'Sir, you have to take your turban off..this is America..."

[Mari333]

ROANOKE RAPIDS, N.C. — A Halifax County man was turned away from a local mission when he refused to remove his turban while trying to make a donation.




When Gary Khera, went with his wife to the Union Mission on Roanoke Avenue to make a donation, a staffer asked him to remove his turban.









http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3999881/

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Doesn't sound like America to me

:cry:

[davidinalameda]

11. actually it does sound like vast parts of this country

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Ignorant idiots....at so many levels.

[RedCappedBandit]

3. These people make me sick

""We have policy, and he didn't want to abide by it," said Weeks. "He gave the receptionist a bad time and decided to do a vengeance thing because he didn't get his own way. This was nothing to do with the turban, nothing to do with his faith.""

Really? Then why didn't they simply cite their anti-headwear rules instead of claiming that since this is the united states, that somehow implies turbans should not be worn?
:puke:

[TahitiNut]

74. It's a good thing they don't make us Sikh.

Then we'd all be wearing turbans. :dunce:

[Recursion]

4. At least it actually *was* a turban

When Americans say "turban" they usually mean "keffiyeh". Nor do most of us seem to know that anyone is a turban is almost certainly not Arab, and even more certainly not Muslim.

[dynasaw]

8. Know your turbans

"Lesson No. 1: All turbans are not the same. Fabric head wraps and head coverings are common in a wide swath of the world, from North Africa across the Middle East and into Central Asia. At times, turbans have even been found on the heads of fashion-conscious Europeans and atop the craniums of American pop-culture icons.

Like other types of clothing, the turban means different things depending on who is wearing it and how it is worn. To see every turban-wearer as a terrorist is like assuming every person who wears shoes is a criminal."
http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/turbans/turbans.html


http://www.csupomona.edu/~plin/turbans/turban2.html

[dynasaw]

5. He is a Sikh

. . . he is being discriminated because of his religion. Part of the Sikh religious practices involves not cutting one's hair or beard.
The ignorant morons in Roanoke need to read Diana Eck's (Professor of Comparative Religion Harvard University) New Religious America: How A "Christian Country" Has Now Become The World's Most Religiously Diverse Nation.

"Sikhs, who immigrated in the 1960s, received higher education at universities in the US. Many of them are now Department Chairs, endowed professors, or Deans at various top-tier universities. A number of Sikhs are physicians of high repute in a wide range of specialty fields of medicine. Sikhs hold managerial positions in engineering fields in various engineering firms, including the technology and automobile industry. Sikh Americans have historically founded new companies in disproportionately high numbers, attributed to their risk-taking entrepreneurial mindset. Dr. Narinder Singh Kapany is known as the father of fiber optics because of his exceptional research in this field. He also established a Kapany Chair of Sikh Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1998.<5>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism_in_the_United_States

[ismnotwasm]

22. Yes

I learned about Sikhs when I worked in long term care. We had an elderly gentlemen who daughter, also a nurse, would come in to wash and care for his hair during his rehab stay.

There have been murders around the country of Sikhs mistaken for "A-rabs" because of their head covering. It's beyond disgusting, this pathological hate. I don't have a word for how I feel about it.

[hobbit709]

6. Once again, THEIR religious freedom makes them deny others' religious freedom

Funny how many so-called Christians believe religious freedom only applies to their particular beliefs in this country.

[Gwendolyn]

17. All religious people are pretty fanatical about their customs and beliefs.

Would you for instance, go clomping through a mosque with your dirty shoes because the rules don't happen to coincide with your beliefs? More than likely, the congregants wouldn't like it if you did.

[fascisthunter]

7. Talk about Religious Intolerance...

I may disagree with religion itself, but I would NEVER do such a thing... never. The very religious freedom that allows this mission to exist is being attacked by them.. incredible irony.

[cobalt1999]

10. Frankly, we are too tolerant of religion.

We are too tolerant of ALL religions.

I'd have him remove it if that was the rule. I'd have head scarves removed for driver's licenses.

As for religious rules tolerated by the society, Fuck 'em.

[izquierdista]

16. Yeah! Fuck'm!

I believe George Carlin did a routine about the role of hats in religion -- no sense to it at all.

[Sal Minella]

26. If the driver's license pic is supposed to look like the driver, the turban and headscarf should be

worn for taking the DL photo. Sikh men always wear their turbans in public and Muslim women who scarf always wear the scarf in public. There would be no purpose in having the photograph taken without headcovering, except to harrass the applicant. This is not "religious tolerance" (I am fairly intolerant of the way religions are allowed to elbow their way around in our society) -- but I think the DL pic should look like the driver.

