Why can't those girls wear a pentacle to school?

Great Debates
81

Here’s a question: Obviously, a school has the authority to suspend certain rights. The government doesn’t have the right to tell me that I can’t wear miniskirts, but a school can, on the grounds that miniskirts can be disruptive. A school can ban Gameboys for the same reason. A school can also ban things based on safety issues, eg pocket knives.

Now, certainly, the school can’t arbitrarily choose which religious symbols can and can’t be displayed based solely on preference. Saying “You can’t wear a Star of David because we don’t like Jews here” would be a big no-no. But what if a particular symbol is likely to generate a distinct disruption? What if a school legitimately believed that someone wearing a pentacle would be in danger of being assaulted? Or that it would provoke nothing but loud, heated arguments that would conflict with teaching? Would the school be able to single out and ban pentacles (at least being openly displayed), or would all religious symbols have to be banned?
Jeff

82

You’d have to ban all religious symbols., IMO, ElJeffe. You cannot allow one religious group to wear emblems without allowing all. Plus there’s the fact that if you ban one group’s symbols because they could cause a “disruption,” that group could make a spectacle about, say, cross necklaces, forcing them out. You turn the symbols into signs of “haves” and “have nots,” the “preferred” and the “tolerated but not accepted.”

Plus, in your example, you’d be hard pressed to make the case that miniskirts are “expression.” Religious symbols, like the political bumper stickers I used to put on my binders, clearly are expression, and thus have a 1st amendment protection that your miniskirt can never have. Unless, of course, its a miniskirt with a bunch of Stars of David on it. :slight_smile:

Kirk

83

A very similar case happened in Alabama. One rendition of the story is here http://news.xp.com/read.html?postid=117&replies=4

Basically, a 15 year old boy was forbidden to wear a Star of David in school because the school claimed it was a “gang symbol.”

Here’s another link, to another case http://www.aclu.org/news/n081497b.html

This one includes some examples of “peer pressure,” including their yarmulkes being ripped off, and anti-Semitic epithets shouted at the kids by other children.

To be fair, Alabama now allows the wearing of Star of Davids, and I suppose they would allow pentacles also (if they learned anything from this, that is.)

So partly_warmer, how are these cases different?

84

Um, again? JS Princeton, you perhaps have me confused with someone else? I have never claimed that Satanism advocates the breaking of laws, either in this post or in any other. And to my knowledge, you and I have not had any previous interaction on this message board.

I claim to have no knowledge of Satanism or Anton LeVay. There were a couple of important ifs in my post, you’ll notice. I was saying that that even if this girl were a Satanist (and it has already been established that she is not), and even if her religion advocated the breaking of laws and she did so, she would still be entitled to wear symbols of said religion in her school.

I can see how my post could have been read the way you interpreted it, and I’ll try to be clearer next time. But I’m on your side in this debate, so how’s about lightening up on your flame trigger a little.

85

Oops. Thanks for setting me straight.

86

I think, in order to pass constitutional muster, the restriction will have to apply to all jewelry. Only religion-neutral restrictions will be upheld, IMHO. One could argue, as in the school uniform vis-a-vis regular clothes example, that jewelry of any kind creates envy, greed, lust - 3/7ths of the deadly sins.

Wait, no, you can’t argue that. You argue that jewelry of any kind is “disruptive to the educational environment.” Yeah, that’s it. I might even buy it. The problem lies in singling out religous symbols, whereas banning things generally is OK.

In other words, a restriction on “all religious symbols” is probably just as bad as restricting “the pentacle.” I should go do some research in order to not preface everything with “probably” or “think.”

Research helps because the decisions on establishment of religion are so clear and courts never change their minds. ::heavy sarcasm::

87

First: how do you know? I can’t think of one framer’s thoughts who could back up this claim.

Second: strict constructionism will get you nowhere. If you want to argue that we only ought to uphold the closest approximation of what the framers intended or could have envisioned (which would ential mind-reading 200+ years removed), then the vast majority of our laws are right out the door. They couldn’t have envisioned the world we live in, and, if not for their foresight, we would have a less vague document with which to base our laws upon.

