The law on this is quite interesting. There have been two related cases where the plaintiff lost, so if Sarika Watkins-Singh wins her case, it'll buck a trend:

The case echoes that of 16-year-old Lydia Playfoot's unsuccessful attempt earlier this year to force her school to allow her to wear a "purity" ring. The Christian teenager accused her school of religious discrimination and breaching her human rights for banning her from wearing the symbol of pre-marital chastity. Deputy high court judge Michael Supperstone QC said her rights to education and to express her religion had not been violated, however, and ordered her father, Philip, to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs.

Last year, Shabina Begum lost a three-year battle over the right to wear a full-length jilbab to her Luton school and teacher, Aishah Azmi, lost her case for discrimination at a Leeds employment tribunal after she was dismissed for refusing to remove her veil in a primary classroom. [Link]

Can one of the Sikhs here please explain the significance of the kara and the history behind it? When I was a kid, my parents used to make me and my brother wear kara, as they said it would make us fearless. :)
Somehow, the practice fell off by middle/high school. I think wearing kara is one of the common customs among Sikhs and Punjabis, though it clearly originated with the Sikhs.

Havent private schools learned by now that they are just asking for a headache by not using common sense?

If the girl wanted to wear a 70 pound sword that was 5ft long, then go ahead and express a little concern, but leave the virtually invisible bangle alone.

The hijab is cultural and not religous from what I know, which by the way is very little so maybe I am wrong about that and a purity ring is also cultural and not purely religous. The ring is a statment that I am not going to be like the typical American and bang my brains out before I am married.

The Kara on the other hand is apart of Sikhism and is not cultural. If your a white, black or whatever color Sikh, you would be wearing one.

The hijab is cultural and not religous from what I know

these sort of statements aren't like 1 + 1 = 2. they're arrived through consensus, and you'll get muslims disagreeing (you can generalize this statement about any religion and a common practice associated with any religion). as a matter of practice governments/authorities tend to privilege some interpretations over others and so make some understandings normative and others heterodox or deviant.

as for this specific case obviously a bangle is a trivial point. accommodation is a common sense response. additionally, as a point of civilized life as citizens in a practically multicultural environment these sorts of compromises with religious precepts need to be accepted. that being said, i'm going to go on the record and express my irritation and weariness with religious people constantly making a big fuss over practices and symbols entailed by their superstitions. myself, i find many religious people ostentatious in their adherence to these sorts of markers (running around wearing black outfits which cover everything but eyes, dressing like 17th century polish nobles in brooklyn, etc.). i'm totally fine with people of religion X thinking that they're all-that because they have access to a particular truth (or so they think), it's none of my business. i think i'm really cool too, but if i wanted public accommodation because i have particular beliefs which i reasoned to or attribute to personal experience of course the government would tell me to take a hike. without the god-seal of approval acceptance and accommodation of deviation has a much higher bar to jump.

and the fact is that if i made up a religion and said god told me to do this and that, it wouldn't really carry that much weight. you need to be attached to an established and well known religion with other followers who validate your weird belief so that everyone can nod and understand that of course you need accommodation. in the end it is a matter of numbers and pragmatism, not principled respect for beliefs. the reality is that out of the sample space of beliefs only a tiny number will ever get special treatment because only a tiny number span huge numbers of people with will, sentiment and demographic muscle.

anyway, i tend to not say anything on these sikh related threads because i don't want to be an a**hole; and this will be the only thread that i'm going to be an a**hole because there's really no point in repeating myself over and over. but i'm not outraged on behalf of sikhs when people freak out that they want to do all the K's. frankly i'm a little weirded out by the fact that sikhs dress the way they do (yes, i know the reasons, but there are many religions with "reasons" and i find most of them pretty weird because i don't share their premises to begin with). i don't even get angry that there are double standards sometimes, because there are always prejudices and biases and accommodation of sikhism is usually conditional upon the influence of sikhs within a particular locale, not the principle of universal religious toleration. but, i do want to remind people that there are thousands of religions, many of them with their own particular orthopraxies. as a matter of reality we're only going to accommodate a small number of these, partly because of finite resources, but partly because of conflicts between these orthopraxies (consider a religion which mandates sex segregation and another which mandates mixed-sex socialization). strong forms of multiculturalism are going to lead to the accommodation of a lot of practices which non-believers will find strange. from the perspective of a secular pragmatist sometimes religious uniformity is the best case scenario because it means you only have to accommodate one set of orthopraxies justified by religious precepts.