[cobalt1999]

30. Disagree.

If my religion calls for a burka and face veils, should the license be that way? A picture id shouldn't have to work around silly masks, hats, etc. If the police stop someone with a turban and there is doubt of identity, have the guy take it off.

I don't give a damn about anyone's little make believe rules.

[Codeine]

53. Precisely.

We should never, as a secular society, feel obligated to play by the rules of somebody's Invisible Sky Daddy.

[readmoreoften]

68. That's a slippery slope argument. A headscarf is not a burqa or a face veil.

Clearly, a photograph of a woman in a burqa would be unacceptable for an ID. A face is necessary for identification hair is not. If hair were necessary, no one would be able to get a photo with a tight ponytail and we'd all have to get a new ID everytime we changed hairstyle or hair color.

[JerseygirlCT]

38. No, no we're not.

Or perhaps we should turn that around and say we're too tolerant of those with no religion? Like how that fits any better? It's the same thing.

That same tolerance for religion protects tolerance of all religions or none.

Your dislike of religion is absolutely beside the point here. This man was the victim of ignorance and bigotry.

[cobalt1999]

44. "...we're too tolerant of those with no religion"

When you can tell me ONE life rule atheists impose upon others, we'll talk.

I'll wait for the example of clothing where atheists insist on how people should dress.
I'll wait for the example of cartoons where atheists will be insulted.
I'll wait for the example of rights that are denied to some groups because it's part of the atheist culture.
I'll wait for the example of topics that can't be discussed because it might offend atheists.
I'll wait for the example of where atheists stop medical research because of our rules.

My opinion is people can believe whatever they want, however the minute they want anyone else to take into account their sensitivities, then I have to say f'em.

[JerseygirlCT]

45. My point was

either extreme is every bit as damaging, and as foolish.

Tolerance all around is the thing.

[cobalt1999]

48. Nope. Tolerance toward religious is saying that it is something worth respecting.

It isn't.

[Wickerman]

50. The whole idea of protecting freedoms centers on the idea of protecting all freedoms

even those which we may consider worthless.

edit, changed type

[JerseygirlCT]

57. Precisely. nt

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Which of course is intolerant

and pointlessly so.

But hang in there if that makes you feel superior.

[jrockford]

70. Notice how he is as fundamental as those west lunatic baptists that protest?

He's offensive, intolerant, (mostly) idiotic, self-righteous, thinks he's completely correct - no room for an opposing view...wow - fits the description of how one would describe a fundamentalist.

[nickyt]

9. I wonder how much he was fixin' to donate - $20? $20,000?

this is especially stoopid because the people needing help from the mission got screwed -

dumb fucks

[amdezurik]

12. NC's new motto

"Feel teh stoopid"

[Lex]

14. It was a rural area of NC. NC went blue for Obama as I recall.

nt

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Let me suggest a rejoinder

"Sir, this is America and therefore I do not have to remove my turban."

[gollygee]

15. This is America?

You mean the land of religious tolerance? Hmmm.

[Book Lover]

18. OK, God, which is it?

Do you want us to cover our heads, or not? If you could issue some sort of statement, that would really help clear things up. Thanks!

[walldude]

52. LMFAO! You know if he came and tried to clear things up

it would just make things worse. Can you imagine the aftermath? LMAO!

[bertman]

19. Roanoke Rapids. Who woulda thunk it? It's the berg on I-95 where Dolly Partin's brother

tried to run his country music mecca scam.

[Gwendolyn]

20. So many strange replies to this thread.

It's disrespectful to the nth degree for a man to cover his head in the Christian God's house. Other religions have plenty of their own rules and regs, no less odd. Would anybody ask them to set aside their rules to accommodate non-believers? My guess is no.

[gollygee]

23. He wasn't going into a church, he was going to a mission to donate money

And they didn't say the reason they wanted him to take it off had anything to do with Christianity, they said it was because "this is America".

[Gwendolyn]

25. Well, that's not exactly what it says in the cbs report.

The rev said they consider the mission the Lord's house, and there is a big fat sign on the front door requesting the removal of head coverings.

While the woman who said "this is America" (if she did say that) was stupid, but doesn't take anything away from the fact that Christian men are not to cover their heads in a holy house, and a sign clearly stated it. It seems also that the rev explained that to the man in question.

