember being confused by what seemed like two different gods – the one who was smiting, plagueing and annihilating in the O.T. and the “turn the other cheek”, “blessed are the meek” one of the N.T., And now I see all the stories as beautiful metaphors. Ever get the feeling you’re in the belly of a whale?
UAE, your comments are uncalled for. Not only are they further derailing the thread, they don’t even add value to the tangential conversation you succeeded in ending with all your ranting.
If you have an issue with other religious groups, this is not the place to work through it. Both of your comments have been deleted. Why do you think we’d allow such bluster, on a thread about tolerance of all things?
Unfortunately for everyone else, it’s time to get back on topic. UAE’s outbursts ended your opportunity for inquiry.
SMintern
if you wouldnt mind then, could you delete #127 as well. just so I don’t look like Im responding to thin air.
Was nuking while you were typing. Done.
my point old frooti was that my spiritual needs are fulfilled in the open outdoors, on the water or in a forest. in that respect old man JP2 spoke for me. hence i was compelled to point that out. your mileage may vary.
I think the very fact that people have to go to such odd & bizarre interpretational lengths to “prove” Christianity’s tolerance, in and of itself proves the point.
HMF, what does “being tolerant” mean to you?
In a religious sense, it means the respect of other religious faiths different from your own, that specify relation between humans and some kind of divinity.
Not only does it mean respect, it means the acknowledgement that other faiths are equally valid and whatever goals purported by your faith is equally reachable.
And it certainly doesn’t mean you were at one time prescribed (regardless of whether that edict was superceded by later texts, or only to be taken as metaphor, or whatever) to end the life of those who do follow other faiths.
In your opinion which religions out there fit this description of tolerance?
I don’t see how this is relevant, unless you’re going down the road of “all religions are intolerant” or “all religions have intolerant people”-which is what camille said, but Xtianity just makes it that much easier for you if you are intolerant.
But I’ll answer your question anyway, The eastern religions are certainly more tolerant, Hinduism (depends on the sampradaya actually, as Hinduism is really a colonial term), Buddhism, (I dont know too much about Sikhism on this belt, so maybe the more skilled people can comment).
It’s true,HMF, the bible seems to be one of those texts that can be easily misinterpreted just as it has been done by some fundamentalist-intolerant types and just as you’ve done.
the bible seems to be one of those texts that can be easily misinterpreted
Oh right, by misinterpretation you mean, just quoting it maybe you can please tell me how what I quoted way back really translates to “respect all faiths and practicers of those faiths equally”
This reminds me of all the southern revisionists who claim the civil war wasn’t about maintaining the right to own slaves, when it was stated explicitly by those who faught it.
This entire tangent could be deemed irrelevant, so that ship has sailed. Ahoy.
I’ve heard people say this about Islam, too, which is why it’s frustrating that you are focusing on Christianity, when everyone has pointed out the plain and obvious; that there is good and bad in every religion, that the texts of aformentioned religions can abet in demonizing them, that we can’t generalize and that some of the questions you are asking are deceptively simple but honestly, are starting to seem like bait, underneath a rhetorical box held up with a stick.
I’ve heard people say this about Islam,
It is true about Islam, but no one made the claim that Islam preaches tolerance.
that there is good and bad in every religion, that the texts of aformentioned religions can abet in demonizing them,
Yes, how many times do I have to respond to this “every religion has bad people” shtick? The discussion isn’t about the people rather the religion. To say “Christianity preaches tolerance” has no basis, in fact if anything it preaches the opposite.
The Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh holy scriptures) contain the writings of 13 “Hindu” bhagats and five Muslims. A Muslim (Mia Mir) laid the cornerstone of the Golden Temple’s foundation. It makes reference to the Old and New Testaments, too (kateb), along with references to Buddha. The end of the Sikh ardaas contains an injunction for God, according to God’s will, to be good to everybody.
You know how the Romans thought their city state was so great that “all roads [led] to Rome?” Sikhs think that God is so awesome that all paths lead to the same god, no matter what you call God. Jaap Sahib, one of the five daily prayers, is pretty much just a list of all the different things you can call God.
Sikhi’s pretty awesome, even if it’s not for me.
I should add that Sikhism is monotheistic and anti-idolatry but does not advocate stuff like forcing people to convert or smashing their idols.
It’s about context, HMF.
That is so beautifully put.
