Balpreet Kaur: Huffington Post Religion's Person Of The Year

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/balpreet-kaur-huffpost-person-of-the-year_n_2340468.html

Posted: 12/28/2012 8:40 am EST | Updated: 12/28/2012 11:15 am EST



Huffington Post Religion is proud to announce that our 2012 Person Of The Year is Balpreet Kaur.

In past years we have made lists of 'most influential' religious leaders which have included the Pope and the Dalai Lama. However, when the HuffPost religion editors thought about the person we admired most in the last year, the unanimous choice was Ms. Kaur.

Ms. Kaur became an internet sensation when a photo of her standing in a line was taken by an editor at Reddit (a 'Redditor) who posted it online under the subject heading 'funny,' apparently based on her unique appearance.

Balpreet Kaur responded to the intentional denigration by explaining who she was, why she looked the way she does, and the tenets of her Sikh faith with a remarkable generosity of spirit:

"Yes, I’m a baptized Sikh woman with facial hair. Yes, I realize that my gender is often confused and I look different than most women. However, baptized Sikhs believe in the sacredness of this body - it is a gift that has been given to us by the Divine Being [which is genderless, actually] and, must keep it intact as a submission to the divine will... When I die, no one is going to remember what I looked like, heck, my kids will forget my voice, and slowly, all physical memory will fade away," Kaur wrote. "However, my impact and legacy will remain: and, by not focusing on the physical beauty, I have time to cultivate those inner virtues and hopefully, focus my life on creating change and progress for this world in any way I can."

[okasha]

1. And a second stockingful of coal--

no, make that cowchips, which are a renewable energy source--to the Redditor who probably assumed from her appearance that Ms. Kaur is a FTM transsexual. Idjit.

[cbayer]

2. That was a really ugly episode, wasn't it.

This woman is inspiring.

[okasha]

3. One gutsy lady.

And kudos to HuffPo for their choice.

[Silent3]

4. Responding kindly to a rude "Redditor" is admirable but hardly...

...person of the year stuff.

While I think it's perfectly fine to not give a damn about what other people think about what you look like, while I respect the decision not to bend to superficial standards other people might impose, I think that "the sacredness of this body - it is a gift that has been given to us by the Divine Being and, must keep it intact as a submission to the divine will" is an absurd idea, an idea that doesn't suddenly become noble simply because you say it's part of your religion.

People certainly can, if they wish to, spend some minor effort on their appearance without sacrificing "cultivat(ing)... inner virtues" or "creating change and progress for this world". It's a false dilemma to act as if a little bit of shaving or electrolysis done by this woman would have cost the world some great benefit she would have otherwise performed while not "wasting" her time on her appearance.

Plenty of religions have difficult self-imposed rules of conduct. Even when followers of these practices have the decency to expect adherence only from their own members, I still do not join in the all-too-common admiration of the supposed "conviction" it demonstrates when people stick to their religion's arbitrary rules. I find rational rejection of arbitrary rules far more admirable.

[cbayer]

5. Honestly, your response is little better than what she got on Reddit.

That person ended up apologizing, but I doubt we will see that here.

[Silent3]

6. So it's not enough that I respect that she has the right...

...to look however she wants to look, and to not give into unfavorable reactions? I've got to throw in that extra special respect for religious devotion, or I'm just not doing it right?

[cbayer]

7. So magnanimous of you to respect her the right to look how she wants.

But so insulting that you suggest she spend a little time on shaving or electrolysis.

Respect for individuals generally means respect for the ideas or beliefs that drive them.

So, no, you are not doing it right.

[Silent3]

8. I didn't suggest that she should do so.

I only said the given pretense for not doing so, that it would somehow detract from doing good deeds or finding deep spiritual truths, is a bit flimsy.

[cbayer]

10. Again, I think your attitude towards her is representative

of what she probably encounters daily.

Who are you to surmise that her deep spiritual beliefs are flimsy and a pretense? I would make the case that they appear to be quite the opposite and have given her the strength to be who she is without caving to what society deems "normal".

And in taking the position she has, she gives strength and hope to others who may look, act or think differently.

[Silent3]

16. Who do I have to be to surmise that Republican trickle-down economics is flimsy?

If I don't have to be anyone special to voice that opinion, why would I need to be someone special to say that Divine Will is a flimsy reason for anyone, man or woman, to grow a beard?

I would make the case that they appear to be quite the opposite and have given her the strength to be who she is without caving to what society deems "normal".

A person might wear a goofy looking tinfoil hat to keep out alien mind rays, and keep that hat on no matter how others pointed and laughed. Would that be a show of "strength" too?