What is the alternative? No one here is advocating some kind of anarchic state where anything goes. It is clear, and can be clearly inferred from people’s posts, that most people here believe that criminal behavior couched in religious garb is still criminal behavior.

Who cares? They can say what they like. Ironically, you’ll find that right ensured in the same amendment as religion.

So what? I don’t mean to be glib, but I don’t see the problem. Just a scooch further down the Bill of Rights is the freedom to assemble. =P

It doesn’t matter. I hate it when people throw out quotes from the framers to justify inferring intents out of the Constitution. The document stands alone…it was crafted by great men, but by great men who were as fallable and chocked full of personal biases as anyone else. The difference is that most of their biases, by way of the enormous compromises involved in the drafting of the Constitution, fell by the wayside. Thank goodness.

88

With no disrespect to the replies I’m going to round up my contribution to this thread by noting that the only point I feel particularly strongly about is a feeling that religion should not be used to offend people. And if that’s what they are intentionally doing, I don’t approve.

I know little about wicca or satanic practices, and I’m not knowledgeable about the laws and constitutional authority regarding religious expression. So I don’t see I have anything special to contribute beyond what I’ve said.

I mentioned peer pressure, not because I believed it was always or even usually a good thing (I’m very resistant, myself), but because it’s nice when people can express themselves to one another about what offends them on a personal level, on the level of peers, without having to drag in lawyers.

89

Baptists and JWs come to my door and offend me. When I was being polite to one, and told him I was Jewish, they started going on a conversion kick. That really offended me. Perhaps we should ban Christians? Our rights would evaporate really quickly if we listened to you.

Maybe, but peers didn’t cause the problem - the school adminstration did. And, as in the example I posted earlier, “peer pressure” can easily become bullying. Sometimes teachers need to tell kids that they have no right to tell a kid to stop doing something they have a right to do no matter if it offends them - like wearing the symbol of another religion. Remember, the lawyers weren’t called in because of her peers, but rather because of her teachers.

90

Being concerned above all else about “offending people” is of course the essence of “political correctness”.

91

As you may have noticed, there are two parts to the First Amendment’s treatment of religion.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” – the beginning of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Ignore the “Congress” part, unless you want a long-winded dissertation on the Incorporation Doctrine. That link is bite-sized and crunchy, enjoy. Basically, “Congress” now could read " Any governmental entity."

First, we have the Establishment Clause, second we have the Free Exercise Clause. The terms are not self-defining. Egads, what do we do? Well, there are a few cases.

I’ll outline one in this installment Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). This case gives us the famous* “Lemon Test.”
The Lemon Test in a nutshell:

  1. The statute must have a secular purpose.
  2. It’s principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.
  3. The statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

Some other key terms: “neutrality,” “wall of separation” versus the concept that we “are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being.” – Justice Douglas
Not to pile on, this is an important argument:

Maybe, but the “disruption” argument will entail conceding the religious significance of the pentacle. How else do you get to “disruption”? Good luck without the religious meaning, then it is just a star in a circle. It could mean “Go U.S. of A.” The presumption is that absent some reasonable, important, or compelling** argument, government will not restrict the freedoms of its citizens to do what they want. And the reason for restricting the pentacle is…? See, there are no cases of pentacle robbery, pentacle tax evasion, or pentacle contamination to latch onto. You have to resort to a religious significance argument.

*If you went to law school. You will not be tested.
**The increasing levels of proof required by the courts to justify a particular statute: “reasonable, important, and compelling.” To restrict a religious practice, because it is a fundamental freedom, requires a compelling reason and the rule must be “narrowly tailored” - if it can be done at all. But, note, a religion neutral statute may only need to be reasonable even though it has “incidental effects” on religious practices. Therefore, I maintain that the ban all jewelry policy is the only way to go.

[sub]Whew, law on a Friday night / Saturday morning – where did my life go? If you find it, let me know.[/sub]

92

The article doesn’t say how big this pentacle is (I couldn’t get the video to play). Couldn’t this be a simple control issue between the girl and the principal, albeit one that has spun out of control?

