Sikh boy banned from taking holy dagger to school

Rrose Selavy · 13th October 2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

A 14-year-old Sikh boy has been withdrawn from state education after he was banned from wearing a traditional religious dagger to school.
The family of J Singh, whose full name has not been released, have taken out a loan to educate him privately after the ruling from Compton School in Barnet.
The governors argued that the five inch “kirpan” was a safety risk although the boy had worn it for the previous two years without a problem.
The Sikh religion says all baptised males must carry a kirpan. They are legal if carried for religious reasons.
J Singh's older brother, Ravjeet Singh, said: “The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.”

Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do

Aepervius · 13th October 2009, 07:57 AM

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

Darth Rotor · 13th October 2009, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do

" The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.”

It actually is a knife, and a talisman of his faith.

Originally Posted by wiki which I think is close enough to correct to work for purposes of this discussion

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.

Now, if I can just take my nail clippers with me on an airplane ...

Professor Yaffle · 13th October 2009, 07:59 AM

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

Ethnikos · 13th October 2009, 08:11 AM

I think it is a sign of social insanity.
Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri.

drkitten · 13th October 2009, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

Is that a "compromise" or a "blasphemy"?

For example, if a Christian nurse were prevented from wearing a crucifix around her neck on the ward,.... but was offered a "compromise" of being allowed to wear a Jewish yalmucke (which I've almost certainly misspelled),.... that's not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense of the word. No practicing Christian would accept it as such, and the offer is probably more insulting than the original ban.

My understanding is that a kirpan must be a functional weapon to serve its symbolic purpose (allowing a Sikh to act as a defender of others); if this is correct, then the "compromise" is unacceptable and insulting.

A more significant question: Is "safety of pupils" really a factor here? Are there any instances in record of a Sikh student using the kirpan to threaten or injure another student (or a staff member)?

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I think it is a sign of social insanity.
Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri.

Well you see a few years ago some men took some rather small knives commonly used to open boxes and used them to hijack planes. So it seems that even small knives can be a serious threat to security in the right situation.

Ethnikos · 13th October 2009, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.

It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 08:23 AM

What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.
The regulation about knives in school is not targeted at any specific religion, and so it seems perfectly appropriate to say, "The school doesn't allow knives," and leave it at that.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

... but not in schools, and certainly not by students in schools.

wollery · 13th October 2009, 08:30 AM

Given that many Sikhs wear a comb with a small shard of metal to symbolize the Kirpan I don't understand the problem. I had a friend at school who did just that. He would pick up the real one to wear when he got home, but didn't usually take it out of the home, except to go to temple.

Either this family come from a very orthodox sect, or they're just trying to make a point.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

And try arguing that in an airport, courthouse or going to the statue of liberty.

Of course the american constitution has no impact on a school in britian.

wollery · 13th October 2009, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban.

No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

drkitten · 13th October 2009, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

Er, no.

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Er, no.

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty.

Bob Klase · 13th October 2009, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

That explains why human sacrifice is still legal.

Professor Yaffle · 13th October 2009, 08:59 AM

I found this on another forum discussing the same issue with regard to health and safety at work - note the parts I have bolded:

Quote:

The right for Sikhs to carry the Kirpan is enshrined in UK law and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regs 2003 would apply, however, national security and health and safety are pretty much the only areas of law that can 'trump' an equality requirement - so long as there is a genuine justification. Many employers accommodate the religious requirement to carry the Kirpan, balancing the safety issues in each specific role, for example the Met Police Dress Code advises that 'unless precluded by a risk assessment or operational order, items of religious significance may be worn, for example staff who are Sikh may wear the Kara and carry the Kirpan'.
I am also aware that some employers have found a win-win solution by supplying a replica Kirpan or Kirpan holder in an alternative non-risk material, in consultation with Sikh employees and community groups.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hrspac...ar-a-1367.aspx

So it seems that replica kirpans are acceptable to at least a proportion of Sikhs.

Professor Yaffle · 13th October 2009, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish.

drkitten · 13th October 2009, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect.

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.

