The unbelievably sad and tragic story of Jaswinder 'Jassi' Kaur Sidhu (Canadian) and her husband Mittoo Singh Sidhu (Punjab, India) was aired again on CNN last night. The 25-year old Jassi married for love instead of accepting the 61-year old man chosen for her by her mother and uncle who had her killed for disobedience. Their tradition was more important than Jassi. Indian authorities say that Jassi's uncle and mother got away with murder.CBC Timeline
The Province
Wikipedia
See post: The Origins of Religious Violence by Nick Gier and his book-in-progress.
6 comments:
Not that I am a great lover of religion in general, but is this not more a matter of backwards culture than religion?
Ultimately, different cultures value different things. In the west, we value life and personal freedom. Clearly these are not particularly important values in other cultures, regardless of what these people actually say about their own culture. Talk is cheap -- watch what people do to understand what they really are.
Religion and culture are entangled, but the core tenants of most religions are generally ignored by most worshippers -- even though schooled enough to recite what those core tenants are. Culture, however, is not ignored. You can't ignore culture because other people won't let you.
In many parts of the world, vendetta is a core cultural value. Luckily it has faded away in the west in favor of the rule of law. It was able to fade away because laws and the government enforcement thereof became good enough that we don't need vendetta any more. Most people in the world do not have such luxury -- they live in countries with either evil or incompetent governments and thus vendetta survives.
When I was reading about this story I also read reader comments at various sites such as justiceforjassi.com. Many writers were Hindu and they blamed the whole matter on religious extremism. But I am highly open to being wrong about thinking that ultimately culture is rooted in religion.
I agree with everything else you said so eloquently. Yes, religion and culture are enmeshed and Jassi's mother and uncle could have acted out of backwards culture. They may not have been schooled in their religion but were exercising a tradition of their culture including vendetta.
It is sad that some of the world still works this way. What do you think about the idea that people build religion and culture according to what they think their gods want them to do? This is the basis of my 'Religion is Deadly' subject line and my thinking that religion is the root of deadly actions even if people do not avert to it explicitly. I recall learning in sociology that religion is a part of one's culture just as music and art are a part of one's culture. Am I trying to figure out the chicken and egg thing?
Thanks for the discussion.
The relationship between religion, culture, personal behavior, and group behavior is complex. I think that Einstein's idea of relativity applies here better than anywhere else. Individuals, cultures, and religions are connected with rubber bands and while pulling one drags the others along, there is quite a bit of stretch.
This seems to be how religion survives. It has tenants but if the people just don't want to go along with them, it is easier to stretch for a while then snap back than it is to just break the connection. That is, a person just sins, then is forgiven and goes back to the fold. I am using the language of Christianity, but surely this applies equally well to Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism. The one unforgivable sin is apostasy -- or the changing of religions.
Jesus said most sins will be forgiven but that sinning against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven. The only way to do that is to deny the existence of the Holy Ghost. Denying the Holy Ghost's existence is basically to assert that the everyone is wrong about why they are Christians.
Luckily, in the West, we have come to terms with people changing religions. But in many parts of the world, such as during the recent case of an Afghan Muslim who converted to Christianity, no such tolerance exists. It was pretty clear that the Afghani was going to be executed for Apostasy had not the media intervened.
But is this religious or cultural? I don't know what the Koran says on the subject, but the media reported that Mohammad, Praise Be Upon Him, wrote that no coercion should be used in matters of religion. Perhaps there were contradictory parts of the Koran -- I don't know.
It seems reasonable to blame person choices and cultural traditions as must as a religion as a whole for many backwards acts.
I was incensed by a recent murder of Iraqi teenage girl and wrote about it here:
this page
In this particular case, a girl's family got together and murdered her, all the while filming their crime on a cell phone, because they mistakenly thought that she had converted from one sect of Islam to another.
It turns out that she had only talked to a boy of a different faith in a public setting, but that didn't stop her stupid relatives from flying off the handle and acting as a mob to beat her to death.
I am sure that there are Muslims and Hindus around the world who abhor the behavior of these people -- both groups claiming that the acts were actually "Against Islam" or "Against Hinduism" -- and they are probably right. So why don't people obey their religions?
In my opinion, religion is a very weak force in society. Religion exists primarily to make people feel better about themselves and but is occasionally used to justify the disrespect and mistreatment of outsiders.