Would such "conviction" and "devotion" demonstrate that evidence for alien mind rays, and for the efficacy of tinfoil headgear for blocking said rays, wasn't flimsy?

[cbayer]

17. We aren't talking about people who wear tin foil hats, though.

We are talking about a relatively large group of people with longstanding religious beliefs and convictions. People who, in my experience, are very peaceful, accepting, strong and thoughtful.

To me, these are vastly different groups.

I would suggest that caving to the demands of a society that glorifies unattainable models of beauty or attractiveness might be much more flimsy.

[Silent3]

27. What do "large" or "longstanding" have to do with it?

Those factors might make falling prey to irrational ideas more understandable, but it doesn't make such ideas any more substantial.

Besides, isn't the idea that women don't look good with beards, and shouldn't have them, a commonly held, longstanding position among way more people than there are Sikhs? How come you won't apply your conveniently trotted-out popularity and tradition standards to the opposite side of the same issue?

My comments have nothing to do with whether or not the woman "caves" to anything. You can resist social convention for both good reasons and poor reasons. I think her reasons happen to be poor reasons, reasons which carry a whole lot more baggage than mere issues of physical appearance.

Further, pointing out that I think her reasons are poor is not tantamount to recommending she take the opposite course of action. For example, I think voting for Obama was a good idea. That doesn't mean there weren't bad reasons to vote for Obama. Someone might have voted for Obama because they thought he was God's Chosen President. Pointing out that I think that's an absurd reason to vote for Obama would not have at all been equivalent to a recommendation to vote for Romney.

[eomer]

9. So did Balpreet Kaur insult others who choose not to keep intact their gift from the Divine?

However, baptized Sikhs believe in the sacredness of this body - it is a gift that has been given to us by the Divine Being and, must keep it intact as a submission to the divine will..

Did she insult the beliefs of my daughter who chose to have cosmetic surgery? Or is it anything goes as long as it sounds religious?

[cbayer]

11. Absolutely not. She does not say that others should follow the path she does.

She very eloquently and with great grace said that she is Sikh and for that reason, she follows this path.

In everything I have read about her, she has insulted no one. Not even the man who openly ridiculed her on Reddit.

[eomer]

12. Nor did Silent3 in #4.

I see there only expression of a personal POV, nothing saying that others must think or do the same. Did I miss it?

[cbayer]

13. I have no idea what you are getting at here. Are we talking about the article or

are you trying to prove some other point?

[eomer]

14. I disagree with your post #5.

cbayer (115,218 posts)

5. Honestly, your response is little better than what she got on Reddit.

Silent3 in post #4 merely expressed his own point of view:

I think that "the sacredness of this body - it is a gift that has been given to us by the Divine Being and, must keep it intact as a submission to the divine will" is an absurd idea...

I think that both should feel equally entitled to their opinion and to express it publicly.

The minister at the time I joined our UU congregation was Rev. Drew, who has been undergoing transgender procedures. Balpreet Kaur seems to be saying that Rev. Drew is going against the divine will of the Divine Being - which sounds just as strong a statement as the opposing position that such a view is absurd. Why don't both viewpoints have equal validity to be expressed?

[cbayer]

15. Just as I was disagreeing with his. No problem.

Both are completely entitled to their opinions.

The difference is that he is posting his on an internet discussion board where challenge or debate is to be expected. I did not mean to imply that one POV had less validity, though I find one more compatible with my own POV>

Again, she does not extend her belief system to condemning those that hold another. If she has, I have never seen that.

[eomer]

21. In a way I agree with you, Sikhs do have a more universal approach to salvation.

But if I were to apply a standard I often see applied to atheists here then I would say that, yes, Sikhs do condemn those that hold another belief system.

At least they themselves say so at http://www.sikhs.org/summary.htm

Sikhism condemns blind rituals such as fasting, visiting places of pilgrimage, superstitions, worship of the dead, idol worship etc.

On the other hand, the same site says:

There is only One God. He is the same God for all people of all religions.

Almost all mainstream religions do condemn someone for their beliefs; Sikhs less than others but still do.

[cbayer]

22. I am truly curious about your take on how atheists are treated here.

I honestly don't see much rejection of atheism or atheists. I also don't see condemnation from theists of other kinds of theists.

I do see discord between groups, but it seems mostly personal.

My experience of growing up in a church where tolerance, understanding and accepting of other people's religious or non-religious views was the norm has clearly colored my perception. While I know that there are "one wayers" who believe that anyone that doesn't think like them is damned, I haven't spent a lot of time with them. And don't recall ever seeing one here.

