Child suspended for his religious beliefs

[cuddly_tomato]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Let me ask the pussyfooting chicken-chokers here an honest question; How does our government define religion? That seems to be "the point" here, despite the objections of so many that seem more interested in defining religion for themselves than seeing what the government has to say about it.

"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

Which means that the courts get to decide if you really believe in something or not. I can't be the only one that sees a flaw in that.

Exactly. The courts have room to be dicks about it by maintaining that it must be "sincere and meaningful," which essentially means that the courts have to determine that the person believes in the religion. That being said, as long as it's a religion and the person claims to believe in it, the courts would have to show that the person is lying. I'd love to see this sort of case taken to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't appear to be happening, at least not this time.

 

[theultimateend]

Let me ask the pussyfooting chicken-chokers here an honest question; How does our government define religion? That seems to be "the point" here, despite the objections of so many that seem more interested in defining religion for themselves than seeing what the government has to say about it.

"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

Which means that the courts get to decide if you really believe in something or not. I can't be the only one that sees a flaw in that.

Exactly. The courts have room to be dicks about it by maintaining that it must be "sincere and meaningful," which essentially means that the courts have to determine that the person believes in the religion. That being said, as long as it's a religion and the person claims to believe in it, the courts would have to show that the person is lying. I'd love to see this sort of case taken to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't appear to be happening, at least not this time.

Considering the judge themselves is likely religious it leaves lots of room for prejudice as well.

All the Supreme Court members I know of are pretty highly ideological (assuming I've grabbed the right word here) and not in any good way.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

Tinker v. Des Moines seems to be an important ruling in this case. Unless the school could show that the pirate costume was disruptive, which would require more than a few teachers being perturbed, then whether or not he "abused the system" is irrelevant.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Let me ask the pussyfooting chicken-chokers here an honest question; How does our government define religion? That seems to be "the point" here, despite the objections of so many that seem more interested in defining religion for themselves than seeing what the government has to say about it.

"To determine whether an action of the federal or state government infringes upon a person's right to freedom of religion, the court must decide what qualifies as religion or religious activities for purposes of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment."

Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

Which means that the courts get to decide if you really believe in something or not. I can't be the only one that sees a flaw in that.

Exactly. The courts have room to be dicks about it by maintaining that it must be "sincere and meaningful," which essentially means that the courts have to determine that the person believes in the religion. That being said, as long as it's a religion and the person claims to believe in it, the courts would have to show that the person is lying. I'd love to see this sort of case taken to the Supreme Court, but it doesn't appear to be happening, at least not this time.

Considering the judge themselves is likely religious it leaves lots of room for prejudice as well.

All the Supreme Court members I know of are pretty highly ideological (assuming I've grabbed the right word here) and not in any good way.

I don't doubt that the Supreme Court judges might be religious, but most of the Supreme Court gets there by being completely obsessed with how the law is interpreted. If something like this went to the Supreme Court, I'd put my money on a decision that shied away from defining belief in a religion. That all being said, I doubt this kind of thing will get to the Supreme Court until it becomes a bigger issue. Wearing a pirate costume to school just isn't as inflammatory as those armbands were during the Vietnam War.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

Tinker v. Des Moines seems to be an important ruling in this case. Unless the school could show that the pirate costume was disruptive, which would require more than a few teachers being perturbed, then whether or not he "abused the system" is irrelevant.

That is a matter for the teachers and the school governors. If the kid was asked to remove his pirate outfit, but didn't, he was disobeying the teacher. The teacher had a right to remove him from the class. If the teacher was in the wrong for asking him to do that it doesn't change that the kid should have obeyed because he is a kid, and got his parents to complain later.

"This is my religion" is obviously something this (probably pretty streetwise kid) has picked up from the medias current focus on all things religious, particularly as it pertains to religions in schools, and used it too his advantage.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

Tinker v. Des Moines seems to be an important ruling in this case. Unless the school could show that the pirate costume was disruptive, which would require more than a few teachers being perturbed, then whether or not he "abused the system" is irrelevant.

