Teen suspended for religious nose ring

In summary: Any other position is just small-minded, self-righteous stupidity.In summary, a 14-year-old girl, Ariana Iacono, has been suspended from her non-parochial school for wearing a nose ring, which violates the school's dress code. She belongs to the Church of Body Modification and argues that her freedom of religion is being infringed upon. The legitimacy of this "church" is questioned, as well as the school's authority to dictate what students can wear. Some argue that this is a violation of the girl's religious rights, while others believe it is the school's responsibility to enforce a dress code. However, the school's actions are viewed by some as an abuse of authority and
  • #36
Gokul43201 said:
This argument is moot since this is not a "religion I just invented".

Where is the line?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
DaveC426913 said:
Yes. The implication is that it is not a recognized religion.
I happen to be native. I'm a non-status Metis, from New Brunswick. Mi'kmaq... If I remember correctly I'm not the only one on this board either. (I think turbo was saying something before in chat we had a discussion about it) Anyways, Natives don't view their spiritual beliefs as a 'religion' really relative to say Christianity. IF you looked further into it though you'd see it would qualify as a religion.

Are you saying that if I started following the spiritual ways of my ancestors and wanted to perhaps wear a garment or piece of clothing which I would believe should be protected by freedom of religion that it shouldn't be because my beliefs aren't 'religious enough' or 'recognized'? Recognized by who exactly? I mean other Mi'kmaq certainly recognize my beliefs... other native american tribes certainly would too even though they are different.

As someone pointed out, there is also no requrirement that she wear it all the time, sop no reason why she can't take it off for six hours.

This raises the question of whether anyone is entitled to practice their religion freely and in public at a school just because the feel like it. Also not a given.
This was my entire point. You can't favour one religion over the other. It's either everyone adheres or no one adheres. The way America is set up though is EVERYONE has to adhere to the constituition and the amendments.

OK, then who does?

Somebody has to, otherwise, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2886305&postcount=10".
Good question...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
zomgwtf said:
I happen to be native. I'm a non-status Metis, from New Brunswick. Mi'kmaq... If I remember correctly I'm not the only one on this board either. (I think turbo was saying something before in chat we had a discussion about it) Anyways, Natives don't view their spiritual beliefs as a 'religion' really relative to say Christianity. IF you looked further into it though you'd see it would qualify as a religion.

Are you saying that ...
Nope!

Nice straw man though.
 
  • #39
zomgwtf said:
This was my entire point. You can't favour one religion over the other. It's either everyone adheres or no one adheres. The way America is set up though is EVERYONE has to adhere to the constituition and the amendments.
But first it has to be recognized as a religion. Unless it is, all arguments based on religious equity are completely moot. Full stop.
 
  • #40
Anything and everything is a religion. If it does not require proof, if it relies on belief and offers answers to the origin and purpose of life without any proof, then it is religion.
 
  • #41
DaveC426913 said:
Where is the line?
No need to look for a line. You're focusing on the "just" instead of the "I". The person involved is not the one that started (invented) the religion, so it doesn't matter whether it was just invented or not so just invented.
 
  • #42
DaveC426913 said:
But first it has to be recognized as a religion. Unless it is, all arguments based on religious equity are completely moot. Full stop.

I don't recall that being part of any constituition. Citation?
 
  • #43
DaveC426913 said:
Nope!

Nice straw man though.

It's not a strawman . It was implied that Native spirtuality is not a 'religion' based on the fact that they smoke different herbs etc.. I was just drawing it out to what this entire thread is about: Dress codes and asking a question about it.

You first say that it's being implied it's not a religion... you then go to say that non-recognized religions don't deserve protection under freedom of religion. So it MUST be implied that if I were to want to wear something breaking the dress code but part of my native spirtual ancestory (had I believed it) to school that I could be suspended and not protected.

This is NOT strawman.
 
  • #44
DaveC426913 said:
But first it has to be recognized as a religion.
I don't think there is a state division of religious practices that issues religion licenses to recognized religions. Bottom line is that the credibility of a religion is not relevant, the government has asserted the right to regulate behaviors, regardless of the possible impact on religious practices.
 
  • #45
Anyways:
Is the Church real?
Usually, when people talk about a church being real or “Federally recognized,” they are talking about two things – incorporation as a non-profit entity doing business within a particular state, and a tax-exempt status from the IRS as a non-profit entity. In both of these ways, yes, the Church is real.
So I guess it IS a moot point. This school is violating this girls right to freedom of religion. Isn't it? I mean this looks to me likie it's a religion... what qualifies as 'reocngized religion'. Is there a sign up sheet?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
In the US, there is nothing that protects the practicing of religious rituals; the only protection you have is to freely believe whatever goodness or kookiness your religion preaches.
 
  • #47
Wait a minute.. serious question here.

Can I start a Church that believes in Darwinism, the scientific method, promotes contraceptives and fund raising for research, and allows its members to use psychoactive substances for spiritual growth?

Also since it is tax-exempt, technically any donations I make are tax-deductible?
 
