Sarbat da Bhala in Action in Sacramento
As the Sikh community in Sacramento continues to grieve the losses of hate crime victims Surinder Singh and Gurmej Singh Atwal who were gunned down earlier this Spring (with no suspects still), the Sacramento Sikh Temple has truly embodied the Sikh spirit of sarbat da bhala this past week, extending a hand of solidarity to the gay community.
The Sacramento Sikh Temple is offering a reward of $1,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the perpetrator of a violent hate attack on 26-year-old Seth Parker, who believes he was beaten because he is gay in the parking lot of the Strikes Family Entertainment Center in Elk Grove (the same area with Singh and Atwal were shot). Parker was punched in the face, suffering multiple facial fractures, while the attackers directed homophobic slurs at him.
A spokesperson for the gurdwara stated: “The Sikh Community condemns this disgusting attack motivated by ignorance and hate. In light of the recent murders of two Sikhs in Elk Grove and the hate crime conviction in Yolo County (of two men who attacked a Sikh taxi driver), we are especially sensitive to such crimes. We hope that our reward will help bring these criminals to justice.”
Solidarity appears to be on the rise in Sacramento.
As Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently stated in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail in 1963:
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”
I hope we can follow in the bold and barrier-breaking path of the Sacramento community in other parts of North America and the world.
36 Responses to “Sarbat da Bhala in Action in Sacramento”
Excellent action on the gurdwara's part. I fully support this.
Thanks for posting this, and it's great to know that the Sikh temple in Sacramento is expressing solidarity against homophobic violence. But, I don't think the "arrest and conviction of the perpetrator" is necessarily the best way to respond to this attack or prevent further violence. Does sending someone to prison make them less violent – and does it make violence less likely in their community, including when they return from prision?
Also, you mention homophobia as rampant in the Sikh community – maybe the temple could educate their community about these issues, and prioritize the prevention of further violence.
Thanks again for your writing and your work.
<3
Totally hear you Gaurav and share your concerns. Check out this post I wrote earlier in the week about incarceration: http://thelangarhall.com/politics/incarcerationan…
I think transformative justice is VERY much in line with Sikh philosophy and we have lots of examples from the Gurus' time of this. Criminalization and incarceration continue the cycle of hatred and fear, and seldom get us closer to justice, closer to Waheguru.
That being said, even though they are acting from within the scope of the penal system, I find this display of solidarity moving and inspiring…a step in the right direction for sure!
There’s no better way to show Sikhs are not fanatic Muslims.
why single out Muslims? this a good way to show that Sikhs are not fanatical or hateful PERIOD. as we all know, there are plenty of homophobic, misogynist sikhs out their spewing their hatred in the name of sikhi. plenty of christians that do the same in the name of christianity. and jews too. and yes, muslims too. but your singling out of muslims is quite contradictory to the purpose this post and the spirit of solidarity.
Correction: There’s no better way to show Sikhs are not fanatics.
But I think we can all be thankful the reward wasn’t $1001, according to Sikh and Indian tradition =)
haha, true enough!
This is a good step in the right direction. We must remember at all times the human race is simply ONE – EK. When we as a race are able to shed tribal labels, only then will we truly see the beauty that we are all one brother or sister of ONE Infinite Creator will we feel compelled to stand up for the rights of all. When Guru Nanak stipulated there is no Hindu or Muslim he was trying to get the human conciousness of man to imagine no divisions of mankind (we are light underneath this bodysuit). Sikh simply means I am a learner/student and the Guru is my personal teacher, are we not all students and learners in life? Things happen in life we must now contemplate deeply within why these events are happenning, our time to leave is already written, Gurbani clearly states, there is only ONE playing the world drama.
Great post Brooklynwala, the one thing I would say is that I won't believe homophobia is rampant in the Sikh community. I actually think there's a generational divide on this issue and a larger portion of the younger generations are quite open on the issue of same-sex couples. I do know LGBTQ Sikhs who have had negative experiences, but I do believe homosexuality is something that many Sikhs are willing to be more open about. There really is no hard and fast rule in Sikhi on this issue, and so sometimes it's a matter of how folks have been sensitized, and have been introduced to this issue. I'm proud to say that my parents, who are not raised in a LGBTQ-friendly environment have expressed more curiosity and lack of exposure to this issue than phobia or judgement.
[…] as a means to counter any xenophobic notions about our communities which is important considering the many hate crimes and discriminatory policies facing South Asians all across the […]
I wanted to refrain for this but I cant. So tomorrow when people who molest kids declare themselves as a race and or 'ethnic', does the "Sikh spirit of sarbat da bhala" apply to these perverts as it does to these ones? I definitely have nothing against this person being helped he is a human being, and we are Sikhs. To push a pro-gay Sikh based agenda on this public form without the consent and or understanding of its social effects on the progress of Sikhs in the future to come and on the mental state of the youth within the Sikh community after they read these postings is completely irresponsible, especially when popular media is pushing a pro-gay agenda and now their peers who have been programmed by this media are doing the same.
