h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Re: the play in Birmingham.

Here's an odd thing.

The theatre's DEFENCE of the play is that it is fiction.

One of the main planks of the protester's annoyance is... that it is fiction. An old Sikh gentleman was on the Today programme this morning. He said "sexual assault is something that doesn't happen in a gurdwara." Edward Stourton interrupted, rather rudely I thought, to say "And you know that for a fact, do you?". He went on to observe that he had never in his life (he was 77) ever heard of anything like this ever happening in any gurdwara. Which is more than I imagine many Catholic priests could say about the church...

There seems to be some sort of logical disconnect at work here. The play is fiction. Nobody is suggesting that these things ever happened. I think most adults are able to understand this concept. And yet one of the main objection seems to be that these things did NOT happen. Would the Sikh community stop protesting if an example of a rape in a gurdwara could be produced? Should they?

Also, I get the impression there's more to it. There seems to be a generalised objection to the portrayal of Sikh tradition and forms of worship. If that's truly the case, I can begin to understand the objections.

However... the play does not, at any stage, promote hatred or ridicule of Sikhs, as far as I know. It was in fact written by a Sikh. Freedom of speech is an important right, but only up to a point. From what I can make out, that point is not reached, or even approached, by this play. But then I'm not a Sikh...

H.

Perhaps there is a law in, say, India that says a play like this would be considered profane and therefore not allowed. But this play was put on in England . . .


az

There is a difficulty here that the Sikh community and its religious practices are seldom - if ever - portrayed in mainstream British arts. Thus if the first play to pop over the horizon portrays a negative, fictitious account of a Gurdwara...there are some grounds for being peeved. There are dangers in portraying in fiction something that might be taken as being based on fact. A certain honesty is required of the author of realistic fiction.

I would very much like to hear the playwright's views. Was she explicitly commenting on corruption within Sikhism? Or is it a comment on the potential corruption of any closed society, but written from a perspective with which she just happens to be familiar? Maybe it's bad art, lazily falling back on 'write what you know about'.

I agree that the sticking point seems to be the way that Sikh symbols are used in the play. It reminds me of the shock that some Catholics feel at the comedy play 'Once A Catholic'

A wider question was raised by the Sikh commentator's second appearance on 'Today'. He said that he should have a legal right not to feel offended. Should he? And are the (voluntary?) personal opinions of the religious in the same class as their innate characteristics of sex, sexuality and race?

(btw: I'd strongly recommend attending a 'lunga' or communal meal in a Gurdwara. Great food in a very welcoming atmosphere!)

Yes this play was put on in England in a city which has an enormous Skih community, written by a Skih and a probably watched mainly by people from that background.

I suspect it is part of the rich culture created by third generation Skihs exploring what it means to be to come from there background. I live in Birmingham and certainly wouldn't have gone to see it because it didn't seem relevent to me. That said I'm rather tempted to now.

Also Birmingham has such a large asian community that they are hardly an minority, so saying 'they should obey our rules' is a bit pointless.

There is of course the irony that Sikhism was created to try and stop the tension and violence between the Hindus and Muslims and yet how did the Sikhs in Birmingham try and resolve the problem by hurting 3 policemen and smashing windows of the Rep Theatre. Not exactly a non-violent resolution tactic.

The perception of irony perhaps suggests a slight lack of knowledge of Sikhism. Guru Hargobind established the 'Kalsi' - an armed brotherhood of warriors to defend the faith. They don't claim to be non-violent, merely moderate.

"He said that he should have a legal right not to feel offended. Should he? "

Definitely not. Nobody should. I have no idea where anyone gets the idea they have a right not to be offended.

One point: Sikhs, like Jews, are recognised in the UK not just as a religion, but as an ethnic group.

Also the idea that Sikhs are committed to non-violence really does show a deal of ignorance. The very symbol of their faith is a pair of crossed swords!

H.

I agree absolutely on a lack of right not to be offended. Indeed, I seem to have stirred up some controversy on this in the Freedom From Faith Foundation.

