In such cases, in your opinion, what is usually the school administration thinking?
-They’re just closed-minded and genuinely believe that such symbols aren’t on the same league than the symbols of more popular religions?
-They know that what they do run against freedom of speech/of religion but nevertheless kick off the kid because the symbol is “just evil”?
-They’re genuinely concerned about the reactions of other students and think it could actually be disruptive, since it could cause arguments, or even fights?
The pentacle sometimes means following satanism. It’s rather disingenuous to whitewash it with claims it’s “just” wiccan. According to this site http://www.religioustolerance.org/gl_p.htm
“Pentacle: a five pointed star inside a circle – most commonly used by Wiccans and other Neopagans. Some Satanists invert the pentacle so that one point is downwards and two upwards; they often add a goat’s head to the inverted pentacle.”
The next question is whether the girls understand the meaning of the symbol. Were they trying to piss off the school district, or was their action entirely innocent? One of the articles cited suggests that the girl’s mother is the mouthpiece for her “daughter’s” opinion, which strikes one as a political statement by an adult, not the free speech of a teen (unless being led around by the nose by one’s parents is free speech in any sense).
The next question is whether the girls should be allowed to wear the pentacle to school. In fact, the site I looked at had a poll. I voted yes. Apparently 85% of the people did.
However, for Rebecca’s mother to claim that any belief is allowable so long as it’s called “religion” is outrageous. But I’m sure she’s enjoying the publicity.
I dunno, honestly, Mr2001. If one questions “straight arrow” religious people about their faith, some pretty, uh… peculiar… uh… non-endorsed… ideas come forth. Some seem like ignorance or superstition, not religion. <grin> But of course, religion-bashers have been known to make that point before.
Some satanists, as I understand, are willing to indulge in activities that are against the law. Murder, torture, and attempts to harm enemies illegally. My point was that Rebecca’s mother makes a blanket statement that appears to imply that any activity is ok, so long as she calls it religion. That just isn’t so.
Or perhaps it is so, and she’ll be robbing banks in a spiritual way, soon.
Drawing a distinction between “superstition” and “religion” is a recipe for intolerance and discrimination. How do you test whether something is religion or superstition? What’s to stop the government from declaring any religion it doesn’t like to be “superstition”?
Imagine a future statement from our President: “As of today, Muslims will not be allowed to cross the border into the United States. What do you mean it’s religious discrimination? Christianity is the only true religion. Don’t you want to fight terrorism?”
Some Muslims and Christians are also engage in illegal activities. Hell, even I’ve been known to break the law, and I’m an atheist.
But religious beliefs and illegal activities are very separate. Religious expression is protected by the First Amendment; although free speech can be limited in some circumstances, there is no “clear and present danger” from a pentacle necklace.
I’m curious about the blanket statement you mentioned. After reading through the article, I didn’t see a single quote that implied everything done in the name of religion was acceptable, only that Rebecca wanted the same religious freedom as other students. Would you mind pointing out the statement?
There’s a difference between people who happen to be religious committing crimes, and a religion officially sanctioning crime. If what Rebecca’s kid is doing by wearing the pentacle is advocating satanism and breaking the law, then… uh… guess wearing a pentacle is against the law… wouldn’t you say?
Note that I’m NOT saying the kid is doing ANY such thing by wearing the pentacle. It probably looks cool and gets boys’ attention. Good thinking on her part, if so.
Her mother, however, just wants to make a spectacle. There are big career opportunities for people like her in Iraq and Al-Koolaida.
There seems to be some trouble here distinguishing Wicca and other pagan religions from Satanism. The pentacle itself is a pagan symbol, not a Satanic one. Wicca espouses the respect, kindness and charity toward others, as well as obeying the law. An inverted pentacle is a Satanic symbol, as is the inverted cross.
Near as I can tell, this kid has been raised in a Wiccan household, and is just expressing a part of her identity, the same way a kid raised in a Christian household might wear a cross necklace.
Actually, the inverted cross has been a Christian symbol for thousands of years before it was appropriated by anti-Christian “satanists” in recent times. The inverted cross is a symbol of St. Peter, and in Catholicism is a symbol for both Peter and his office, the Papacy.
Mr2001, I defend the right for people to be creative in interpreting their religion. As you say, drawing a formal, legal distinction between superstition and religion is a recipe for disaster.
Answering your last point, this is Rebecca’s blanket statement:
"‘We just want the religious freedom that everybody else has,’ Rebecca said. "
What religious freedom is that?
I don’t know how familiar you are with being in demonstrations (I’ve lead a couple), but there’s nothing quite so emotional as a statement that on the surface seems completely rational. But is actually just rhetorical jargon. I’ll explain how it’s done:
Point to a “right” without citing the authority. If you have to cite, quote the Constitution you’ve never read all the way through, or laws that you heard about from a TV court show.
Attack the people who are attacking you, pointing out that they aren’t consistent, make errors, dress at unfashionable stores, etc. This, of course, means that anything else they say must also be wrong.
Ask vague, broad, open-ended questions that are hard to answer in a 20-second newsbite: “Aren’t we people like anyone else?” “Isn’t this country based on justice?” “Don’t we have a right to eat?” Wait for the screams of approval.
