School district allows religous daggers!!

[Nova]

But you are a steadfast supporter of Muslim rights. Muslim's freedom of religion.
But now all religious beliefs are dangerous "delusions". I'm done with the conversation.

That is BEYOND crazy to me.

People have a right to their delusions. I've never said otherwise. I've also never denied that I have religious beliefs of my own, which many people would consider delusional.

That doesn't mean 10-year-olds have a right to carry weapons at school.

And that doesn't mean I am obligated to pretend a belief based on a leap of faith is a fact based on empirical evidence. That's true whether we are talking about Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Wiccans or myself.

If there is a contradiction here, please feel free to point it out to me.

 

[legalmaniac]

GREAT POST, needs repeating. LOL. So, they can fly on planes, without the dagger 'cause they couldn't otherwise? LOL again. Wow, how convenient to their God-given rules, LOL.

**********************************************

Exactly.......If they can change there rules because they want to go on vacation/do business, they can change their rules if they want their kids to attend public schools.

 

[eve]

This has come up in my area as well, a couple of years ago. I did some research at the time, and some of the local Sikh leaders were interviewed in the paper. (There was also a case of a Sikh girl running away and being reported missing to avoid an arranged, forced marriage, but I digress).

The point these folks were making is that wearing the knife is part of their faith, and that part of their faith includes both having the knife available for self defense AND for the defense of innocent third parties who are attacked. Their faith tells them they must have it, it must be useful as a knife (i.e. sharpened) and they must be able to draw it and use it in situations their faith considers appropriate. They also rely on the teachings of that same faith to not draw it when not appropriate, but a physical barrier would violate what they believe to be their religious duty.

To your point about a safe place to learn as being the high level concept, I really don't have a problem with someone who is a member of this faith carrying their dagger to school, under the presumption that advancing in the faith to the point where the dagger should be carried goes along with the education on when it may be used and when it may not. From what I understand of that teaching it's in line with my beliefs - I have various weapons, I'll use them for defense but never for aggression.

My point, which I don't make very clearly, is that safety in the schools does not come from the absence of weapons in a student's clothes, rather, it comes from the absence of malice in a student's mind. When I was in high school, which was a long time ago, I would bring guns to school so I could go target shooting with my friends afterward. I'd leave them in my car, but it was a small private school and I could have had them in 5 minutes if I wanted to. But not a single person on that campus was at risk because I had those guns in my car, because I had no intention or desire to hurt anyone. But now we have kids suspended or expelled for bringing a small knife to school in their lunch because it's a knife, not because it's used to harm or threaten anyone.

Now, to be consistent, if the Sikhs wear the dagger because their faith requires them to keep themselves safe and defended, and the school allows it, there is no basis on which to deny any student the ability to carry whatever they feel they need to be safe and defended. So should my daughter be allowed to pack a .357 to school if the Sikh kids have daggers? If not, why? Can I say it's a religious belief? Sure I can - one I came up with this afternoon. It's my religion, don't you start persecuting me for being a religious minority!

Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.​

My opinions, which along with $7.95 will get you a cup of coffee at any Starbucks:

--Don't worry about the daggers;
--Don't worry about plastic knives, water pistols, kids with Tylenol or anything like that;
--Get rid of all this "Zero Tolerance" crap and let people use their brains
--Allow teachers to expel kids who threaten or bully other students - whether with weapons, fists or words.

Yes, I feel better now.

Agree with every word. Thank you Addie. I am a teacher of some pretty tough characters. We "had" to suspend a kid once for drawing pictures of swords on his notebooks. Another for fashioning a gun out of clay. This was part of our wonderful "zero tolerance" policy and the principal threw in a "terroristic threats" charge for good measure. It made me sick. Erroneous precedent and a lack of reasoning -- it disturbs me.

Mine are 9-12 at-risk kids. Luckily most of them have my back, but I have seen a look in a few kids' eyes over the years that made me ask for an escort out to my car and feel great relief when my tires weren't slashed. I probably tried to make them read out loud in class or something.

Don't tell anyone, but I sometimes "forget" I have a steak knife in my drawer I used for leftovers during lunch one day about 4 years ago.

Eve

 

[legalmania]

What happened to separation of church and state? The word dagger and school, don't belong in the same sentence. This opinion was argued, was passed down, there should be no exceptions.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

 

[legalmaniac]

The arguement is about individual rights....and the right to practice their religion, not about seperation of church and state.

Seperation of church and state is the issue in taking away prayer from the classroom and Christmas celebrations becoming 'winter holiday' concerts....forcing one religion on all students

 

[Nova]

The arguement is about individual rights....and the right to practice their religion, not about seperation of church and state.

