It’s quite a special thing to see people of various walks of life and beliefs come together to help others in need, isn’t it? Now there’s been lots of debate about faith based charities and whether they deserve government funds. One of the primary arguments against doing so is that it’s impossible for them to simply be charitable, that somehow, someway, they’re going to proselytize and/or impose their beliefs on people. The charge is simply that they can’t JUST be charitable. Well add to the evidence for this charge this story out of North Carolina.

It seems a Sikh with dual American and Indian citizenship who regularly donates to a Christian charity decided he wanted to hand deliver a donation. Well there was one problem with that plan. You see, when he tried to enter to deliver his donation, a staffer said, “Sir, you have to take your turban off. This is the United States”. Oh boy. So naturally things didn’t proceed well from there, the charity never got their donation, and the virtue of Christian charity was once again put on display.

Now as amusing as the story was, I found the comments sections even more entertaining. The comments section naturally is ripe with your average, ridiculous, ignorant, hate filled bullshit from those caught in the misspelled and grammatically challenged ecstasy of being loving Christians and patriotic Americans, but there are some gems in there which are worth addressing…

A very good comment brings up how if the wearing no head covering in the church is a religious mandate, then Mr. ‘my religion mandates I wear a turban’ should not only respect that but fully understand and sympathize with such a mandate. I have to say, this is an excellent point except for one tiny detail. You see, the staffer at the mission didn’t say, “I’m sorry sir, but our religion forbids head coverings of any kind inside”, she said, “Sir, you have to take your turban off. This is the United States”. HUGE difference. Far from being sympathetic or even trying to explain her religion’s crazy shit, she essentially gave him a ‘fuck you and your turban’ with a dose of ‘this is a Christian nation’ and ‘if you don’t like it, get out’. Ah, the religion of peace and love. Btw, other commenters were skeptical of whether they’d force a cancer patient, especially a woman, to remove her hat, wig or scarf and also whether they’d ask a nun to remover her habit. I’m on board with that skepticism. I’m also on board with the skeptics asking, “where in the Bible it says you can’t wear a hat in church?” Adding to that skepticism is the line at the end of the article where the minister in charge said he may consider changing the policy after all this.

Another sentiment there attacks the man for running a strip club. What? I’m sorry, did anyone ask the needy if they’d rather go without, even go hungry, rather than eat a meal all or in part paid for by strippers? It’s outrageous, and you sadly hear shit like this all too often. I’m sorry, I thought it was about helping the needy, wasn’t it? This reminds me of when Christian terrorists in Britain threatened a cancer charity to refuse a donation from Jerry Springer. Isn’t it charity efforts that the Christians inevitably go on about as justification for why their religion is so great?

Yet another sentiment that kept popping up was “why should we respect his religion if he doesn’t respect ours?” Gosh, why should a Christian do such a thing? Hmmm, if only a Christian had something in their Bible about maybe turning the other cheek, loving their neighbor, or even some lesser form of the Golden Rule which implores them to treat others as they themselves would like to be treated. Oh, if only. Of course, as I stated above, this wasn’t about him not respecting this particular strain of Christianity anyway.

I’d like to finish with a comment left by Randy Cox: “As is often the case in this country, GENEROSITY met up with IGNORANCE AND STUPIDITY and GENEROSITY lost.” Yup.

Atheist Spot Bookmark and Share

11 Responses to “Sir, you have to take your turban off. This is the United States”

  1. Do the local Klanners have to remove their hoods when they enter the church?

  2. Jews (ie’ old testament, or most of it anyway) are supposed to cover their head in temple. Did Jesus say he wanted to get rid of the skullcaps? Did I miss that bit? The problem is that it’s a tired argument that has never been properly addressed, and this is hardly the clincher.

    So, do we cover or uncover our heads in deference to Yahweh?

  3. What’s the big deal with heads anyway? Why do you have to cut off the skin covering your little head yet put a frisbee on the big head? Why would a god care about this shit? Cover, uncover, cut, don’t cut. It’s insanity.

    Maybe there is a hood rack by the door for the Klanners. It is NC afterall.

    Btw, my freshman year in college I visited Yeshiva for a match. While there, I witnessed some Jews playing basketball. It was quite comical to me because with a clip in the back to hold on their yamicas, when they ran forward it flipped up like an air brake. I suppose I lived a sheltered life up until then, because I never saw yamicas before. I was quickly informed by the people I was with that I wasn’t supposed to laugh. I still laugh thinking about that though.

  4. Well isn’t it just like a guy in a headdress to find yarmulkes funny?

    By the way, did you know that “turban” is an anagram for “nut bar”? In times past, Sikhs used to wear Snickers on their heads, but that was very inconvenient in the summer months when chocolate melted down their faces.

    And you may have noticed that the letters of “yarmulke” can be rearranged to spell “Ma, ye lurk.” That pretty much describes the Jewish psyche, so no explanation is necessary.

    “Headdress,” of course, is simply a reorganization of the letters in “S.S. Redhead.” So you and the Chiefs must be in the same boat.

  5. Ex: Turban can also be anagrammized as “Ban Rut”? Once again, that wonderful connection between sex and religion. I wonder if the church in question is also anti condoms? If they don’t like hats, maybe they also don’t like little raincoats.

    Things like this are just so bizarre. Laura Bush wearing a head covering in a Mosque is okay, but Pelosi as a commie terrorist sympathiser for doing the same thing. Would they have asked him to remove a cowboy hat?

  6. Speaking of outdated, goofy-ass cultural clothing, what's up with the leiderhosen?

  7. Just wanted to mention that it wasn’t actually a donation from Jerry Springer.

    It was a donation from the makers of “Jerry Springer, the Opera,” something that Christian Voice found so offensively godless that they pulled out all the protest stops, getting 55,000 complaints and trying to prosecute the BBC.

    Stopping cancer charity donations was one that I hadn’t heard of but it sounds about their level.


    This has reminded me to put a Youtube link to Stewart Lee’s act on the blog (He’s a stand-up comedian, one of the two writers of the offending show.)

  8. Bah, half that url got wiped. I think that link would just go to Jerry Springer, now. You’d have to add the opera bit to find it.

  9. …I mean, I can understand the head-dress and the feathers you’re wearing, that’s pretty cool. I meant, what’s up with people wearing leiderhosens in Germany though?

  10. I think droopy pants is worse than leiderhosen. You know that droopy pants thing started in prison as a signal that you were already someone’s bitch. Kind of funny to see kids sporting the pants and acting like tough guys. Of course you REALLY have to be a tough guy to walk around in leiderhosen, like being named Sue. You know you’re going to get some shit for that.

  11. My favorite is One Piece at a Time

Leave a Reply