I dunno, partly_warmer, I guess I’m not seeing your point here. The mother and daughter are Wiccans, not Satanists. I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and assume that the Waxahachie School District does not routinely suspend students for wearing crosses to school. Mother and daughter are saying that daughter should have the same right to wear a symbol of her faith the same as Christian students have a right to wear a symbol of their faith. No one but you has said anything about the First Church of Armed Robbery.
“We just want the religious freedom that everybody else has”–since Christians in the United States do not enjoy “freedom of armed robbery” (or, say, “the freedom to convert the heathens by fire and sword”), but do enjoy such freedoms as the freedom to congregate or assemble, the freedom to publish and witness about their faith, and the freedom to wear religious symbols in public schools, it follows that the Wiccans in this case are merely asserting equal but not greater rights–i.e., the freedom to wear a pentacle to school, but not the freedom to burn the whole place down with the students inside as a fitting sacrifice to the Horned God*. This does not strike me as a particularly difficult point to follow.
*I do not mean to imply that mass human sacrifice by fire is an actual religious sacrament of modern neo-pagans.
Why suddenly the blanket writing off of the rights of Satanists? I have known Satanists who were perfectly law-abiding citizens. Just because there are some Satanists have been involved in illegal activities does not mean that this particular religion should be singled out as suspect. As has been pointed out by others, plenty of Christians have also done illegal activities in the name of their religion. Such does not make the belief in the religion an advocacy of crime!
You can get some answers from one Satanist “church” here.
Or, for a different “denominational” perspective you can search through this website.
Be forewarned… these sites are meant to offend traditional religiosity in a weird sort of way. However, they are clear that they do not endorse criminal activity. As such, this “religion” (if one wants to promote it to such a status) should be just as much protected under constitutional rights as any other.
I’m curious, partly_warmer, have you done any research into Satanism that allows you to make the equation between “advocating satanism and breaking the law”, or are you just going by your own preconceived notions about this particular mythos?
The major tenet that people don’t like about modern Satanism (which almost never involves belief in any such supernatural being as Satan) is that it holds taking revenge against someone who has hurt you as a sacrement.
This is supposed to be absolutely outrageous and unacceptable in polite society: despite the fact that it is clearly acceptable to most of these same horrified people in many contexts (political, military actions, criminal cases). And a lot of people simple have taken to using “justice” as a euphamism for revenge.
MEBuckner, you have a gracious way of presenting a viewpoint, I must say.
I’m about 80% in agreement with the mother and daughter. What I don’t see in their argument, however, is any indication the daughter understands the implication of what she’s wearing, and knows and/or cares how it might offend other people. She (and her dear mother) seem to make the claim that anything they call religion other people must accept. That’s like saying “anything I chose to call religion, you can’t argue about”.
Mr2001, this is frustrating. The majority of Muslims and Christians and Buddhists do not sanction violence. I can’t “prove” that, any more than I can prove or disprove that all Californians are radicals. I’d cite the Pope, or the Dali Lama, or the archbishop of Canterbury, but I have a feeling you wouldn’t accept their opinion…
As for “religious freedom”, that wasn’t established by the founding fathers to allow anybody to do anything they wanted, but to avoid having one specific religion being sponsored by the state. They meant: the Catholics, Quakers, Puritans and Protestants could all worship. Later, the pre-existing faiths of other immigrants came to be included. NO ONE intended that any idea put forth in the name of religion was immune from criticism or suppression.
I have to admit that I don’t understand how it could offend anybody.
I’m sure many of the fundamentalist Christians on this board would tell you I’m prejudiced against their beliefs (I’m not), yet I see people wearing crosses and T-shirts with Christian slogans all the time and I barely even notice them.
The majority of Wiccans don’t saction violence either.
And I know a whole lot of Christians (myself, a number of years ago, included) who wear Christian symbols without understanding the implications or how it might offend other people.
Some Satanists use the pentacle. A few of those Satanists commit crime in the name of their religion. A few Christians use the cross. A few of those are KKK members who burn said cross on the front lawns of African American Baptists churches. I’m missing the difference.
JS Princeton mentions (concerning the Church of Satan):
If someone wore an inverted cross or some other religious symbol in order to offend, would that fall under the heading of bannable-to-avoid-disruption?
I am not saying that this is what the Wiccan students are doing. I am asking in the abstract, since the discussion has turned to other religions with different intentions than Wicca.
Would anti-Muslim symbols be the same? Anti-Christian?
grendel72, not wanting to offend anyone, and I’m not speaking of present thread company, there are certain people who are offended by anything that doesn’t wear the same color clothes they do. You might see their attitude as a little fragile… but there’s nothing in the Constitution that says a local community can’t make up it’s mind about things it does and doesn’t like on issues of less than national importance. Quite exactly the contrary.
In this particular case the girl is wearing a symbol that says to a number of people “I follow satan, and not God.” Whether that’s taken to be reactionary, ignorant, evil, or counter-culture, the underlying intent might reasonably be taken as saying “fuck you” to established local authorities. And they’re supposed to just sit there and smile?
Is the ACLU going to run to protect me if I wear an anti-pick-your-issue t-shirt in the middle of Dallas, San Francisco, a mosque, Salt Lake City, a Hells Angels rally? Or are they just going to say: “What were you thinking of?”
Insulting other people’s beliefs and/or culture is not without consequences.