There does appear to be an impasse, though. To the religious, an attack on faith seems to be taken as an attack on their person, rather than on their opinion. We might speculate on the psychological and sociological reasons why this might be so. Suffice to say...I certainly don't think that anyone should have the right not to speak offensively about *my* opinions. Indeed, I can't imagine a decent pub conversation in which that didn't happen!

From the article I posted:

"The protesters claim the play mocks their faith."

My response to that is - 'well, so?'

As Edward has pointed out, an attack on a religious belief is not the same as a personal attack. Unfortunately many very religious people cannot see the difference.

Meanwhile, this play doesn't seem to be about attacking Sikh tradition at all, only creating a fictional scene within a temple.


az

"Play axed after Sikh protests"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/news/story/0,11711,1377599,00.html

"The Birmingham theatre attacked this weekend in a violent protest by Sikhs today announced it was ending the run of a play that depicts murder and rape in a Sikh temple.
Stuart Rogers, the executive director of the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, admitted that the play's closure amounted to censorship, but said he had a duty of care to staff and audiences."


az

Well Z it will be a few years yet until white people are less than 50% of the local population then everyone will be an ethnic minority

Thing is the rules of this country are "their" rules too, ust as much as they are yours or mine. If anyone doesnt like the rules you have you can either revolt or change them through the established process no one has a right to subvert the laws that are there for everyone.

Although it is fun breaking the odd rule from time to time

"Also the idea that Sikhs are committed to non-violence really does show a deal of ignorance. The very symbol of their faith is a pair of crossed swords!"

Actually the ones Ive seen have three swords the central one being the double edged sword of justice.

Which is odd considering that if sihks were attacked for being sikhs they would scream blue murder yet ists ok for sikhs to attack a dramatist for creating drama

So as well as talking softly but carrying a big stick (or in this case sword) sikhs like other religious groups have a habit for applying the rules in a way that ignores fairness but as long as it suits their needs.

<>

Correct, however this was 140 years after the creation of Sikhism; he was told to set it up by Guru Arjan, his father, who was in prison being tortured to death by a Muslim Emporer who was jealous of the growth of Sikhism. This probably went some way to Arjan wanting to set up an army to protect the interests of the Sikhs. Hargobind then worked out some spiel about bearing arms not being against Guru Nanks original Sikh philosophy (So that's alright then).

I read this froma number of Sikh websites awhile ago and not from a neutral non-sikh website so I do not know whether any thing has been missed out or spun that would put the instigation of army/killing of Arjan into a different light.

The original philosophy of Sikhism in a nut-shell was love thy neighbour. The other religions pretty much ignored them until they grew to position of power then the other religions got a bit worried. Hence, the killing of the Guru and then the setting up of the army. Unstanderble to protect oneself but always smacks as going against the usual 'respect each others religion' rubbish that all religious leaders spout in public.

As for the actual case of the play. I do chortle slightly everytime someone brings out a book/play/cartoon series whih sends up/challenges a religion and then the religious leaders denounce it/make threats/carry out violence against it until it is banned. A few voices in the vast media wilderness are hardly going to bring down religions that have been around for nigh on a couple of thousand years. Makes me think the religious leaders are worried a few nuggets of truth may get through.

My jaded gut feeling is that whenever a religious (or political or any other) leader announces catagorically that a certain something absolutely never happens in some special religious (or political or any other) place then that particular something probably doesn't happen there but rather, some other dark thing that the general public would take badly does actually happen there.

(Speaking with a certain degree of secret knowledge of what goes on in the sacred places of one much maligned religious group. <secrethandshakesmiley&gt

>>Thing is the rules of this country are "their" rules too, ust as much as they are yours or mine. If anyone doesnt like the rules you have you can either revolt or change them through the established process no one has a right to subvert the laws that are there for everyone.

That's what I meant bb. You just put it better than me.