Quote:

Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment

Wrong. Whether or not a law is "directed towards religion" is only one of the three prongs of the Lemon test (q.v.) that determines whether or not a proposed law is acceptable under the First Amendment.

The second prong is that the law may not have a "primary effect" (without regard to the intended purpose) of inhibiting religion (or supporting it, for that matter), and the third prong is that the law may not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. To be acceptable, a law must pass all three prongs, not just one.

And, furthermore, the standards for review are themselves quite strict; Free Exercise cases are by law judged on a "strict scrutiny" standard, which means no only that they must pass the Lemon test, but that the proposed government measures must be as unrestrictive as possible; if the defense, for example, can establish that another, less restrictive, proposal would also accomplish the government's goals, then the law must be struck down.

For example, a rule requiring hard hats has been struck down (I believe in New York) when it was pointed out that nothing about Sikhism prevented the wearing protective gear (such as a hard metal helmet) under the turban. Since it was more restrictive to say "you can't wear a turban" than to say "you can only wear a turban if you have protective gear under it," the New York rule was struck down, and the revised rule mandates merely the wearing of acceptable protective gear.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.
In the U.S., this rule would not (and has not) run afoul of the First Amendment, which does not protect any religion from unrelated government regulations that have an ancillary effect on religious practice.
The idea that this amounts to "making a special exception for religion" is exactly what Lemon and later opinions make it clear you DON'T have to do.

Arcade22 · 13th October 2009, 09:16 AM

Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy

Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do

There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by wollery

No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

So no bike riding at any school event of any kind I see.

Of course this is a child so they can not make such decisions legaly.

KingMerv00 · 13th October 2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.

I don't think she is disagreeing with you.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty.

Technicaly it is a bit of both. You can not legally hide religious discrimination though things like dress code, unless there is a dirrect need for safety reasons and not to present the immage you want for your company.

The Central Scrutinizer · 13th October 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Aepervius

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

But a jewish kid can't stab you with his beanie. This kid can.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Technicaly it is a bit of both. You can not legally hide religious discrimination though things like dress code, unless there is a dirrect need for safety reasons and not to present the immage you want for your company.

This is true, and is actually the point of First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. But as here, where the regulation is CLEARLY not hidden discrimination but reasonable safety, the American principle is that religion doesn't get an exemption from a good law.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

But a jewish kid can't stab you with his beanie.

I think you're underestimating the ingenuity of children.

KingMerv00 · 13th October 2009, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Arcade22

There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.

And if he was born in that country?

Darat · 13th October 2009, 09:23 AM

As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....

1) Generally the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) aren't considered to have been "added later", since they were added politically as part of the process that got the Constitution ratified in the first place.
2) We know that this is a UK event; we've clearly stated "in America", "the American perspective", etc when chiming in with opinions.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.

Dr. Kitten never stated that a rule or law against knives would be unconstitutional, but that the broad blanket statement that

Quote:

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

The lemon test shows that it is much more complex than that and that you sometimes have to give special exception to religion.

You did not keep it to knives but made broad blanket statements about the consitution that are factualy incorrect.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I don't think she is disagreeing with you.

Techicaly she is, just not about the merits of this particular case, which of course is entirely irrelevent as this case is not in america and so the US constitution has no effect on this at all.

But he was making overly broad statements that where incorrect. He got called on it. Rather what you would expect here.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You did not keep it to knives but made broad blanket statements about the consitution that are factualy incorrect.

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

This is true, and is actually the point of First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. But as here, where the regulation is CLEARLY not hidden discrimination but reasonable safety, the American principle is that religion doesn't get an exemption from a good law.

So what, you were not limiting your statements to this case, because the US consitution is totaly irrelevent to this british school. Now such a ban might well pass constitutional muster in the US, but it would not pass for your blanket innitial statement, but because it meets the lemon test.

But the existance of the lemon test means that this

Quote:

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

Is an incorrect statement. The constitution does require you to sometimes make a special exception for religion, the situations is covered by the lemon test.