[trotsky]

24. So apparently you don't think it's condemnation of other theists...

when you call creationists "dumbasses," as you have done on DU. So much for the tolerance that you allegedly grew up with. Is it any more or less vile to attack someone's intelligence or attack their appearance? I think you need to listen to your own goddamn lectures, cbayer.

[eomer]

26. My impression is that some defenders here of theists are very quick to tell atheists

that expressing their views is out of bounds, as you did with Silent3 just above. And yet when I bring a statement by Sikhs to your attention that condemns beliefs of other religions, you do not similarly call them out. It seems a consistent double standard that religions are free to express views that atheists will be called out for. The words are different - "condemn" by religions versus "absurd" by atheists - but the essence is equivalent and I don't see why one should be fair game while the other is out of bounds.

[cbayer]

29. As you stated quite well in another post here, you maintain the right to challenge

others on what you see as faulty belief systems or ways of seeing things. I maintain that right as well and will challenge what looks like anti-theism when I see it. I see it as a form of bigotry.

I have never told anyone here that their views are out of bounds unless those views turn into personal attacks.

There is a whole lot more religion bashing here than atheist bashing, though neither side is completely without fault, and I am interested in defending both sides if I feel they are being treated unfairly.

Honestly, I don't think your description of what happens in this group is an accurate interpretation of what really goes on. I just don't don't see a lot of condemnation from either side.

[eomer]

30. Re: "I have never told anyone here..." - I think you did in your post #5 above.

And I don't see any personal attack in post #4 that you replied to. But maybe we can move on from that (have a last word on it if you'd like) because I think the more interesting topic is the rest of what you say about the frequency of bashing here by "both sides".

I was raised in Southern Baptists churches and it's hard for me to see how what they preached isn't bashing of just about everyone else. I have family members who are still in Southern Baptist churches and it seems that they are still preaching pretty much the same - essentially, that everyone else is wrong and going to Hell. In this Religion group I'll admit I don't see people coming out and saying these things but it makes me wonder why - I would have thought that some posters here belong to and support organizations that do say those things. I've asked once or twice whether a particular poster believes that non-believers will go to Hell and didn't get any reply.

Regarding atheists being more outspoken here, I think there may be a lot of pent-up response from people who have been on the receiving end of a lot of bashing, of various types and extents, all their lives. Anyway, it's an interesting question that I'll keep puzzling over.

[cbayer]

31. I was talking about this site and this group in particular.

I would never make the claim that atheists don't experience discrimination in some areas, as I know that they do.

I don't think there are many fundamentalists or anti-atheists here and that may be because they tend to lean right. If they are here, they stay pretty quiet on this matter.

While accepting that there is pent up anger, I think it is markedly misdirected towards some people that post here. I have a strong objection to anti-theists and there are a number here. I would have the same objection to anti-atheism, and while I think there are a few members that are hostile towards atheists, they don't have a "club" or much support at all.

[skepticscott]

28. And how does your wish that Richard Dawkins

would just go away and die fit into all that? Apparently those lessons of "tolerance, understanding and accepting" didn't sink in very deep.

[dimbear]

18. Perhaps we ought to consider cleft lips, disfiguring conditions easily corrected

by relatively cheap and simple surgeries which are nevertheless banned by some religions. This situation is common, the OP's situation is rare.

[cbayer]

19. She is not being honored for having facial hair,

she is being honored because of the way she responded to public ridicule.

Also, cleft palate can lead to other, sometimes serious, complications.

Apples and oranges, so I am not sure what your point is.

[dimbear]

20. Just as apples and oranges are both fruit, so are facial hair and cleft lips both appearances

apparently encouraged by religion. One rare, one all too common.

[cbayer]

23. Actually, I just did some research on the cleft palate issue.

It's not that some religions forbid cleft palate repair, it is that they see it as a sign of something very positive and special.

In societies where it is considered unsightly, there are more social ramifications and more reason to do the repair if it is solely cosmetic (which it often is). In societies where the person is thought to have a gift, there is much less cosmetic surgery.

I'm not sure that is such a bad thing.

There is also a lot more facial hair on women than you think. I can't even guess the amount of money and time that is spent by women to remove it. So the case may be that it is there, you just never see it.

[dimbear]

25. We can hardly go further without a tip of the hat to Ste. Wilgefortis, pioneer in this area.

The difficulty as I see it is double. Some religions particularly honor those most see as afflicted with disfigurements, and hence reduce their social circle and employment possibilities radically, while other religions simply refuse all surgery because of some taboo.