Not that it matters greatly, but some of the right-wing press or talk-radio in the UK may try to paint this case as an example of political correctness gone mad or outsiders trying to impose their way of life on the British. Sarika's father is white and her mother is British-Indian, her full name is Sarika Watkins-Singh, and she was born and raised in this part of Wales.

that being said, i'm going to go on the record and express my irritation and weariness with religious people constantly making a big fuss over practices and symbols entailed by their superstitions.

Phew! Thanks for going on the record and letting us know how you feel on that. Frankly, I wouldn't have been able to sleep otherwise.

Razib - very well put. Religion like sex and defecating is a private matter. It is in all of us - there is no need for it to be public. It is not a big deal either way. Others may disagree.

I'm more disturbed by your equating of sex and defecation melbourne desi, that's beyond kinky into another realm.

It is in all of us - there is no need for it to be public. It is not a big deal either way.

But that presumes certain norms. For example, when somebody asks me why I don't cut my hair, the implication is that cutting your hair is normal and not cutting your hair is ostentatious display of religiousity. I guess I don't respect the premise. I'm not defining myself against your "normal" practice, I'm not choosing this behavior to be deviant.

[Razib doesn't do that, he's just talking about practices that are more and less common]

Furthermore, the idea that religion need not be public actually makes all sorts of cultural assumptions about the "proper" way to worship. You could just as well claim that people don't need to worship together because that's making the private public as well.

By the way, when male Muslims and Jews get naked or make love in the open air is that an ostentatious display of religion in public, sans foreskin, especially when, in Europe or India, it is against the norm? Razib, do you do ostentatious diplays? My secular sensibility may be offended the next swingers party I attend or if a lady is strict in observing these secular / ostentatious parameters. What's the gene theory on that?

melbourne desi's thoughts also welcome --- but try not to bring defecation into it.

I'm more disturbed by your equating of sex and defecation melbourne desi, that's beyond kinky into another realm.

Religion like sex and defecating is a private matter. It is in all of us - there is no need for it to be public.

as a matter of empirical reality that's not true though. religion tends to be communal and social, and it often reflects and shapes public norms. for example, i've used the issue of school lunches as an exemple. if you were a public school administrator and 99% of your students were from a christian background you would order different food than if 30% were christian, 40% hindu and 30% muslim. private beliefs have public ramifications. if you had a thousand different religious groups with a thousand different dietary requirements it could basically be impossible to fulfill them all. that's the extreme case i'm alluding to.

For example, when somebody asks me why I don't cut my hair, the implication is that cutting your hair is normal and not cutting your hair is ostentatious display of religiousity. I guess I don't respect the premise.

the norms are just norms because that's what the majority accepts. wearing long-haired wigs was the norm in the 18th century in the west. beards were common in the 19th century. and so on. these are often fits of fashion. not bowing to fashion as a matter of principle and adhering to a particular style of dress in the face of fashion as a practical matter makes you stand out and shows that you don't want to conform. this is one reason that haredi jews have "fixed" their style of dress to that of early modern eastern europe (that's my reference to 17th century polish nobles, jews in the employ of nobles understandably emulated the fashions of their patrons). jai offered that one reason sikhs are distinctive in appearance is so that someone in need of aid can identify a sikh, who is enjoined to aid those who are being wronged, etc. that implies that out of a sample space of random people sikhs will be particularly moral or righteous. perhaps sikhs are different from other religious people, but my own personal experience and study of the ethnography is that most religous groups consider themselves as chosen and special with particular access to the truth (more or less), and quite often their dress marks them off so that they can identify the fellow chosen (e.g., "pious" muslims growing great beards and dressing in a particular manner). dress is just a particular manifestation of the general trend. and the tendency isn't restricted to just religious people, many "progressives" are pretty self-satisfied in their raised consciousness, while many atheists flash their darwin signs to show that they're one of the elect with their eyes open to how the world really is. but in these latter cases there usually aren't court cases that emerge because they won't conform to some arbitrary rule, religious rationales though are particularly potent and given due respect as a form of identity in our society. and that due respect is justified, people kill over religion after all in the extremist cases.

