Quote:

Original post by capn_midnight I've carried a pocket knife pretty much everywhere since I was about 13 years old.

In some school districts a pocket knife would be enough grounds for expulsion.

---

As far as this girl goes, if she made up the religion to get out from under a dress code violation, that's low and shame on her and her family.

"The church claims roughly 3,500 members nationwide, having started about two years ago, after adopting the name of a similar group that had been dormant for several years."

"In 1999, a federal court in North Carolina ruled that the Halifax County school system had violated such hybrid rights of Catherine Hicks and her great-grandson by forcing the boy to wear a school uniform."

"The woman was also a member of the Church of Body Modification, but the courts eventually ruled that her religious beliefs did not require her to always wear her jewelry."

That last paragraph is the kicker. If she can't show that her religious beliefs require her to always wear her nose ring, she has no case.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel But the only point to be found there is ridicule.

Listen, obviously the way I worded my post rubbed you the wrong way. But if I say that's not what I meant, then that's not what I meant.

So to bring us back to the OP, "what defines a religion?" The secondary point, "what trumps what?" It seems to be: school rules > which enforces laws that to prevent a potential crime > religious freedoms to carry holy or religiously significant physical items.

I have a few ideas of my own about the universe and people should live their lives, it'd be nice to know how to take them and be considered a 'real' religion.

But on schools in general (sorry for going in a different topic direction here), I don't understand how it is that the people deciding on the rules have such broad sweeping powers that frequently seem to push common sense and basic freedoms to the side. It's like governments figure that kids in number are such a threat that the school administration are given powers effectively on the level of running a mini-police state. I'm not even sure about the qualifications of the people (this would be a school board, right?) that come up with the rules that schools run by. Maybe it's my own lack of understanding but the power that a school board has seems rediculous to me.

Quote:

Original post by Sneftel Quote: Original post by Alpha_ProgDes I believe in the UK Jedi was actually created as a religion. And part of their religion (Jedi code) is the cloak and lightsaber. So I don't agree with your analysis, especially given the fact that what you suggested isn't what I implied or meant. Let's take another look. Quote: Would I be allowed to wear a cloak and bring a lightsaber to school because it is part of my (Jedi) religion? I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you are not actually a Jedi, and are merely making a rhetorical point. But the only point to be found there is ridicule. Would I be allowed to wear a kippah and bring a prayer shawl to school because it is part of my (Jewish) religion? Well.... uh, yeah, I can. The significant difference there is that Judaism is well-established, with plenty of adherents. It's a settled part of our culture, and this is not. So while you ask "what exactly defines a religion", you seem to already have settled on a definition: A religion is anything you would be called a bigot for ridiculing.

In the UK, so many people put 'Jedi' down as their religion on the last census form that, going by the rules, Jedi should be listed as a religion in the next census form rather than people having to fill in the 'Other' category.

Does this make it well established? It certainly seems to have plenty adherents.

Quote:

Original post by dave j In the UK, so many people put 'Jedi' down as their religion on the last census form that, going by the rules, Jedi should be listed as a religion in the next census form rather than people having to fill in the 'Other' category.

It seems this isn't entirely correct. 390,000 people put Jedi as their answer and as a result that answer has been given its own code number (896) for the purpose of census processing. That doesn't mean it is a legally recognised religion. I don't think the census dept decides that... not sure who does.

It does appear however that the someone in the UK government has a sense of humour. The Office of National Statistics revealed the total number of people who had given Jedi as their answer in a press release entitled "390,000 Jedis there are". http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=297&Pos=&ColRank=2&Rank=1000.

Sorry, but why should religion get such a special status? If I said I have to wear a grass skirt as part of my culture, a workplace would be within their rights to dismiss me for not wearing suitable attire. But if I say it's for my religion, no matter how out there, it suddenly gains some special significance?

For example, NZ recently declared that ritual kosher slaughter (sheichita) was not within NZ animal rights law and was banned. There was outrage from the Jewish community. Accusations of anti-semitism were thrown around, and utterly failed to see the point that it's not about the religion, it's about the LAW.

Here's a crazy idea: we judge individual cases on their merits regardless of origin. You should be free to delude yourself with whatever imaginary friend you like, as long as it is within the bounds of the law of the land. If a law is unreasonable, it should be argued on it's merits.

Quote:

Original post by Alpha_ProgDes So to bring us back to the OP, "what defines a religion?"

Just like the concepts of game or play, there is no simple explanation for the concept of religion. It's a fuzzy cluster of attributes.