Cainkane1 · 13th October 2009, 09:31 AM

A true Kirpan is a weapon and a tool. You want teenagers to be walking around with a toadstabber on their belt? Some other kid could try to steal it or even forcibly take it from him.

ponderingturtle · 13th October 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

It is simplified to the extent that it is wrong.

It would be like claiming that the second ammendment means that I can build pipebombs to my hearts content. Any law stopping me would be unconstitutional right? At least at your level of simplification.

brodski · 13th October 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish.

Turbans are not legal replacments for protective headwear, and offer next to zero protection. While Sikhs have specific exemptions from specific acts which means that they do not have to wear protective headgear when riding a motorbike or when working on a construction site, the have no exemption in other areas, such as rock climbing activites etc.

drkitten · 13th October 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

Except for the fact that case law disagrees with you. See Cheema vs. Thompson (1995), in which it was held that a ban on the kirpan violated the first amendment.

AvalonXQ · 13th October 2009, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Is an incorrect statement. The constitution does require you to sometimes make a special exception for religion, the situations is covered by the lemon test.

I disagree with your characterization. Those don't require you to make a "special exception for religion". If a law falls afoul of the Lemon test, then that means that it was never properly constructed in the first place. It's the intrusion of the law into the religious sphere, NOT the fact that religious practices happen to spill into an area of secular legislation, that causes the Lemon test to be inacted.
I stand by my statement.

13th October 2009, 07:43 AM	#1
Rrose Selavy Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: UK Posts: 1,156	Sikh boy banned from taking holy dagger to school Quote: A 14-year-old Sikh boy has been withdrawn from state education after he was banned from wearing a traditional religious dagger to school. The family of J Singh, whose full name has not been released, have taken out a loan to educate him privately after the ruling from Compton School in Barnet. The governors argued that the five inch “kirpan” was a safety risk although the boy had worn it for the previous two years without a problem. The Sikh religion says all baptised males must carry a kirpan. They are legal if carried for religious reasons. J Singh's older brother, Ravjeet Singh, said: “The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.” Well Something's gone mad..... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do

13th October 2009, 07:57 AM	#2
Aepervius Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 1,391	The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ? If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. Interresting Ian own's words. Plus that is an old skeptic game, to ask for evidence. Historian's take on skepticism

13th October 2009, 07:58 AM	#3
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 26,817	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy Well Something's gone mad..... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do " The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.” It actually is a knife, and a talisman of his faith. Originally Posted by wiki which I think is close enough to correct to work for purposes of this discussion The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind. Now, if I can just take my nail clippers with me on an airplane ...
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton____"Atheism is no safeguard against stupidity."--The Atheist____If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok____ "Your onus is aimed in the wrong direction." -- Cleon Last edited by Darth Rotor; 13th October 2009 at 08:00 AM.

13th October 2009, 07:59 AM	#4
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,132	Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

13th October 2009, 08:11 AM	#5
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,712	I think it is a sign of social insanity. Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 13th October 2009 at 08:17 AM.

13th October 2009, 08:14 AM	#6
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here. Is that a "compromise" or a "blasphemy"? For example, if a Christian nurse were prevented from wearing a crucifix around her neck on the ward,.... but was offered a "compromise" of being allowed to wear a Jewish yalmucke (which I've almost certainly misspelled),.... that's not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense of the word. No practicing Christian would accept it as such, and the offer is probably more insulting than the original ban. My understanding is that a kirpan must be a functional weapon to serve its symbolic purpose (allowing a Sikh to act as a defender of others); if this is correct, then the "compromise" is unacceptable and insulting. A more significant question: Is "safety of pupils" really a factor here? Are there any instances in record of a Sikh student using the kirpan to threaten or injure another student (or a staff member)?