By the way, when male Muslims and Jews get naked or make love in the open air is that an ostentatious display of religion in public, sans foreskin, especially when, in Europe or India, it is against the norm? Razib, do you do ostentatious diplays? My secular sensibility may be offended the next swingers party I attend or if a lady is strict in observing these secular / ostentatious parameters. What's the gene theory on that?

? do the circumcised regular flash their glans in your face?

and just to be clear: my point is to defend the rationality of particular norms or customs. norms and customs are often not grounded in anything but dumb fashion or conformity on the individual level. but think of the extreme case: speaking a common language isn't rational on an individual level, english isn't superior to french in terms of communication, but the key is that society have the same currency so that we can understand each other. so consider the gray flannel suit, it shows that you want to be taken seriously and you're not in a casual context. but it's nothing but a debased form of puritan dress, which was a rebuke to cavalier lusciousness. many people who dress in a peculiar manner are lauded as individualists and eccentrics who "go their own way," but their style is also a social signal and isn't really intelligible outside of the communal context. julian the apostate grew a beard during a time when elite practice among roman males was to clean-shaved. the reason was that he aspired to be a greek philosopher, and the beard was a sign of their wisdom (and for what it's worth, he was mocked as old-fashioned by contemporaries).

my point is to defend the rationality of particular norms or customs.

insert not. big boo-boo.

some folks need to brush up on their pop culture. Just when you thought we'd hit rock bottom - people surprise us in the most ghastly way.

I was wondering when that video was going to be referenced on SM. I guess the prize goes to you.

oh, and re: male circumcision, just to be on the record about that, there are good reasons to discourage circumcisions in first world contexts, or at least not encourage the practice (both utilitarian and moral). but again, as a sop to pragmatism that's not feasible with jews and muslims who will slap you with the charge of cultural genocide. we draw lines based on both principle and utilitarian context though, obviously first world nations don't accept the argument of the minority of muslims who believe that female circumcision is demanded by their religion.

razib, are you making up for your absence? :)

i take a blitzkrieg tack on commenting on weblogs. and i have strong opinions on this topic.

For Amit:

From what I've always been taught, Sikhism was born at a time when India was in the midst of caste-related strife that was tearing it apart. Taking pieces of both Islam and Hinduism, Guru Nanak began preaching of a way of life whose main emphasis would be placed on the equality of all people, because we are all seen as one by God. The last of the ten gurus, Guru Gobind Singh, created the bond of Khalsa, a way for all Sikhs to be united in truth and a spiritual life. You are only really 'required' to wear all 5 k's if you are baptized (drink Amrit). Many of them, the kirpan (sword), kesh (uncut hair held in a turban), and of course the kara are noticeable things, but Guru Gobind believed that a Sikh should stand out in a crowd and wear their faith proudly. They may not be the same as most but they have a distinct connection to other Sikhs, a connection that places them as equals. In a world where many of us are afraid to show devotion to anything besides a Macys catalog, the kara became a simple way for Sikhs to carry around a reminder of their faith. As children, many of us are simply told that its a reminder to do good and keep from doing wrong things. But more technically, its a circular steel bracelet that shows our never-ending bond to the truth and the strength of our commitment.

I know Razib is disturbed by us all wanting to wear these odd markers and look alike, but I'm more worried about people looking down upon others for wanting to wear simple reminders of an honorable commitment. When we're afraid to do so, isn't that when we all really start looking alike?

its a circular steel bracelet that shows our never-ending bond to the truth and the strength of our commitment.

ghuriya*, I thought the karas original purpose was to fend off a sword or knife blow and it was worn on the non sword-wielding wrist. I am not sure if i made it up to explain its rationale or if I read it somewhere. Would you know?