That is a matter for the teachers and the school governors. If the kid was asked to remove his pirate outfit, but didn't, he was disobeying the teacher. The teacher had a right to remove him from the class. If the teacher was in the wrong for asking him to do that it doesn't change that the kid should have obeyed because he is a kid, and got his parents to complain later.

"This is my religion" is obviously something this (probably pretty streetwise kid) has picked up from the medias current focus on all things religious, particularly as it pertains to religions in schools, and used it too his advantage.

Woah, now hold on one fucking minute there, children don't get to have the first amendment if the teachers don't like what they have to say? Maybe 50 years ago, but in today's world, Tinker v. Des Moines directly addresses that issue. And like I said, it doesn't matter if he's playing within the rules if he's not breaking rules in the process.

 

[Cakes]

I'm pretty sure your post is more a parody of an actual thought. Unless you have proof that any religious person 'srsly' believes in what they say they believe in.

Mainly because that kind of proof would require technology that I'm pretty sure does not yet exist.

So...you don't like my post because I can't prove something that is impossible to prove? M'kay.

 

[ArcWinter]

HOW IS THAT DISRUPTIVE AND NOT AWESOME?

Schools must be overhauled, this lack of tolerance for awesome is very offensive.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

Tinker v. Des Moines seems to be an important ruling in this case. Unless the school could show that the pirate costume was disruptive, which would require more than a few teachers being perturbed, then whether or not he "abused the system" is irrelevant.

That is a matter for the teachers and the school governors. If the kid was asked to remove his pirate outfit, but didn't, he was disobeying the teacher. The teacher had a right to remove him from the class. If the teacher was in the wrong for asking him to do that it doesn't change that the kid should have obeyed because he is a kid, and got his parents to complain later.

"This is my religion" is obviously something this (probably pretty streetwise kid) has picked up from the medias current focus on all things religious, particularly as it pertains to religions in schools, and used it too his advantage.

Woah, now hold on one fucking minute there, children don't get to have the first amendment if the teachers don't like what they have to say? Maybe 50 years ago, but in today's world, Tinker v. Des Moines directly addresses that issue. And like I said, it doesn't matter if he's playing within the rules if he's not breaking rules in the process.

Are you telling me that in the USA kids can just tell teachers to go fuck themselves? Or use racial slurs against other kids in school?

Not disagreeing, this is an honest question.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Perhaps some of you aren't familiar with Tinker v. Des Moines, which is kind of shocking, because I remember getting at least half a dozen lessons on it back in high school. If a teacher singles out a student for a symbolic expression that is neither obscene nor disruptive to other students (and I didn't see students complaining, I saw the school itself decide that the outfit was disruptive, which is all the more reason why Tinker v. Des Moines applies), the teacher is in the wrong.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I love it when people say that there's something special about believing in a certain religion. That comes from the religions themselves putting so much emphasis on belief, particularly the religions of Abraham, and Christianity most of all. If we allowed the government to make belief in a religion the deciding factor in whether that religion was "legitimate" or not, it wouldn't be long before smaller religions were squelched by power-hungry politicians looking to get re-elected exploiting an ignorant, mostly Christian population by calling out "non-believers" like Pagans and Satanists. Then you'd have a xenophobic, jingoistic society demanding the government put down all minority religions, claiming that they aren't "real believers," with any politicians willing to play ball eating it up. Muslims, Jews, and even Catholics would start to get some real shit. It wouldn't be long before we'd be back to the ol' state church. Wouldn't that be dandy?

Speaking as a Pagan I broadly agree. But come on dude this wasn't a case of someone from a minority religion, this was a clear cut case of someone using the whole religious tolerance law to be a dick - which only hurts the causes of those in minority religions.

The First Amendment includes the right to be a dick. No where has the Constitution said that people have a right to not be offended. If he wants to be a dick and hurt the reputation of his own religion, that's his decision, and the government should have no right to stop him.