Seperation of church and state is the issue in taking away prayer from the classroom and Christmas celebrations becoming 'winter holiday' concerts....forcing one religion on all students

Again, nobody is stopping students from praying, nor can they. What is banned is teacher-led (i.e., government-sponsored) prayer.

Nobody is stopping churches from celebrating Christmas. The use of terms such as "winter holiday" simply recognizes that some people are celebrating Chanukah, some are celebrating Ramadan, Kwanzaa, the Winter Solstice, etc.

How does this force "one religion on all students"?

 

[txsvicki]

President Bush had the perfect solution, the voucher system, which he couldn't get passed. We need more free options besides the public school system. That way different churches and groups could get accredited and start their own schools. I'd much rather mine go to school with like minded teachers and kids. They can know now to be tolerant, but learn about different beliefs when they're older. They all just need to be protected and safe for now without losing all their rights. Public school seems like it's becoming a troubled ineffective old fashioned monopoly that needs to change asap.

 

[Nova]

President Bush had the perfect solution, the voucher system, which he couldn't get passed. We need more free options besides the public school system. That way different churches and groups could get accredited and start their own schools. I'd much rather mine go to school with like minded teachers and kids. They can know now to be tolerant, but learn about different beliefs when they're older. They all just need to be protected and safe for now without losing all their rights. Public school seems like it's becoming a troubled ineffective old fashioned monopoly that needs to change asap.

I don't believe any child learns tolerance from going to school only with children like him or herself.

I think all children should go to public schools, which isn't to say public schools don't need plenty of work. But under the current system, parents with sufficient money can simply abandon the public school system and educate their own kids in private.

If the children of the rich had to attend public school alongside the children of the poor, public schools would improve in a New York minute.

None of this will ever happen, needless to say.

 

[Pandora]

President Bush had the perfect solution, the voucher system, which he couldn't get passed. We need more free options besides the public school system. That way different churches and groups could get accredited and start their own schools. I'd much rather mine go to school with like minded teachers and kids. They can know now to be tolerant, but learn about different beliefs when they're older. They all just need to be protected and safe for now without losing all their rights. Public school seems like it's becoming a troubled ineffective old fashioned monopoly that needs to change asap.

Keep in mind that many private Christian schools have already stated clearly that they will NOT take any vouchers because the minute they do, the government can dictate to them what they can and cannot do. PA is trying to get vouchers passed into law under Senate Bill 1, but the politicians aren't getting the message from the private schools. Not everyone wants tax money.

 

[bessie]

What happened to separation of church and state? The word dagger and school, don't belong in the same sentence. This opinion was argued, was passed down, there should be no exceptions.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html

If separation of church and state is the argument used to prohibit students from wearing kirpan in public schools, then crucifixes and stars of David worn on chains around the necks of christian and jewish children must also be banned. Would you support banishing all religious symbols in public schools?

I've stayed away from this discussion because I have no school age children or grandchildren, and am generally reluctant to express opinions about matters in which I am not subjected to the consequences. Had I been faced with the issue of children wearing the kirpan when my son was in school, I'd like to believe that I would've given it a nod. On the other hand, I was a very protective mom, so I surely would have had some concerns. If the swords are banned, the action should rest on the issue of safety, imo, and left to individual communities to decide.

 

[Nova]

If separation of church and state is the argument used to prohibit students from wearing kirpan in public schools, then crucifixes and stars of David worn on chains around the necks of christian and jewish children must also be banned. Would you support banishing all religious symbols in public schools?

I've stayed away from this discussion because I have no school age children or grandchildren, and am generally reluctant to express opinions about matters in which I am not subjected to the consequences. Had I been faced with the issue of children wearing the kirpan when my son was in school, I'd like to believe that I would've given it a nod. On the other hand, I was a very protective mom, so I surely would have had some concerns. If the swords are banned, the action should rest on the issue of safety, imo, and left to individual communities to decide.

I don't agree with your logic. No one is saying ALL symbols of the Sikh religion be banned, just weapons. If Christians wore swords as symbolic salutes to the Crusades, if Jewish kids carried Uzis in support of Israel, those would be banned as well.

And as I've said before, only usable daggers should be included in the prohibition. Cloth replicas or the tiny, symbolic imitations already worn by thousands of Sikhs should be allowed and are, I believe, constitutionally protected.

 

[RoseRed]

I don't believe any child learns tolerance from going to school only with children like him or herself.

I think all children should go to public schools, which isn't to say public schools don't need plenty of work. But under the current system, parents with sufficient money can simply abandon the public school system and educate their own kids in private.

If the children of the rich had to attend public school alongside the children of the poor, public schools would improve in a New York minute.

None of this will ever happen, needless to say.