*i have a cousin called that :-) who sends me rakhis every year. thanks for the pleasant reminder.

I know Razib is disturbed by us all wanting to wear these odd markers and look alike, but I'm more worried about people looking down upon others for wanting to wear simple reminders of an honorable commitment. When we're afraid to do so, isn't that when we all really start looking alike?

obviously you can dress however you want in your home or in a public place. i do think it's a little weird, just like i think those kids who have pink mohawks are weird (if had a friend who was sikh or with a pink mohawk i would of course get used to it because it would become a background condition). the key is when your dress code conflicts with rules and regulations, public or private. there are reasons that some places ban the carrying of weapons on your person. additionally, if a kid with a pink mohawk wanted to work a fine dining establishment and they rejected his application because he refused to change his "look" i doubt most people would think that the restaurant would be out of line. but if it's a sikh turban that's probably a different issue because it becomes a religious and ethnic issue, and they might be accused of discrimination. as a practical matter there's really nothing we can ever do about these sorts of different treatments, be an individual noncoformist and there's no one to get your back, but if you noncomform to conform with a particular group, and you do so because god said-so, well, you're in luck! that's how it will be, and for practical reasons that's how it should be for pragmatic reasons (around 1850 a young irish american boy was beaten because he refused to read a king james version bible in his classroom. now, it seems pretty irrational to take a beating to not read a book, but if beatings the consequences of these sorts of requests, best to take the bible out of the classroom).

I thought the karas original purpose was to fend off a sword or knife blow and it was worn on the non sword-wielding wrist. I am not sure if i made it up to explain its rationale or if I read it somewhere.

It is difficult to assign exact and unique rationales for religio-cultural traditions conceived partly within a martial context but also designed to provide meaning outside it. This is the case for the 5Ks of Sikhism. All the panj kakaars can be seen as making sense for a soldier-warrior (the comb to keep the unshorn hair clean and in place, the knee-length drawers to be worn all the time so as to be ready to move at a moment's notice, the kirpan carried at all times in case it is needed, and the kara, which can be used as a weapon in close combat. I don't see how it could be effective in fending off a sword attack though - unless it were extremely thick - but that would make it too heavy and in any case it can't cover your whole hand, or even your forearm.

Each of the 5Ks also has an 'explanation' in the everyday, religio-spiritual domain removed from the martial context. Actually, each of them has many 'explanations'. Since you brought up the rakhi, there is also an explanation which links the kara to a 'metal rakhi' suitable for warriors.

Virtually everyone I know who wears karas wears it on the right hand.

Guru Gobind believed that a Sikh should stand out in a crowd and wear their faith proudly. They may not be the same as most but they have a distinct connection to other Sikhs, a connection that places them as equals. In a world where many of us are afraid to show devotion to anything besides a Macys catalog, the kara became a simple way for Sikhs to carry around a reminder of their faith.

kara, which can be used as a weapon in close combat. I don't see how it could be effective in fending off a sword attack though - unless it were extremely thick

there is also an explanation which links the kara to a 'metal rakhi' suitable for warriors.

Just an aside on the need many people feel to 'make sense' of religio-cultural traditions, to rationalize and find 'teleological explanations' that appeal to them - the fundamental difficulty here is that most traditions are there because they are there, and religion and rationality in any case are in somewhat disjoint universes, so the effort is doomed to hit a logjam sooner or later.

Although, having said that, the 5Ks are a bit of an exception in that they were traditions that were quite explicitly instituted - although they drew from the existing spiritual and cultural mileu - a 'rationale' was also provided right alongside. Many more explanations removed from the original context, however were also provided later, making the teleological quest nevertheless difficult.

and religion and rationality in any case are in somewhat disjoint universes, so the effort is doomed to hit a logjam sooner or later.

i think the key are presuppositions. i've had catholic acquaintances who just can't comprehend why i don't believe that thomism is an airtight philosophical system. but the credibility of a teleological explanation is contingent upon your background assumptions and intuitions. in other words, within a group which shares particular presuppositions there maybe some fruit in engaging in debate about the teleology of particular practices, after all there are common shared beliefs and axioms around which the argument can hinge. the problem occurs when you expand the audience outside to those who do not share axioms in the first place. this is an issue when the government laws and religious groups interact in some way, and those who are outside of religion have to make sense of the consensus of opinions within a religion. sometimes the government simply legitimizes the numerical majority interpretation. and sometimes the government legitimizes a minority interpretation which is more in line with the values of the greater society.