Not exactly. There is no constitutional protection on childrens school dress code. Dressing up as a pirate in school is just daft. He got told to behave and rather than behaving he said "it's my religion". It is abuse of process, pure and simple. The laws and articles set up on the US constitution, and indeed any such law-makers body in any civilized nation, was to protect minority groups from abuse, not to allow people to piss in the handbag of the system.

Tinker v. Des Moines seems to be an important ruling in this case. Unless the school could show that the pirate costume was disruptive, which would require more than a few teachers being perturbed, then whether or not he "abused the system" is irrelevant.

That is a matter for the teachers and the school governors. If the kid was asked to remove his pirate outfit, but didn't, he was disobeying the teacher. The teacher had a right to remove him from the class. If the teacher was in the wrong for asking him to do that it doesn't change that the kid should have obeyed because he is a kid, and got his parents to complain later.

"This is my religion" is obviously something this (probably pretty streetwise kid) has picked up from the medias current focus on all things religious, particularly as it pertains to religions in schools, and used it too his advantage.

Woah, now hold on one fucking minute there, children don't get to have the first amendment if the teachers don't like what they have to say? Maybe 50 years ago, but in today's world, Tinker v. Des Moines directly addresses that issue. And like I said, it doesn't matter if he's playing within the rules if he's not breaking rules in the process.

Are you telling me that in the USA kids can just tell teachers to go fuck themselves? Or use racial slurs against other kids in school?

Not disagreeing, this is an honest question.

Telling a teacher to "go fuck themselves" and using racial slurs openly in a school setting would be considered obscene language, which is against most school rules. And if this were a private school with a uniform or dress code, then a pirate costume would be against those rules and the student would be at fault. But the article never states that the pirate costume broke any rules, and even if it did, it would still be protected as an expression of his religion. All the article states is that the school found it "disruptive," by their own definition.

 

[MercenaryCanary]

Uh...... i think the school did a good thing i mean who the hell goes to school dressed as a pirate?

The same people that realize that pirates are the holy disciples, and that their non-existent numbers are the cause of global warming.
R'amen.

 

[gigastrike]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

 

[G1eet]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

1) Why is man capitalized?

2) It's called an opinion. If someone chooses to believe in a higher power, so be it. If I happen to disagree with whatever they believe in, that doesn't give me license to insult them.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

Yes that is silly. Fortunately, no actual religion says that. To boil down Christianity into that sentence is frankly ludicrous.

 

[FallenRainbows]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

Yes that is silly. Fortunately, no actual religion says that. To boil down Christianity into that sentence is frankly ludicrous.

Then what would you boil it down to? (serious question not flame-bait)

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Oh, this is bogus. There is no way that they actually believe that the flying spagetti monster created the universe. This is all just a joke and half the people in this religion are in it just to have fun, while the other half are just in it to spite the school.

You know what's even sillier? Believing a giant invisible man in the clouds created the universe, and then made Man in his own image.

Yes that is silly. Fortunately, no actual religion says that. To boil down Christianity into that sentence is frankly ludicrous.

Then what would you boil it down to? (serious question not flame-bait)

In all honesty, I couldn't. I am not a Christian and most of my exposure to Christianity has either come from the crappy school I attended, which taught me nothing, or from being hectored by insane fundamentalists who would scream that I would be on my way to Hell if I didn't give the all merciful Almighty applause every Sunday (which sounded a bit oxymoronic... minus the oxy). I do know enough to know that "invisible man in the clouds" doesn't even come close, and is really being used as a sarcastic jibe when it is spoken in that manner.

 

[Zarthek]

Although I see the entire Pastafarian religion as silly, you shouldn't get busted for following your religion, they have just as much right as Catholics or Protestants or... any other religion to worship who or what they want.


People these days, if you'll excuse me i'm going to live with the wolves now, they don't break their rules, much *runs into the woods*