A religion is a set of beliefs, backed up by unproveable tenets involving the supernatural, adhered to by a group of sufficient size to force recognition either through violence or voting power or both.

These beliefs generally center around a "deity" or other supernatural entity providing unprovable explanations regarding man's place in the universe, as well as a set of rules of conduct. They often involve ideas such as an "afterlife", where people will be rewarded or punished for their zeal or failure in following these rules, admonitions to spread the belief, the idea that the followers enjoy a priviledge moral position regarding the rest of humanity, and a range of rituals meant to reinforce belief in the authority of the "deity" and it's representatives (often involving the transfer of wealth).

A quick google reveals that the Church of Body Modification is about "growing as individuals", "helping each other achieve our dreams", "respecting our bodies", and the belief that "our bodies belong to ourselves".

They're a group of people sharing a hobby, but fail to become a recognized religion because of a lack of supernatural elements and the number of members required to get the political power to force recognition.

If half the popularion in the area had been single-issue body modification voters, or there'd been an element of violent extremists, she would not have been suspended.

(edit: typo)

[Edited by - Brian Sandberg on September 19, 2010 6:39:51 AM]

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine Sorry, but why should religion get such a special status? If I said I have to wear a grass skirt as part of my culture, a workplace would be within their rights to dismiss me for not wearing suitable attire. But if I say it's for my religion, no matter how out there, it suddenly gains some special significance?

That is exactly why I believe the dress code for the school district involved will remain unchanged regarding appearance; they will simply remove the religious exemption that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Imagine a nudist/naturalist religion that eschews all clothing except footwear. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing that religious exception?

You are correct that a behavior is either socially acceptable or not, regardless of your beliefs. If it is not socially acceptable (and not unwanted abuse, like child abuse), by all means practice your beliefs in private.

If the girl feels so strongly about it there are other options. Private schools may allow it, and home schooling may be another option.

Quote:

Original post by frob Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine Sorry, but why should religion get such a special status? If I said I have to wear a grass skirt as part of my culture, a workplace would be within their rights to dismiss me for not wearing suitable attire. But if I say it's for my religion, no matter how out there, it suddenly gains some special significance? That is exactly why I believe the dress code for the school district involved will remain unchanged regarding appearance; they will simply remove the religious exemption that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place.

It's about the first amendment. ChaosEngine gets a pass for not recognizing that immediately because he's not an American, but frob, you ought to see that straight away. It's also about the 14th amendment and the equal protection of law, in particular, laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of religion.

Quote:

Original post by frob Imagine a nudist/naturalist religion that eschews all clothing except footwear. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing that religious exception?

Do you remember the "Naked Guy" at U.C. Berkeley a few years ago?

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by frob Quote: Original post by ChaosEngine Sorry, but why should religion get such a special status? If I said I have to wear a grass skirt as part of my culture, a workplace would be within their rights to dismiss me for not wearing suitable attire. But if I say it's for my religion, no matter how out there, it suddenly gains some special significance? That is exactly why I believe the dress code for the school district involved will remain unchanged regarding appearance; they will simply remove the religious exemption that probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's about the first amendment. ChaosEngine gets a pass for not recognizing that immediately because he's not an American, but frob, you ought to see that straight away. It's also about the 14th amendment and the equal protection of law, in particular, laws that protect against discrimination on the basis of religion.

I don't see it. The first, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... The 14th covers many things, but I assume you mean that states are subject to the same rules as Congress in this regard.

The school district (a public school so subject to the governmental requirements) did not say anything about the religion, nor did they prohibit the religion.

Instead they have Time/Place/Manner restrictions, which are generally legal: During school and at school events, a particular dress code applies. Their community standards tend to find the restrictions acceptable.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by frob Imagine a nudist/naturalist religion that eschews all clothing except footwear. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing that religious exception? Do you remember the "Naked Guy" at U.C. Berkeley a few years ago?

Indecency is based on the local community standards, as well as the time, place, and manner.

"Naked Guy" had both place and manner working toward his case, although ultimately he was jailed when his nudity was against the prevailing standard.

In many circumstances simply being nude in public would be criminal indecent exposure. Many flashers have claimed that they were simply nude in front of schools or public places, but ultimately are convicted as sex criminals. In another time or place, such as a sexually-related protest, it may be considered acceptable.

There is a difference between nudity on a private college campus of mostly adults, vs nudity in a public school where attendance is almost mandatory and where most students are minors. Local standards and T/P/M considerations are very important.