Any visible sign of a religion is bound to create divisions. Kara-wearers will stick together, excluding others, or cross-wearers might consider others not worthy of association, and so on.

I'm with the school here: uniforms and dress codes are the correct way for kids to see each other at school, so that economic, cultural, religious differences don't become a reason for division. After high school, people can wear what they like, after they've imbibed that everyone else is exactly like them: people.

i've heard and read many interpretaions of the kara.
the first being practical for wartime...there was a time when kara's were thick enough to be used for armor...not full body or even full arm, but a defense nonetheless.
It is the same reason they are to be made of stainless steel and not of a maleable metal like gold...which has become more of a status symbol. a silly one, but a status symbol nonetheless.
anyway, stainless steel, not maleable, good for wartime.

i think once the practicality went away, we started to wax poetic, and found other meanings for it. such as a visual reminder to be ethical...and i've also heard the roundness of it is a reminder for us that it's always (or never - depending on whether you're a glass half fuller or emptier)beginning and ending...timeless.
and then there is also this resource...
and...#24...unless you're a gora (white) sikh, where the women wear it one the left and men on the right...not sure of the reasoning behind this...something yogi bhajan explained i'm sure.

Judging by the one photo of a kara bangle in this blogpost, it's hardly a "big" or flashy display of identity/faith. Common sense would probably let it pass.

For that matter, the Christian cross is a far more controversial display: it is literally a scale model of an instrument for executing people. Imagine if Jesus had been hanged: Christians would carry a tiny gallows (with our without noose??) around their necks. (Or worse: electrocuted...)

For that matter, the Christian cross is a far more controversial display: it is literally a scale model of an instrument for executing people. Imagine if Jesus had been hanged: Christians would carry a tiny gallows (with our without noose??) around their necks. (Or worse: electrocuted...)

Once again, Bill Hicks says it better than anyone else can:

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a f*ckin' cross? It's kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on."

and the fact is that if i made up a religion and said god told me to do this and that, it wouldn't really carry that much weight. you need to be attached to an established and well known religion with other followers who validate your weird belief so that everyone can nod and understand that of course you need accommodation

if you were referencing social respect fo a particular religion, then i agree with this statement. 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. in that sense, it's surprisingly liberal...

THis Sikh girl and her family need to grow up. The school doesn't let others wear their religious objects, why should there be an exception for this Sikh girl? Your indignation rings hollow Anna, are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?

do the circumcised regular flash their glans in your face?

Not regularly, but in the right context I wouldn't be soiling myself or affronted as you are, so pompously, at the sight of a Hassid or turban doing his thing (ostentatiously or not!)

Your indignation rings hollow Anna, are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?

I think she probably wanted to discombobulate and cause heartburn to the people of your community! I observe Sikh related threads at this place with a mixture of amusement and amazement, at the number of pompous chauvinists that they smoke out of the area.

I know Razib is disturbed by us all wanting to wear these odd markers and look alike, but I'm more worried about people looking down upon others for wanting to wear simple reminders of an honorable commitment. When we're afraid to do so, isn't that when we all really start looking alike?

She's a 14 year old girl with a very simple, plain silver bracelet that, you put it best, is a reminder of an honorable commitment. If people can wear yarmulkes (sp?) to school (well maybe not this school) why can't she wear her kara? This is a Christian school, yes? Doesn't Christianity - and all religions for that matter - preach tolerance, respect, kindness? I think it is ridiculous that she was 'excluded' over this. Like another commenter said, it's not like she is carrying around a 5 ft sword.