I'm an atheist and find it all kind of funny, but fair is fair. If you uphold that which other faiths find holy, then same goes for Christians as well, no matter how much of a beef people have with them.

[LeftyMom]

37. The same verse says that women must cover their heads. Do they refuse admission to women not wearing

a headscarf, hat or mantilla?

Somehow I think not.

[Gwendolyn]

49. Apparently a woman's hair was good enough to satisfy God.

Since it's a mission, that may be the men's area, and they don't come across that many bald women.

[LeftyMom]

51. If the "covering" were hair (and it wasn't for most of history) than men would have to shave their

heads to obey the verse in question and remain uncovered.

[Gwendolyn]

54. Lol... you're bringing women into it, making assumptions.

How do you know women aren't required to cover their heads in that church? The story only discusses men. Perhaps this mission is segregated and the chapel is only open to men. The story says that the offended man went there, rather than mailing his cheque, because he wanted a tour to see where his money was going. Perhaps that's why it escalated.

Have you ever volunteered at a mission? Cause I have. There are a lot of people who rely on these charities because they have lost their way, are ruined by alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, etc. It doesn't surprise me that there are strict rules of behavior posted at the door. That they include removing hats as a sign of respect just doesn't surprise me; it was a rule at ours, which couldn't have been a more open, welcoming place.

If the idea is to bash Christians go ahead, I do it from time to time. But I'll bet the reactions would be far different, if this same story involved other religions.

[LeftyMom]

55. I can't imagine they're turning away female donors or clients who don't show up in a mantilla.

All I know is that any group that's more hung up on making others observe the finer details of their religious rules than on actually helping the poor isn't real clear on the main idea of the new testament.

Actually, that Jesus guy supposedly said an awful lot about people like that, none of it complimentary.

[Gwendolyn]

62. It's one of those "he said' "they said" stories.

Nobody really knows what went on. Maybe the Church people are total pricks. It wouldn't be the first time. Maybe the Turban guy was so immediately belligerent there was no reasoning with him, and they thought it was best he left. It's all conjecture.

[LeftyMom]

63. I'm not even getting into the incident generally, only the head covering issue.

As I explained, that part doesn't even make sense, so the whole basis for the disagreement evaporates. As such, the more likely explanation for excluding the man (who was trying to help the poor, let us not forget, so I kinda doubt he was looking to start an incident) would be xenophobia.

[Gwendolyn]

66. You have a 50% chance of being right.

But as I explained, it's likely women are not part of the equation, and men often show up in baseball caps, ratty wool caps, head scarves etc... so the no head covering/respect rule makes sense to me, and that isn't the only mission ever to institute it.

Donors can be complete pricks too. Some give to make themselves feel powerful for a moment or two, and it's amazing how many people loudly bitch and moan because the little gift they get for donating isn't to their liking. Maybe I see those things along with the other, perhaps more supposedly obvious conclusion.

It's still the religious institution's right to accept or deny behavior/dress on their premises, and that goes for all religions. I don't find this different than any number of criteria required by other faiths.

[ZombieHorde]

81. Stop it right now.

How can I be judgmental when you are writing such posts? Your logical post is NOT appreciated. Jerk.

[elshiva]

83. Sorry.

[Gwendolyn]

85. Would've it have been as bad as saying Chistian fuck heads?

Next time instead of shity smilie cons. you could get involved in something like going to the mission in your town and doing something aside from sitting your fat ass on the interbed, and have a pretty much useless opinion. :) You might be surprised how much you could do.

[elshiva]

86. Sorry, I am useless.

[Gwendolyn]

87. Too bad you changed your message.

We could've used you. :)

[elshiva]

89. It was a snarky comment. I took something out of context.

I did not want to leave the comment up, because I didn't want someone to quote me on it down the line. It was a mistake and I'm sorry.

[Gwendolyn]

93. No prob... but xmay and the jewish holdiays are coming up...

... I won't ever work a mission again cause I'm a woman and it sucks basically, but if you have time and are a man, you should go. Just one year, try it. No one could ever blame you for anything you do ever in your life again; that's how good you would be. It's that heart wrenching and no one will do it. :)

[elshiva]

94. Thanks. I'm a woman.

I have a sorts of problems interacting with people all my life. I've been in and out of mental institutions. As, I said, I am useless.

[kestrel91316]

24. Was this man in the SANCTUARY DURING A SERVICE? Or

was he just at a facility that provides community service?

Big difference.

MY god doesn't require that visitors to his sanctuaries be unfailing practitioners of that particualr facility's faith. Does yours? Mine allows GUESTS.