13th October 2009, 08:17 AM	#7
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by Aepervius The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ? If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school. So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 08:20 AM	#8
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by Ethnikos I think it is a sign of social insanity. Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri. Well you see a few years ago some men took some rather small knives commonly used to open boxes and used them to hijack planes. So it seems that even small knives can be a serious threat to security in the right situation.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 08:21 AM	#9
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,712	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you. It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment

13th October 2009, 08:23 AM	#10
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 08:23 AM	#11
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Originally Posted by Aepervius The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ? If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school. The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion. The regulation about knives in school is not targeted at any specific religion, and so it seems perfectly appropriate to say, "The school doesn't allow knives," and leave it at that.
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035

13th October 2009, 08:24 AM	#12
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Originally Posted by Ethnikos It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you. ... but not in schools, and certainly not by students in schools.
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035

13th October 2009, 08:30 AM	#13
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: City of Eternal Spring Posts: 8,623	Given that many Sikhs wear a comb with a small shard of metal to symbolize the Kirpan I don't understand the problem. I had a friend at school who did just that. He would pick up the real one to wear when he got home, but didn't usually take it out of the home, except to go to temple. Either this family come from a very orthodox sect, or they're just trying to make a point.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

13th October 2009, 08:36 AM	#15
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: City of Eternal Spring Posts: 8,623	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban. No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety. Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

13th October 2009, 08:37 AM	#16
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion. Er, no. The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

13th October 2009, 08:39 AM	#17
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Originally Posted by drkitten Er, no. The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion. No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty.
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035

13th October 2009, 08:41 AM	#18
Bob Klase Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 2,445	Originally Posted by drkitten The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion. That explains why human sacrifice is still legal.

13th October 2009, 08:59 AM	#19
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,132	I found this on another forum discussing the same issue with regard to health and safety at work - note the parts I have bolded: Quote: The right for Sikhs to carry the Kirpan is enshrined in UK law and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regs 2003 would apply, however, national security and health and safety are pretty much the only areas of law that can 'trump' an equality requirement - so long as there is a genuine justification. Many employers accommodate the religious requirement to carry the Kirpan, balancing the safety issues in each specific role, for example the Met Police Dress Code advises that 'unless precluded by a risk assessment or operational order, items of religious significance may be worn, for example staff who are Sikh may wear the Kara and carry the Kirpan'. I am also aware that some employers have found a win-win solution by supplying a replica Kirpan or Kirpan holder in an alternative non-risk material, in consultation with Sikh employees and community groups. http://www.personneltoday.com/hrspac...ar-a-1367.aspx So it seems that replica kirpans are acceptable to at least a proportion of Sikhs.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

13th October 2009, 09:05 AM	#20
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 7,132	Originally Posted by wollery No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety. Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear. On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. Last edited by Professor Yaffle; 13th October 2009 at 09:14 AM.

13th October 2009, 09:08 AM	#21
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 17,338	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect. Quote: Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment Wrong. Whether or not a law is "directed towards religion" is only one of the three prongs of the Lemon test (q.v.) that determines whether or not a proposed law is acceptable under the First Amendment. The second prong is that the law may not have a "primary effect" (without regard to the intended purpose) of inhibiting religion (or supporting it, for that matter), and the third prong is that the law may not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. To be acceptable, a law must pass all three prongs, not just one. And, furthermore, the standards for review are themselves quite strict; Free Exercise cases are by law judged on a "strict scrutiny" standard, which means no only that they must pass the Lemon test, but that the proposed government measures must be as unrestrictive as possible; if the defense, for example, can establish that another, less restrictive, proposal would also accomplish the government's goals, then the law must be struck down. For example, a rule requiring hard hats has been struck down (I believe in New York) when it was pointed out that nothing about Sikhism prevented the wearing protective gear (such as a hard metal helmet) under the turban. Since it was more restrictive to say "you can't wear a turban" than to say "you can only wear a turban if you have protective gear under it," the New York rule was struck down, and the revised rule mandates merely the wearing of acceptable protective gear.

13th October 2009, 09:12 AM	#22
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Originally Posted by drkitten No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect. No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect. You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives. In the U.S., this rule would not (and has not) run afoul of the First Amendment, which does not protect any religion from unrelated government regulations that have an ancillary effect on religious practice. The idea that this amounts to "making a special exception for religion" is exactly what Lemon and later opinions make it clear you DON'T have to do.
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Last edited by AvalonXQ; 13th October 2009 at 09:14 AM.