To the commenters siding with the school that may be Hindu: My mom, as well as a lot of south indian and also maharastran women (maybe others as well), wear necklaces/pendants as a sign of marriage. She feels she has to wear it. When hers was stolen once, she went and bought another one the next day. This is not a simple, silver piece--they are usually gold and stand out amongst 'western' jewelry. Now it isn't exactly the same situation, some could argue that is purely cultural and not religious, but for us it is a sign of commitment, a sign of faith to your marriage under Hindu customs. What if someone told your mom, sister, wife, etc that she could not wear this necklace to work because it wasn't 'appropriate?' Wouldn't you fight it? Wouldnt you be offended?

all that matters is that you have actual faith in your religion, whatever it may be. in that sense, it's surprisingly liberal...

I agree, though sometimes it may not seem that way, it really is much much more liberal than most countries' laws.

my understanding after reading the school's policy is that the school forbids the wearing of ANY accessories that would announce one's religion - headscarves and crucifixes alike? in that case i wonder if any sort of discrimination claim even exists.

This is a Christian school, yes? Doesn't Christianity - and all religions for that matter - preach tolerance, respect, kindness?

Deuteronomy 13:2-5

2. ....whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;

3. Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams....

...

5. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death;[link]

my understanding after reading the school's policy is that the school forbids the wearing of ANY accessories that would announce one's religion - headscarves and crucifixes alike? in that case i wonder if any sort of discrimination claim even exists.

Again, this makes an assumption concerning what neutral is. i.e. if I showed up one day without my turban and with my hair cut, that wouldn't be uninformative (excuse the double negative) or neutral - it would be saying that I am no longer a Sikh [At least in my case].

Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how "neutral" is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I'm a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can't take one day a week off because that's a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn't really be neutral.

If the school forbids all sorts of jewellery, religious or not, then I don't see why it's discriminatory...?

Razib wrote:

anyway, i tend to not say anything on these sikh related threads because i don't want to be an a**hole

I miss the days Razib still wanted to be an a**hole. It made me feel more normal.

I'm surprised that it's the Kara that raised a fuss in the UK. In English Canada 15 years ago it was a Sikh mountie wanting to wear a turban.

Again, this makes an assumption concerning what neutral is. i.e. if I showed up one day without my turban and with my hair cut, that wouldn't be uninformative (excuse the double negative) or neutral - it would be saying that I am no longer a Sikh [At least in my case].

Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how "neutral" is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I'm a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can't take one day a week off because that's a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn't really be neutral.

Very well put. I faced similar problems with clients who wore hijabs. Even though the above makes perfect sense to people like us, try explaining the above to a white middle aged college drop out HR manager in Peoria :)

Shit, I messed up the italics in #43.

The kara had a specific purpose. Guru Gobind Singh wanted to the Sikhs to be a fearless lot-so he made them 'stick out' in public where the ruling mughal class could identify them and go after them easily-hence making physical confrontation inevitable-you couldnt really 'blend' in to the crowd dressed as a Khalsa. Once the fear of confrontation was lost, the mughals were history.
Currently, the kara is a reminder of that commitment to stand up to tyranny, no matter what kind. Somebody cuts you off-go after them. The fatter gold kara you wear, the more Sikh you are so on and so on.
I am a Sikh by birth and I have worn a kara for as long as i can remember.

THis Sikh girl and her family need to grow up.

Now that's an eloquent rebuttal.

The school doesn't let others wear their religious objects, why should there be an exception for this Sikh girl?

The school prohibits wearing jewelry, possibly for the same reason my school did, to prevent showing off. In my opinion, a kara is not jewelry. AFAIK, there is no code in Christianity which mandates wearing a cross daily, so comparing karas to such religious objects seems pointless. I think the 5 Ks are unique, like this case. I understand that you don't agree.

Your indignation rings hollow Anna,

Are you me? Do you know what I feel or how deeply I feel it? There's a way to disagree with someone without invalidating them.

are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?

Wow, it's like you can('t) read my mind. That's exactly what I was attempting to do!

I know what it's like to be singled out at a private school for religious reasons. I feel more compassion, interest and empathy for Sarika because of it. But hey, let's go with your "brownie points" theory. Way funnier.