This is absolutely ridiculous. You have bought into archaic stereotypes that vilify gay people without any basis in reality. The vast majority of people who sexual abuse children are heterosexual. There is no correlation between being gay and one's liklihood of molesting a child. You don't have to take my word for it: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_…
I doubt I'm going to get through to you in this forum, since you appear to think that there is something wrong with the "mental state" of gay people. I question the mental state of homophobes.
Tejinder, homosexuality like heterosexuality doesn't belong to a particular race or ethnicity, so I'm quite sure "the gays" won't be starting that movement anytime soon. But I'll keep my eye on it for you.
I'm also not clear on what the correlation is between homosexuality and child molestation. Child molestation is done by people with a clearly perverted sense of morality, be they gay or straight.
You are veering away from what this post is about though. It is not about personal opinions on homosexuality, or about "endorsing" any agenda. The Sikhs represented by the Sacramento Sikh Temple hold differing opinions on many issues, homosexuality being just one of them. But they all looked past this and saw the parallel in the injustice that affects all of us.
"????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?
Some are Hindus and others are Muslims; someone is raafjee (follower of Ali);
others are Imam-Shafi (adherents of the Prophet); Recognize the whole of human race as one. "
"Some are Hindus and others are Muslims; someone is raafjee (follower of Ali);
others are Imam-Shafi (adherents of the Prophet); Recognize the whole of human race as one. "
This is nothing more than the manipulation of Gurubani, to support homosexuality from a Sikh perspective. Yes the whole human race is as one sure, does a homosexual person have the right to study Gurubani like any straight person sure he/she has every right, the Gurus never turned away anyone with any type of disability. But does this mean that Sikhi supports homosexual activity? No. Just like Sikh does not support someone born blind to be blind, or a person born with any type of disability to be in their current state. The Gu-ru removes one from darkness to light via gurubani does not accept his her current state. The blind learn to use other sense to "see", the mentally disabled have their souls soothed by gurubani via classical kirtan etc.
-by the way thanks for correcting spelling of my name. 'a' was added because imagration person spelled it wrong, when I first entered the country.
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder or a disability of any kind. Period.
Prove it
All you need is wikipedia:
"Prior to and throughout most of the 20th century, common standard psychology viewed homosexuality in terms of pathological models as a mental illness. That classification began to be subjected to critical scrutiny in the research, which consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality. As a result of such accumulated research, professionals in medicine, mental health, and the behavioral and social sciences, opposing the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, claimed the conclusion that it was inaccurate, and that the DSM classification reflected untested assumptions that were based on once-prevalent social norms and clinical impressions from unrepresentative samples which consisted of patients seeking therapy and individuals whose conduct brought them into the criminal justice system."
The American Psychiatric Association concluded that there was no scientific evidence that homosexuality was a disorder in 1973, and removed it from its list of disorders. The World Health Organisation did the same in 1992.
Are you still sure?
"All you need is wikipedia" — you got to be kidding me this is your source. You do know anyone and their brother can post on wiki and twist information in their favor, giving you twenty difference book references which they know most people are not going to check anyways. I am not saying I know the truth from a medical perspective, but sometimes commonsense just works. But if you want to argue against homosexuality is a mental disorder that is fine lets go with what you probably believe 'it is a life style choice' — I will guarantee this will not help the liberals on this form.
I'm not saying Wikipedia is the end-all be-all, but I'm sorry to assert that your common sense is not at all common in the medical profession. Homosexuality used to be considered a disorder, yes, and as I said it was declassified as such in 1973 in the United States, and then by the World Health Organization in 1992. If you're calling it a "mental disorder" then you're speaking the language of psychologists and psychiatrists who have as a global collective body come to the conclusion that it is not a mental disorder.
Next time you go to your medical doctor, ask him for a reference for a health professional who will "cure" or "treat" someone of their homosexuality "disease". Please let me know what he or she tells you.
I don't believe that its a lifestyle choice, nor do I care about helping "the liberals" on this forum.
why not come to terms with the fact that progressive as a description of social and political action is a term for a movement in the United States in the 20th century with assumptions and origins inherently a part of the term and its use? Sarbat da Bhala is it is used here is a reference to a fairly unique and different set of ideas that may provide areas of congruence, disconguence, or simply areas of non-overlap. This is one instance where it might be useful to interrogate those areas rather than simply take the position of the "progressive" and watch (and hope?) for the "retrogressive" position to be articulated so it can be duly ridiculed and blasted.
or just go ahead and keep articulating a basically liberal, progressive position and add a tag-line reference to Sikhi. And then keep on re-experiencing the same dichotomous positioning and then I guess feel really indignant (and enthused?) at the neanderthal conservatism that comes out of the woodwork.