13th October 2009, 09:16 AM	#23
Arcade22 Muse Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Västerbotten, Sweden Posts: 543	Originally Posted by Rrose Selavy Well Something's gone mad..... http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...holy-dagger.do There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.
	__________________ Pro gloria et patria Ten subway stops from downtown Stockholm is "little Mogadishu" a drab suburb of the Swedish capital where radical Islamists are said to be recruiting the sons of Somali immigrants for jihad in the Horn of Africa.

13th October 2009, 09:17 AM	#24
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by wollery No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety. Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear. So no bike riding at any school event of any kind I see. Of course this is a child so they can not make such decisions legaly.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 09:19 AM	#25
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,795	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect. You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives. I don't think she is disagreeing with you.
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

13th October 2009, 09:21 AM	#26
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty. Technicaly it is a bit of both. You can not legally hide religious discrimination though things like dress code, unless there is a dirrect need for safety reasons and not to present the immage you want for your company.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 09:22 AM	#27
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 21,723	Originally Posted by Aepervius The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ? If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school. But a jewish kid can't stab you with his beanie. This kid can.
	__________________ "I got to play with (Michael Goudeau's balls) briefly, and they are primo quality. Heavy, soft, and pliant." - Jeff Wagg "You are always so helpful, rational, and polite." - SaulOhio http://www.stopsylvia.com

13th October 2009, 09:23 AM	#29
KingMerv00 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 8,795	Originally Posted by Arcade22 There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country. And if he was born in that country?
	__________________ TEEK on Merv: He really is cute. Not in a tickle-me-Elmo way, either. Cicero: [Ann Coulter] doesn't require defending. Her education, college appearances, and book sales speak for themselves

13th October 2009, 09:23 AM	#30
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 47,708	As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

13th October 2009, 09:26 AM	#31
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035	Originally Posted by Darat As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems.... 1) Generally the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) aren't considered to have been "added later", since they were added politically as part of the process that got the Constitution ratified in the first place. 2) We know that this is a UK event; we've clearly stated "in America", "the American perspective", etc when chiming in with opinions.
AvalonXQ Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 2,035

13th October 2009, 09:28 AM	#33
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I don't think she is disagreeing with you. Techicaly she is, just not about the merits of this particular case, which of course is entirely irrelevent as this case is not in america and so the US constitution has no effect on this at all. But he was making overly broad statements that where incorrect. He got called on it. Rather what you would expect here.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 09:31 AM	#35
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ This is true, and is actually the point of First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. But as here, where the regulation is CLEARLY not hidden discrimination but reasonable safety, the American principle is that religion doesn't get an exemption from a good law. So what, you were not limiting your statements to this case, because the US consitution is totaly irrelevent to this british school. Now such a ban might well pass constitutional muster in the US, but it would not pass for your blanket innitial statement, but because it meets the lemon test. But the existance of the lemon test means that this Quote: The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion. Is an incorrect statement. The constitution does require you to sometimes make a special exception for religion, the situations is covered by the lemon test.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 09:31 AM	#36
Cainkane1 Master Poster Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 2,566	A true Kirpan is a weapon and a tool. You want teenagers to be walking around with a toadstabber on their belt? Some other kid could try to steal it or even forcibly take it from him.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

13th October 2009, 09:34 AM	#37
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Ossining NY Posts: 18,770	Originally Posted by AvalonXQ While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect". It is simplified to the extent that it is wrong. It would be like claiming that the second ammendment means that I can build pipebombs to my hearts content. Any law stopping me would be unconstitutional right? At least at your level of simplification.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

13th October 2009, 09:34 AM	#38
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 11,789	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish. Turbans are not legal replacments for protective headwear, and offer next to zero protection. While Sikhs have specific exemptions from specific acts which means that they do not have to wear protective headgear when riding a motorbike or when working on a construction site, the have no exemption in other areas, such as rock climbing activites etc.
	__________________ ...and the story does suggest a part 2 to the Turing Test: 1. can machines behave like humans? 2. can we?