So If I’ve got it all wrong, explain the context? How is saying the deut. text amounts to supporting intolerance be a misread? You can say that it was superceded, or say that it doesn’t explicitly mean to kill physically, but you’re seriously off the deep end if you think it somehow supports tolerance?!?
Unless you’re saying because it doesn’t specifiy which method of death (hanging, beating, eaten by animal) that it’s equally tolerant of all these methods.
speaking of tolerance in the UK, here’s an intersting story that raises the age-old question about the limits of tolerance, ie toleration for the intolerant, and the very different ways the american constitutional tradition and the britsh common law tradition deal with threats to tolerance or liberalism itself.
the american constitutional tradition is truer to liberalism, imo.
Back on topic, please, or some semblance of it…Sikhism. Karas. Accomodation. Tolerance. Okay?
now if this case happened in the US, she’d have little legal recourse, since the free-expression clause prevents government from regulating religions, though anti-dicrimination laws are currently on a collision course with the first amendment.
but that same amendment would give her more legal recourse if this happened in an American public school.
Romans 12;18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men., and again the “civil” aspect- And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him. Mark 12:17
If you think they are all the same- why choose just one? Why can’t we be human and have a preference? ***
No that was a real command- to wipe out the “others”, it was given to Israel of the O.T. You do have to read the history of/in the OT and NT to know the diff. I am not speaking of Palestine/Israel today. You quoted from the LAW (Deuteronomy)- and I , and others responded that was superseded by Jesus. I’m acutally vegatarian- but if I wanted to eat pork I could- and it would not be a violation of being a Xtian, nor is not eating meet- that’s diff. from “the law”.
I think your bigger problem with Xtians or any others- is you really expect them to be different than everyone else- and that’s kinda sweet, but naive. Sometime they are, sometimes they are not. Not everything that goes into a garage is a car– not everyone in a church is a Xtian. I know you know a lot about the NOI. I know from two of my great uncles who were interested /involved at its peak, that it had a lot to do with re-defining “the black mans” identity- that was the draw, not the spirituality. Likewise- today I think some people are confused or looking for a deeper brotherhood/meaning/ identity – in joining other ideologies. Note the rate of conversion of AfAm males in prison to Islam. Nothing wrong with that- I’m the first person to say my skin color does not define me. However for someone to become a member of religion X and overnight change to a new person- OR expect others of his/her own “new” religion to overlook all the other differences and really embrace them as a brother or sister- just doesn’t happen as often , i would surmise, that a new convert looking for that new identify etc would like it to.
I don’t think all religions are the same. It is PEOPLE are all the same: selfish, prejudiced, insecure and needing any reason to discriminate against someone else. If you take the cross- religious intolerance out of the equation, you have the same thing. People who outwardly , to me at least, appear to be very devout in their observations of a belief set- by their dress, diet, etc who would not dream of attending the same place of worship, with other believers of their very same faith. I don’t really see many Somalia /Pakistani/ Bangladeshi/Sudanese marriages etc though in tiny Britain, or esp London, where I live. I would think what with the (umra (sp?) larger community aspect etc- there should have been many occasions , i would think- for that to naturally happen. It doesn’t. That was true in the first century Church- when the “Jews” did not want to accept the gentiles who had become believers, and its true today, in other [abrahamic] religions. I’ve often been surprised by some of the thoughts expressed by people I believe to be sincere Xtians as well – towards other Xtians, and sometimes I surprise myself. It’s not some magical intervention that happens when you try to begin to live your life by an established set of principles- that stops you from f*king up.
N.B. ** marriage/dating is not the be all/end all yardstick/test to me of ,if a group of people are “tolerant” of others are not– -but that seems to be the level of tolerance you are looking for. So what’s up with that? My observation, and my religious tradition tells me that all people are like that, are in fact born that way, and it is a work in progress, a part of each persons journey to overcome.
opps! sorry- and it was a huge quote to, my bad
I think she might actually have a valid claim under the Race Relations Acts. The question is will the courts want to entertain a religious claim given the current climate around religious identity, difference, and belonging, and is this also complicated by the fact that the school is a private school? (although, I wonder if it receives $$ the way other religious private schools do from the state in the UK)
No worries. 🙂
I appreciate thoughtful comments like yours and wouldn’t have any issue with allowing this thread to meander, if we were all chill.
Anyway, this is an interesting, thought-provoking case. Let us render unto Sarika, what is hers. 😉