Wrong-headed on some accounts as he is, actually on one point Tejinder was not veering away from the idea you spoke about Navdeep. He was saying, yes support because like anyone else this person deserves support, protection, and love, which is amply in line with the quotation above you reference.
The other position he stated seems like just straight "western" culture war stuff, with one side being progressive and another retrogressive. Why recreate that here? Whats the value added other than to bring that stuff into yet another forum? So now Sikhs can choose sides, as Sikhs, in the culture war? We can do that pretty much anywhere, right?
Kantay,
The entire Sikh religion is a progressive one. It was when it was first formed and it still is today. This site is a public forum and doesn't have any agenda other than a Sikh one. And yep. It is a progressive agenda in case the tagline of this site wasn't clear enough. If anyone has a counter-argument, or a post that shows the other side of an issue, nobody who writes for this blog is going to deny it be posted. The same with comments. A comment has to be pretty offensive for it to be removed from this site.
Nobody is ridiculing anyone or "recreating" anything. Individuals are expressing their views. Tejinder
made claims I thought were beyond ridiculous. And you are right, he didn't veer from the overall idea when he mentioned that one line. But he negated that with everything else he said. He essentially said that Sikhs and Sikh organizations shouldn't be promoting a gay agenda, which is not what was happening here.
What definition of progressive are you using? Is there any relation to the term you are using and the progressive movement in the United States historically? Do you think that the term and movement designated as "progressive" as used in the United States and in the liberal philosophic tradition have any bearing on the meaning and implications of a "progressive" social and political position?
It seems like you are taking the word progressive as just a word with a fairly generic, positive meaning, something like progress to a society of justice, fairness, and equality, and moving past how this word, movement, and tradition may have meanings which can not be just transposed onto "sikhi". Anyway, excessive debating in sikhi, from my understanding, usually leads to wrongs ends, so I'll respectfully stop here. I too share a goal of a world more fair, just, and equal.
unless you don't want to debate, but explore our positions, in which case I'm all ears. Just from my end I feel like the earlier reply I recieved on another thread was borderline offensive. You do not tell a punjabi that you are purposefully not going to send him ladoos when his kid is born. That's just wrong. 🙂
and yes, Tejinder was put on blast. Maybe in your opinion rightfully so, but it was blasted pretty harshly.
Kantay,
I don't have a separate definition of the word than anyone else. The concept of the word "progressive" is not something invented by the United States, nor is it such a complicated word that needs some sort of scholarly study to properly "transpose" it. The word "progressive" has been used to describe individuals or a movement whose aim is to challenge the status quo by employing or advocating more enlightened views, towards a progressive community. This applies to the Progressive Movement in the United States, the Age of Enlightenment also referred to as the Age of Voltaire in Europe, and the ideology within Sikhism, which was and still is way ahead of its time.
I agree with you regarding excessive debating, particularly about inconsequential minutia, and am glad we can see eye to eye on the universal goal.
It's not inconsequential minutia in my opinion, any time you want a guest post on it, let me know. Otherwise, kind of a disappointing response. kind regards, fare-thee-well.
I don't run the blog. If you'd like to do a guest post, contact the admin. "What definition of 'progressive' are you using" is minutia. And it is inconsequential.
your opinion. in my opinion not so much. maybe think about it some time, or not.
maybe there's a similiarity with this qoute:
"The last question they were asked was whether they would use the word “feminist” to describe themselves. Neesha and Tejpreet had no qualms with the term and felt it embodied their values and what they believed. Simran had a thought provoking response, which presented another side to this one word."
Not really. The panelists were actually asked this question and it was relevant to the post I was writing about. And obviously this is my opinion, as are your comments. I'm entitled to my opinion, just like you are entitled to yours. Anyway, I have grown excessively bored of this conversation, so I'm out.
Till next time.
Navdeep
okay……
Hi All,
Thanks Kantay or your support. in keeping this going as a blog posting where everyone's opinion should be taken into consideration. I don't really get offended very easily. I will be returning with a reply very soon just got busy with work.
Sorry to high Jack you post Sundari.
See this is falls under
"????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ?
Some are Hindus and others are Muslims; someone is raafjee (follower of Ali);
others are Imam-Shafi (adherents of the Prophet); Recognize the whole of human race as one.
[…] A friend sent me this photo yesterday from this past weekend’s annual LGBT Pride Parade in New York City, which was attended by about a million people. I’ve seen this Singh around NYC before. He happens to be one of the transit workers standing up to the NYC Transit Authority’s discriminatory “turban-branding” policy and now is also standing up for LGBT rights. Sikh solidarity seems to be in full swing lately. […]