  • #48
cronxeh said:
Anything and everything is a religion. If it does not require proof, if it relies on belief and offers answers to the origin and purpose of life without any proof, then it is religion.
So says you.

The key word is 'recognized'.


Gokul43201 said:
No need to look for a line. You're focusing on the "just" instead of the "I". The person involved is not the one that started (invented) the religion, so it doesn't matter whether it was just invented or not so just invented.
No. OK, my friend invented the 'don't do homework assignments' religion, not me. Now I can claim etc. etc. '

Organizations are not obliged to recognize something a religion just because someone says so.


zomgwtf said:
I don't recall that being part of any constituition. Citation?
It says freedom of religion. Things that are not religion are not included in the rights of the constitution.

Again, if it's not recognized, then the Constitution does not apply.


zomgwtf said:
It's not a strawman . It was implied that Native spirtuality is not a 'religion' based on the fact that they smoke different herbs etc.. I was just drawing it out to what this entire thread is about: Dress codes and asking a question about it.

You first say that it's being implied it's not a religion... you then go to say that non-recognized religions don't deserve protection under freedom of religion. So it MUST be implied that if I were to want to wear something breaking the dress code but part of my native spirtual ancestory (had I believed it) to school that I could be suspended and not protected.

This is NOT strawman.
If it's not a strawman then you don't need to drag it to a place where you feel your argument is stronger or more personal. Stick with the example under discussion.

This is an academic discussion; I am not about to argue it as a personal matter. And neither should you.
 
  • #49
Gokul43201 said:
In the US, there is nothing that protects the practicing of religious rituals; the only protection you have is to freely believe whatever goodness or kookiness your religion preaches.
Exactly.
 
  • #50
zomgwtf said:
It's not a strawman . It was implied that Native spirtuality is not a 'religion' based on the fact that they smoke different herbs etc..

Ah. I see the problem, and it is me.

I had to follow the thread all the way back - but leroy was indeed disparaging the native religion. ("...can't get high anymore..."). I thought he was disparaging the CoBM, which I continue to claim is not recognized.

The rest of our exchange followed from that mistake of mine. All rescinded. Apologies zomgwtf.
 
  • #51
What about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jediism

Can I bring a light-sabre to class? Even if it breaks the dress code? I mean this one IS recognized. We all know that Jedi can't leave home without their lightsabre.
 
  • #52
DaveC426913 said:
But first it has to be recognized as a religion. Unless it is, all arguments based on religious equity are completely moot. Full stop.
Dave, I think you are confusing being tax exempt by the IRS under section 501(C)(3). Are you saying that a religion has to have US Tax exemption in order to be recognized? There are actually no US rules that I can find on what makes a religion "recognized", just rules for tax exemption.

According to what I read in the article, apparently this "religion" is tax exempt. It really doesn't take much to qualify.
 
  • #53
DaveC426913 said:
Ah. I see the problem, and it is me.

...

The rest of our exchange followed from that mistake of mine. All rescinded. Apologies zomgwtf.

Well now you will NEVER be a pundit!
 
  • #54
Here's the "ring."
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Nikki-Iacono-left-and-daughter-Ariana-Iacono-14-pose-photograph/photo//100916/480/urn_publicid_ap_org7a36133f126448019de353a56fd996a4//s:/ap/us_rel_piercing_church
And if it is really the tiny stud that the school is fretting over then, it must be down south.

yep.

I was picturing an actual "ring" as in through the nose, like a bull. It's a stud.

I still say the "Church" is bogus and detracts from her cause. I also still hold (I'm a HS teacher remember) that when 2000+ students are watched over by 100- adults (and about half of them are useless in maintaining order), things go much easier when there are clearly defined lines.

I believe that there are grey areas everywhere in every consideration (Ayn Rand is quite wrong there), but when there are so many minors, so close together, you must maintain a line. An "anything goes" philosophy works fine in smaller settings, like those great "unschooling" schools with 25 students and 3 teachers.

That being said, you also need to pick your battles, and if this is the line the school pursued, then everything else must be Hunky Dory? I wish our school had the luxury of "Problem: Nose Ring!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
I'm just gnna say I do believe it's completely rediculous that this girl can claim religious freedom in wearing her nose piercing but I think it's only fair.

I do not think that the government has the right to get involved in what is or is not a religion. I mean it's their fault for setting it up in such a way that it's so easy to be taken advantage of. (not saying that's what this girl is doing) In my opinion there should be no special exemptions given to any religion. No political correctness should be given to any religion either. People can be free to believe what they want to believe that's a fundamental right, we're not going to start invoking thought crimes and such. That's as far as it should go though. Muslims shouldn't be allowed to wear religious garments in school and neither should the rest of the religions if it's against the rules. If they want they are MORE than welcome to set up their OWN school board with their OWN rules and send their kids there.

However, I find it completely rediculous that this girl is not allowed to have a nose piercing anyways. Do they also ban tattoes? What about ear piercings are those allowed?
 
  • #56
DaveC426913 said:
No. OK, my friend invented the 'don't do homework assignments' religion, not me. Now I can claim etc. etc. '
That is a related, but different argument. My point was specifically that the stated argument was moot.