<< To the religious, an attack on faith seems to be taken as an attack on their person, rather than on their opinion. We might speculate on the psychological and sociological reasons why this might be so.>>

Yes, let's! Maybe it's because some atheists insist on "attacking" (debate doesn't equal attack IMHO, but for some it does seem to ) not the faith, but the person. There's no need to psychoanalyse and ridicule someone because they get angry when their sanity and their intelligence is called into question, not just their faith!

There's some kind of middle ground.
Attacking an idea, or the formulation/expression of an idea could be viewed as either attacking the person having the idea or attacking the religion responsible for the idea.

Della,

I'm afraid your knee has jerked slightly. By mentioning psychology, I wasn't implying that the religious have aberrant psychologies. Rather, that in many cases their religion is closely interwoven with their sense of self. Similarly, communities frequently identify themselves by faith. Amongst marginalised, oppressed communities, a perceived attack on the faith may well be seen as just another attack on them as a body. Am I being in any way contentious or judgemental here?

So what atheist is 'attacking' in this case? It is my understanding that the playwright is (ethnically) Sikh. While I don't know about her personal faith - she has been effectively censored by being advised not to speak - from what I now know of the play, she practices her faith.

Moving on....it was interesting and disturbing that on the R4 Today programme this am, only one was prepared to give a vigorous defence of free speech. One was a CofE Bishop who muttered platitudes about respect for faith. Another was Fiona McTaggart who is the Home Office minister responsible for the 'incitement to religious hatred' bill. She actually said something like '...the Sikh community has exercised it's democratic right of protest'. The only person to defend freedom was....Trevor Philips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality. He said that we need to defend minority views. The play represented the views of a minority member of a minority community. He also reminded us of the strenuous efforts the theatre had made to ensure that opposing Sikh views were made available to the audience.

I don't see why there should be any more respect for faith than for anything else.
If one reason for 'respecting' people is that they may turn ugly if they don't get their own way, then respect seems to lose much of its meaning.

As one Sikh said:
"There is such a depth of feeling, this is for Sikhs what the Satanic Verses was for Muslims."

Quite - most of the protesters have never read/seen it, and some are prepared to get violent. What a bunch of muppets.


From a BBC reporter.
>>'A small number of young people I spoke to said they had no problem with the play at all; one young man said he had never heard of it...'

"If people hold that view, then they are not aware of their religion, they are ignorant," councillor Gurdial Singh Atwal told the BBC."

Possibly better paraphrased as "If young people start thinking for themselves rather than being told what to do by their elders, maybe they'll be less likely to vote for me than their parents were."

<>

Oh, I dunno. I'd question not only the sanity and intelligence of this guy, but also his faith.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200412/s1269863.htm




az

Amongst marginalised, oppressed communities, a perceived attack on the faith may well be seen as just another attack on them as a body. Am I being in any way contentious or judgemental here?

Neither, for my Edward, you are right on the mark.




From a BBC reporter.
>>'A small number of young people I spoke to said they had no problem with the play at all; one young man said he had never heard of it...'

"If people hold that view, then they are not aware of their religion, they are ignorant," councillor Gurdial Singh Atwal told the BBC."

Possibly better paraphrased as "If young people start thinking for themselves rather than being told what to do by their elders, maybe they'll be less likely to vote for me than their parents were."

Potholer


<< To the religious, an attack on faith seems to be taken as an attack on their person, rather than on their opinion. We might speculate on the psychological and sociological reasons why this might be so.>>

Yes, let's! Maybe it's because some atheists insist on "attacking" (debate doesn't equal attack IMHO, but for some it does seem to ) not the faith, but the person. There's no need to psychoanalyse and ridicule someone because they get angry when their sanity and their intelligence is called into question, not just their faith!


Let me try to explain the difference:

Religions are largely run by right-wing, knee-jerk, reactionary, lying, hypocrites. Who armed with a book or head full of half-truths and misdirections try to steer people away from unpalatable facts about the true nature of the world around us and them.

Whereas you have shown yourself to be a right-wing, knee-jerk, lying hypocrite. Who armed with....

one love