[Gwendolyn]

27. I don't have one. But their's does apparently. And it does look like a religious facility.

[JerseygirlCT]

39. That's not even true in most places anymore

I can remember that being the case as a kid, but I don't think anyone would blink an eye now in my church.

Certainly not if the person was obviously not of our traditions.

[NickB79]

59. Try attending Sunday Mass in a Minnesota church in January

And tell me that hats are a no-no in God's house. Hell, when the heat went out one time, even the priest was wearing a big wool hat!

[readmoreoften]

69. And "the Christian God's house" is America? Nice strawman to pull people away from the point.

The OP's quote--and what posters are responding to--is a quote from a mission worker who basically tells a good samaritan: your religious headgear is unAmerican. It has nothing to do with head coverings in the Christian church. If the OP was "sikh man asked to take off headgear during Christian service" your response to the thread would have a point. But that's not the OP, so your post is a strawman meant to pull people's attention for the point of the thread and twist the OPs meaning.

[Gwendolyn]

78. No, I was speaking specifically of a Christian institution.

My point is two-fold. It's he-said, they-said, so no one outside of those involved really know what was said. You can claim whatever you like, but in reality, you don't know.

As well, being an atheist I prefer it if people of all faiths keep their dogma out of our lives, but feel they have a perfect right to behave however they wish within the confines of their houses of worship... and ask others to do the same.

[Mari333]

21. wow, it made it to cbs news

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/21/national/main4623056.shtml

[Ian David]

28. I used to think that way once... when I was 17. But I've grown-up since then. n/t

[Evoman]

29. I'm trying to decide whether it's dumber to not being able to take your hat off, or

whether it's dumber requiring someone else to take their hat off to enter your church.

Hard to decide, but I gotta go with the latter for a number of reasons:

1)Freedom favours the turban guy.

2)The mission is asking somebody who is DONATING MONEY TO YOUR CAUSE to take his hat off.

3)That turban is a nice colour of blue, and the guy has a great mustache.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gollygee]

32. If he was donating money to the mosque

it seems like the polite thing to do would be to politely say, "Could we please take care of this without entering farther because our religion doesn't allow shoes inside the mosque." Instead of "This is America" or something equally rude.

[Gwendolyn]

36. He says they were rude, and they say he was rude.

Only those who were there really know what went on.

I guess in defense of the mission, the sign on the door does illustrate fairness in applying the rules across the board.

Basically what you're inferring is that you agree it's okay for religious facilities to invoke the rules of their faith for non-believers. I think so too.

[readmoreoften]

71. They said his turban was unAmerican. They were rude. Period.

[gollygee]

77. He was donating money

It seems unlikely he'd head over there to give them money and then start being rude with no provocation. His plan was to give money, not argue with them.

[Gwendolyn]

79. Don't know if it's unlikely.

I stopped volunteering a few years ago because I was disgusted at the tudes of many donors. You'd be surprised maybe to know why some people give. As soon as I read this guy went down there to see where his dollars were going, something clicked in my head. And, I'll leave it at that. :)

[Evoman]

34. Yes, unless the shoes are muddy and/or would damage the floor.

My gym makes you take off your outside shoes even in the summer so you don't damage the track or floor.

Otherwise, I'm totally on the shoe guys side, especially if he is going to donate money to the mosque.

[JerseygirlCT]

41. There's no religious reason for a Christian to retain her/his shoes

in that situation.

For a Sikh, however, the head-covering is very, very important. And, as I said above, the idea of an uncovered head really isn't that critical in most Christian places of worship anymore, and certainly not for someone obviously not a Christian.

Were they to feel so grossly offended by the presence of a male with his head covered in their sanctuary (if that really was the case; it's not clear we're talking about the sanctuary here at all), then the very least hospitality would demand was that they explain the situation and welcome him warmly to some other area of the church where they could meet and talk and happily receive his kind donation.

But I don't think was about that at all. I think this was about fear and ignorance. Religion is most definitely secondary here. I imagine if he'd shown up at the local watering hole he might have been treated similarly.

[JerseygirlCT]

43. Also, just for clarity -

this man was almost certainly not a Muslim, but a Sikh. So we're stretching things with the mosque analogy.

[Gwendolyn]

47. Thank you. I'm aware he wasn't muslim.

I was merely throwing up one of the other convenient Abrahamic religions.

I don't know that the shoe analogy is so off. Perhaps my own odd faith requires that shoes be kept on in the presence of others. I didn't think about it much, but there are other analogies to be made.