Even though I am not religious, I get the feeling sometimes that if people would just actually follow their own religions the world would be better off.
Alan Alda made a great quote on the View a while back -- he said something like: "Of course I'm a hypocrite. Hypocrites get to keep their values and still do what needs to be done." I think that this sums up the relationship between religion and society.
And what needs to be done in some societies seems abhorent to those in others.
Thank you! You've given me much to think about including that 'religion is a weak force in society.' I would like to find a study of religion-based compared to nonreligion-based countries to learn if there is a difference in the level of violence, past and present. There must be such studies somewhere and if I find one I'll post it to this thread. Right now I'm leaning towards thinking that there is no difference.
I've just had another thought. It is said that the bible has been and is used to justify oppression and violence against slaves in the past, women, and homosexuals. What do you think?
I am not sure where I read this, but I believe that the white slave holders in the ante-bellum (sp?) south used the ancient Romans as an excuse for their own slave holding. Of course, like most people using religion to justify their own mis-behavior with respect to their fellow human beings, they did not free their slaves after 7 years as did the Jews.
Further, the Apostle Paul, in the letter to Philemon, I think, wrote to the owners about an escaped slave, Onesimus (Handy!), that he had been very helpful to Paul and that Paul would appreciate it if the owners would treat Onesimus gently upon his return -- bearing the very same letter of Paul.
The whole story seems goofy to me -- as if the sole purpose of the story was to bless slave holding by the good Christians. Just like Timothy, it is probably a later creation, attributed to Paul only to give it standing among the churches who went along with it because made them feel better about themselves -- and what they were going to do anyway (per my earlier post).
Paul also stated that in Christ there are no Jews, Gentiles, men, women, slave, or free. Basically, acknowledging that these differences exist in the real world. Whether his intention was to state that Christians should not engage in such differences or not is a matter for debate. The fact that Paul sent Onesimus back to his owners is an indication that he did not intend for Christians to give up slave holding.
I don't recall that Jesus mentioned the subject at all. The recent Fourth-R magazine articles seemed to indicate that the "servants" in Jesus' parables were most likely "slaves" indicates that the Christian God did not seem to have any trouble with slavery. Not that I am singling out Christianity for backwardness.
Let me repeat my unsubstantiated assertion that religion is a weak force in society and suggest that religions are more interested in their own reproduction (i.e. conversions) than actually improving the condition or nature of mankind. The Gospels aren't oracles from God but merely the most successful sales literature for Christianity.
After all, if they were interested in improving our natures they would -- perhaps humbly -- suggest that slavery, female persecution, etc are innately evil -- but no, you never see this anywhere. At least not by the official church hierarchy.
Of course in American history, many individual Christians even many preachers did come out against slavery -- but you didn't see any of the official bodies of any mainstream church stand up and say -- "slavery is a fundamental evil, slave holders should be excommunciated".
You don't even see that from the official Catholic church today with respect to abortion. They know which side their bread is buttered on so they wring their hands but step back from the breach. How many anti-abortionist churches today stand up and say that politicians who don't oppose abortion are doing the devils work and should not be given communion? Why not?
What you see, rather, is the religion supports the status quo in a given society so that it does not attract excessive intolerance -- and thus its own extinction.
Any religion that survives for any substantial time frame ultimately becomes a slave of the status quo. Look at the Mormons -- not to beat them up particularly but because they are just a good example of an upstart religion that became mainstream. The Mormons began by attracting only the "weird", giving them a place where they could accepted.
Nowadays, however, they are becoming mainstream. They insist on being called "The Church of Jesus Christ". Not their old official name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but just plain old "The Church of Jesus Christ" -- further separating them from their "weird" roots, bringing them closer to the mainstream of religious thought.
They are even focusing more on the Bible and less on the Book of Mormon. Not that they have given it up yet. Give it 50 years, and it will a backwater subject, even among Mormons.
Just as the lady who created the 7'th Day Adventists is basically a backwater subject among most them. After the two "Great Disappointments", no wonder they don't talk about her too much. Yet, they haven't given up on their beliefs -- its really hard to truly change religions -- its easier to change the religion than to change religions. It's even easier just to ignore the annoying parts without changing anything.
Catholicism is fighting a losing battle with change. Women will control their bodies, despite what aging eunuchs in Rome think. The church hierarchy will eventually accept these changes because it will be necessary for the religion to survive and it understands that its survival is its primary goal.
Post a Comment