But really, I don't see how a 'don't do homework' religion that someone invented is all that much worse than a 'women should be subservient to their husbands' religion that someone else invented, or a 'xyz belongs to a lower caste than abc' religion that yet someone else did.

Organizations are not obliged to recognize something a religion just because someone says so.
No, they are not. They only recognize religions that have enough people as adherents that it would hurt their interests to antagonize a large bloc of the market/electorate.
 
  • #57
Hurkyl said:
Ah, a 'witty' sound bite. I'm convinced!

Wow! You're easy.

How do you figure it doesn't matter? The following two are very, very different things:
  1. Opposing the legality of dress codes
  2. Expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause

Rallying behind someone pushing for the second doesn't do anything for the first.

It is a matter of the greater imperative. Given the most significant argument of personal rights, the latter becomes moot.
 
  • #58
The fallacy is in presenting this argument as a function of truth. No one can prove that any religious beliefs are fact, but that doesn't matter. It is a more basic question of liberty. Do we have the right to live and believe as we each see fit, or not [provided that we don't violate someone else's rights]?

If I wish to believe that frogs are holy, do I have that right or not?
 
  • #59
Ivan Seeking said:
If I wish to believe that frogs are holy, do I have that right or not?

Does that give you the right to bring a toad to school for the purpose of licking to get high? Probably not
 
  • #60
Office_Shredder said:
Does that give you the right to bring a toad to school for the purpose of licking to get high? Probably not

So why can schools pick and choose which religious beliefs are able to be adhered to in the school? This seems extremely unfair to the minority beliefs.

As well people really need to quit dragging it off course. We're talking specifically about dress codes not getting high or murdering people.

If his religion to do with frogs being holy required him to wear a dried out frog as a necklace does the school have the right to say no? (I've seen someone wearing this on the bus it was the most freaky thing I have ever seen and it was freaking HUGE)
 
  • #61
zomgwtf said:
So why can schools pick and choose which religious beliefs are able to be adhered to in the school? This seems extremely unfair to the minority beliefs.
The issue is not about discriminating between religions. The issue is that nose jewelry is against the school's dress code. The student is protesting saying that she is exempt from the dress code because of her religion. Of course that is bogus, the school doesn't disallow her from having her nose pierced, she just can't wear jewelry in her nose while in school, just like every other student is prohibited.
 
  • #62
Ivan Seeking said:
It is a matter of the greater imperative. Given the most significant argument of personal rights, the latter becomes moot.
Huh? :confused:
 
  • #63
Evo said:
The issue is not about descriminating between religions. The issue is that nose jewelry is against the school's dress code. The student is protesting saying that she is exempt from the dress code because of her religion. Of course that is bogus, the school doesn't disallow her from having her nose pierced, she just can't wear jewelry in her nose while in school, just like every other student is prohibited.

Not true, the articles state that it would have been different had she been Muslim or Hindu.
 
  • #64
zomgwtf said:
Not true, the articles state that it would have been different had she been Muslim or Hindu.
That's what she claims, but that's not the grounds on which her complaint is based with the ACLU. So it's not the issue.
 
  • #65
Evo said:
Dave, I think you are confusing being tax exempt by the IRS under section 501(C)(3). Are you saying that a religion has to have US Tax exemption in order to be recognized? There are actually no US rules that I can find on what makes a religion "recognized"...

That's kind of my point. If there are no rules claiming anyone has to recognize it as a religion, then no one is breaking any rules by not recognizing it so.

The question then becomes: why does anyone have to recognize any belief system as a relgion?

At some point, someone has to define what is a religion from what isn't.
 
  • #66
DaveC426913 said:
That's kind of my point. If there are no rules claiming anyone has to recognize it as a religion, then no one is breaking any rules by not recognizing it so.

The question then becomes: why does anyone have to recognize any belief system as a relgion?

At some point, someone has to define what is a religion from what isn't.
I would agree with you.
 
  • #67
Hurkyl said:
Huh? :confused:

1). When we violate basic liberties, we create problems like this one.

2). The answer to this problem is, there is no logically consistent argument that can applied here => See rule one
 
  • #68
Ivan Seeking said:
1). When we violate basic liberties, we create problems like this one.
For the sake of this particular mini-argument, I have no problem assuming that dress codes violate basic liberties.

But I cannot see how that has any relevance towards your support of expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause.


2). The answer to this problem is, there is no logically consistent argument that can applied here => See rule one
I can make even less sense of this than I could your previous post.
 
  • #69
Hurkyl said:
For the sake of this particular mini-argument, I have no problem assuming that dress codes violate basic liberties.

But I cannot see how that has any relevance towards your support of expanding the scope of the freedom of religion clause.
I believe Ivan's argument is that he would rather support expanding the scope of the separation clause, than support violating basic liberties through dress codes.

From me: I don't believe anyone here has made explicit what the present scope of the freedom of religion clause is. Would you?
 
  • #70
I don't think our founding fathers took into consideration that some rituals or customs associated with certain religions would break any laws or rules.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top