Fact is, you're interpreting the situation based on your own imagined script and an incomplete news report. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what was said, who was rude, who wasn't, nuttin!!!

It seems illogical to me that people volunteering and running a mission would be openly hostile to anyone, especially since they serve such a wide variety of people in need of love, but those are just my perceptions as well.

[crispini]

65. Actually, the last time I visited a mosque (women's side)

I paused at the door to take off my shoes and the woman who was "in charge" pretty firmly indicated I didn't have to take off my shoes. Everyone else did, but I guess I "didn't count" since I was obviously just there to visit. I thought it was a nice gesture of them.

[JerseygirlCT]

40. Bottom line is it's disrespectful,

When he means no disrespect.

But unfortunately, it seems the people he ran into were so intent on demonstrating their own persecution complex that they opted for intolerance - even, as you say, in the face of an offered donation!

Idiots. Nasty, rude, idiots.

[Warpy]

33. Sounds like Baptist Jesusland, not America

and I hope the ACLU sues the mofos on Mr. Khera's behalf.

I really, really hate this stuff. Now y'all know why I fled the south.

Yes, xenophobic morons who can't tell the difference between a Sikh and bin Laden exist all over. They're just corrected elsewhere.

(they just call them Swami people here in NM, where there's a fairly large Sikh community)

[JerseygirlCT]

35. Assholes

We ought to just issue a daily apology for idiots like this.

[LynnTheDem]

42. Not in my America.

[madrchsod]

46. cannibal christians

jesus weeps when people do these things in his name

[proud2BlibKansan]

58. Hopefully he kept his donation?

[JerseygirlCT]

64. Article says he did

and he'd been a regular donor, too. This was the first time he'd shown up in person to see his donations at work.

From a fundraising point of view, that means they had a very committed donor on their hands - and look how they treated him...

I think he'll find somewhere else to donate from now on, and good. I'm sure there are no end of good places with great need.

[Skidmore]

60. "I'll take my turban off when you remove your

baseball cap."


The ignorance of some Americans is breathtaking, isn't it?

[elshiva]

84. Ha! I do agree.

It's just a turban. What's the fucking big deal?

[This One]

61. Was this in one of those "pro-America" parts of America?

[spanone]

67. they don't have a clue what America stands for....not a clue

[readmoreoften]

72. I'm sure the poor and suffering are thanking the Christian Nationalists.

This is why I am AGAINST faith-based funding. NONE. ZIP. ZERO. Religions discriminate and poverty relief should not.

[Montauk6]

73. Would these same people...

ask an Orthodox Jewish man to remove his yarmulke because "this is America"? Just saying...

[kitty1]

75. Well we all know how Jesus was vehemently against turbans n/t

[kitty1]

76. I wonder if they would make a Muslim woman remove her hijab n/t

[Phred42]

80. LOL - We refuse to take your donation until you shave your ass for us.

:rofl:

Stupid

[davidthegnome]

82. It does seem counter-productive

"Weeks said the mission would welcome Khera's donation if he mailed it or had his wife bring it in."

Sure, the man is going to be really eager to do that after such a warm reception. I'm an agnostic, former Catholic and I'm not really sure about anything 100%.

They should be pleased, grateful to get a donation. Somehow I don't think Jesus would have demanded someone remove his hat (or turban) first if he wanted to give charity. We are talking about the Jesus who hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors aren't we?

The comment about this being America was pure idiocy. There are so many better ways this situation could have turned out, if not for that particular comment. Sign or no sign, I think the blame rightly belongs to the individual that made that comment. I imagine that there are great people working for the mission, but most groups have a bad apple or two. It's sad that one or two assholes can always screw it up for everyone.

It seems pretty clear to me. The first statement was enough to offend the man, and he had every right to be offended. Anything he said after that, regardless of his intent, is in my opinion, justified by the way the idiot treated him.

Regardless of the speculation, it is clear that, at the very least, that comment was not necessary and the individual that made it was an idiot.

[TexasObserver]

88. "Sir, this is America, where people like me don't know what the Bill of Rights is."

[elshiva]

91. ......

:rofl:

[Doremus]

90. How dare they. Not only have they insulted and degraded someone, how

many people will they be unable to help because of their stupidity?

I assume this mission has a board of directors. They need to fire whoever is responsible for this. And if this idiocy has trickled down from the top, there needs to be a clean sweep from the board on down.

[Skittles]

92. ridiculous

this is America which is why he can wear what he wants