Not wearing jewelry is seen as neutral because Christianity does not mandate the wearing of jewelry. However, they would see the obligation to work 7 days a week as discriminatory. You see how "neutral" is actually defined in reference to the religions of the place? I'm a member of a non-Sabbath religion. If I create a 7 day a week school and tell people that they can't take one day a week off because that's a religious display, I could also claim that my rule is evenhanded, but it wouldn't really be neutral.

I see and agree with this point, however, it is a bit tricky when you're dealing with religous mandates of an outwardly physical, visible nature. So it should be looked at in a case by case basis, although I think a little bracelet is nothing to get all worked up about.

The thing is, I think old Christianity did have more outwardly visible religious demarcations historicaly speaking, (maybe someone can verify) but those have gradually been cast off.

Shit, I messed up the italics in #43

Hush, of course you didn't. ;)

are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?

Shit what happened to the response:

If that was ANNA's goal, I'd imagine she'd not waste time posting stories here rather attending and financially supporting every Bhangra event known to man.

Now it isn't exactly the same situation, some could argue that is purely cultural and not religious, but for us it is a sign of commitment, a sign of faith to your marriage under Hindu customs. What if someone told your mom, sister, wife, etc that she could not wear this necklace to work because it wasn't 'appropriate?' Wouldn't you fight it? Wouldnt you be offended?

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.

Personally I find it more offensive that Hindu men do not wear any piece of jewelry indicating their marital status,

Last time I checked, my dad wears a wedding ring--and my mother makes sure he feels the need to wear it.

I observe Sikh related threads at this place with a mixture of amusement and amazement, at the number of pompous chauvinists that they smoke out of the area.

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.

Personally I find it more offensive that Hindu men do not wear any piece of jewelry indicating their marital status,

Now it isn't exactly the same situation, some could argue that is purely cultural and not religious, but for us it is a sign of commitment, a sign of faith to your marriage under Hindu customs. What if someone told your mom, sister, wife, etc that she could not wear this necklace to work because it wasn't 'appropriate?' Wouldn't you fight it? Wouldnt you be offended?

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 :-).

to win browine points

Said code only allows a watch and “plain metal stud earrings”.

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?

The fatter gold kara you wear, the more Sikh you are so on and so on.

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.

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?

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):

By the way, when male Muslims and Jews get naked or make love in the open air is that an ostentatious display of religion in public, sans foreskin, especially when, in Europe or India, it is against the norm? Razib, do you do ostentatious diplays?

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.

I am reminded of a case where this African dude told me that he wanted accomodation at his work place for prayers.

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.

Your indignation rings hollow Anna, are you trying to win browine points from the Sikh community?

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?

You could just as well claim that people don't need to worship together because that's making the private public as well.

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?

A nonreligious ( and that includes atheists) public space would be so much saner.

but it sounds like you are conflating Christianity with the English, when some of us were taking communion a millenium before they showed up.

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.

But don't you see that this is impossible? Sort of like how there's no such thing as an unbiased journalist

Manju: Any comments on the House passing a bill prohibiting private employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transexuals?

A nonreligious ( and that includes atheists) public space would be so much saner

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.

The fatter gold kara you wear, the more Sikh you are so on and so on.

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.

...so, Razib, are you circumsized? I'm just curious! I'm not gay! I'm only asking because Jah Stepper wants to know.

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.

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"?

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

Brother Jah Stepper, I think you missed the sarcasm in my post ;) one of the problems with the written word.

Sorry about that friend, my bad ;-)

This thread has it all: sex, religion, defecation, and misidentified sarcasm!

The kara is a piece of jewelery, that has religious significance.

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.

Manju: Any comments on the House passing a bill prohibiting private employment discrimination against gays, lesbians and transexuals?

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.

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.

I was laughing so hard, until I realized that you must not have read this yet.

I did not press it since I realized that I found the cross dangling near her breasts hot as hell.

Religion and sex - a potent combination. I nearly cracked a fat.

but they are neglecting tenets purported to them by their own scripture.

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 r