I am a long way from rich and my children went to a Christian Academy. It was our choice and do not regret it for a NY minute.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I am a long way from rich and my children went to a Christian Academy. It was our choice and do not regret it for a NY minute.

You have to do what is best for your children. For many families it takes a lot of sacrifice. But, the way schools are now sometimes it's a must if you want your children to get a good education.
We are very fortunate that our schools in my small town are community schools. We have our own school system and the support of the entire community. So our schools are better funded than most private schools.

People may think kids need to go to public schools to learn tolerance and other ways of life. But, they often learn MUCH more than what they should.

I think a good Christian academy is a great choice for families who want their children to get a good education in a morally acceptable environment.

Public schools are often not a place you want to send your children. :smile:

JMO

 

[CaseyLPC]

The comments at the bottom of that article are especially good, many pointing out how students can't pray, wear religious t-shirts, etc, or how "under God" was taken out of the pledge of allegiance... and yet others are not only allowed to openly display their religion, but bring a weapon to school for it!

BBM
Just for clarification sake, the words "under God" were not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, they were added in 1954 during one of the 4 modifications to the pledge.

That being said, no gun, knife, or other obvious weapon should be allowed in our schools.

 

[legalmaniac]

Again, nobody is stopping students from praying, nor can they. What is banned is teacher-led (i.e., government-sponsored) prayer.

Nobody is stopping churches from celebrating Christmas. The use of terms such as "winter holiday" simply recognizes that some people are celebrating Chanukah, some are celebrating Ramadan, Kwanzaa, the Winter Solstice, etc.

How does this force "one religion on all students"?

******************************************

I didn't say it did.

I was correcting legalmania who said this was a seperation of church and state issue......it is NOT

Legalmania said this:
What happened to separation of church and state? The word dagger and school, don't belong in the same sentence. This opinion was argued, was passed down, there should be no exceptions.

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_reli.html __________________

So I replied:
The arguement is about individual rights....and the right to practice their religion, not about seperation of church and state.

Seperation of church and state is the issue in taking away prayer from the classroom and Christmas celebrations becoming 'winter holiday' concerts....forcing one religion on all students/COLOR]

 

[Nova]

Of course, the First Amendment is at issue here. Without it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The kirpans would be banned.

The issue is whether the student's right to carry a dagger as an act of religious devotion outweighs the right of all students to be safe from weapons at school. I say no. Others disagree.

 

[legalmaniac]

If the US government bans kirpans in the whole country, THEN it is a first ammendment issue. No one is saying anyone can't have a kirpan. Some schools are saying you can't have one IN THAT SCHOOL. People who want to carry a kirpan can go to a different school or be homeschooled.

If I am a Neopagan, I embrace free love and public nudity. I would be free to do that.....in my home, the home of a friend, at my place of worship, or at a nudist colony. I can't do it at the local mall or my town center.

 

[Trino]

How long will it be before some kid shows up pretending for a religious reason he's wearing this, especially a gang member? I taught school in a questionable area, and had students (female) who would show up to school wearing a scarf, saying they were Muslim. Caps and scarfs were prohibited unless worn for a religious reason. The girls I mentioned were definitely not Muslim.

 

[Trino]

BBM
Just for clarification sake, the words "under God" were not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, they were added in 1954 during one of the 4 modifications to the pledge.

That being said, no gun, knife, or other obvious weapon should be allowed in our schools.

And, they were added mostly as an anti-communist idea. So, we have the communists to thank for "Under God," as well as the interstate road system - for better troop movement when the attack by the Soviets would come, of course (LOL).

 

[Nova]

If the US government bans kirpans in the whole country, THEN it is a first ammendment issue. No one is saying anyone can't have a kirpan. Some schools are saying you can't have one IN THAT SCHOOL. People who want to carry a kirpan can go to a different school or be homeschooled.

If I am a Neopagan, I embrace free love and public nudity. I would be free to do that.....in my home, the home of a friend, at my place of worship, or at a nudist colony. I can't do it at the local mall or my town center.

The kirpan is a religious symbol and any prohibition of it is a First Amendment issue. It doesn't have to be banned coast-to-coast for the First Amendment to apply.

Whether the First Amendment right to freedom of religion trumps other rights, such as the right of children to be safe in school, is what we are discussing. No right is absolute. Courts have rules that the right of freedom of religion, like the right of freedom of speech, may be limited when it conflicts with other rights.

Likewise, if you can convince a court that your Neopagan nudity is an act of religious expression, then where and when you will be allowed to practice nudity will be a First Amendment issue. My guess is the courts will restrict your right to be nude in public, but I'll admit public nudity as religious expression isn't an issue I care enough about to research.