I mean, if this is a 5" across pendant on a chain hanging to her navel, the principal might have a right to ban it – just as I believe she could ban a 5" long crucifix, like I’ve seen some nuns wearing. There has to be a limit at which a religious symbol becomes a distraction, and it seems to me that it might be a very subjective limit. Some (weirdo) carrying a life-size cross around all day is obviously both very religious and very distracting.

I think a lot of context is left out of the article – the viewpoint is almost entirely from the mother and daughter. I suspect the school had a rather limited response, forcing the journalist’s hand. The situation has obviously progressed to fighting stances, and I’m sure that heated words were exchanged somewhere in there. That context would certainly affect the decision to suspend.
‘You can’t wear that, it’s distracting.’
‘It’s not distracting, is religious.’
‘I don’t care if it’s religious, it’s distracting.’
‘F— you, I’m wearing it!’
‘That’s it, you’re suspended!’

OK, I previewed, and gosh, my post seems so much less erudite than some of you fine folks. I’ll still post it, but then I’m high-tailing it back to MPSIMS.:slight_smile:

93

(Smiling out loud) Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Danalan, having promised to bow out gracefully to all concerned, I agree with your post.

I have a friend who created his own religion. Marries people and whole bit. I like him, respect his honesty and intelligence, but he clearly intends his religion to be offensive to the status quo. That wasn’t the purpose of the beliefs and teachings of Buddha, Mohammed, Abraham, Christ, or Confucius.

I’d rather not be associated with people who use religion as a cover for hatred, insulting behavior, and ignorance. Of course, the confusion factor that’s caused is precisely one of my friend’s goals: to make it difficult for religious people to defend their beliefs, particularly somewhat simple people who aren’t masters of rhetoric.

Seems like laws that were intended to protect truth-seekers are sometimes used as tools by people among whose primary motivations is to provide offense.

94

I am no Wicca expert. I don’t know that much about pagans generally. I do know that the ‘faith’ predates Christianity. The association with the Devil, or whatever, is totally dependent on the Christian interpretation of the pentacle.

[Thinking Cap] How can a symbol be associated with offending Christians, when Christians have not been invented yet? [/TC]

B-Dog: (that’s my new SDMB rap name, sig. test)

I don’t see what is wrong with this. Why allow anyone to go around in school with annoying distractions to learning that emphasize class, wealth, ethnic, political, or religious distinctions? Isn’t that just asking for trouble? Simple, eliminate the whole potential problem.

Jewelry gets stolen, lost, can cause injury, be used as a weapon, yadda, yadda – lots of good religion-neutral reasons. There is no good reason I can think of to allow jewelry in school at all. I’m liking it more and more.

95

Well, if this particular case had not involved school officials, who are public servants, then I would agree. However, this is not what occured. School officials paid by public taxes suspended the girl and violated her rights. When that happens, the only recourse is legal action. What is the alternative?

96

Probably not, actually. Not that that is any justification for government discrimination against Wiccans, nor is it even, by itself, an argument that Wicca is untrue or invalid. After all, Christianity is a Johnny-come-lately upstart comparted to Judaism (and Christianity was younger than the original polytheistic beliefs it eventually supplanted in the Roman Empire).

97

I’ve read the SD article, but it really depends on how it’s defined. As an amalgam of different traditions, albeit lacking a direct historical continuity, it does seem to be quite old. If that continuity is important to establish its predating monotheism…then, yes, it probably is not old at all. I apologize for splitting hairs, but I have good friends who are pagan and they’d be wounded if I didn’t say something.

=}

98

:snort:

Uh-huh. Riiiight.

99

Agreed, andros… it seems to me that each of the founders of religion listed were CLEARLY intending their religions to be offensive to the status quo (with the possible exception of Confucius). Don’t the Gospels insinuate that Christ was killed because of his willingness to offend the status quo?

Maybe I’m just doing an unfair redaction.

100

I’m just saying that paganism* predates Christianity. As I said, I am no expert on Wicca. I do know someone who claims to be a witch. [sub]Burn her! Wait, I know, see if she floats.[/sub]

*Technically, that just means you do not follow one of the big three: Christianity, Islam, Judaism. Your dictionary may vary.