Teen suspended for religious nose ring

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Teen
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the suspension of 14-year-old Ariana Iacono from Clayton High School for wearing a nose piercing, which she claims is part of her religious expression under the Church of Body Modification. Participants debate whether this church qualifies as a legitimate religion deserving of First Amendment protections. Many argue that the school's dress code is being enforced selectively, with some suggesting that if the church were more widely recognized, the situation would be different. Others contend that the church's legitimacy is questionable, viewing it as a potential loophole to bypass dress codes. The conversation also touches on broader themes of religious freedom, the role of schools in regulating personal expression, and the implications of allowing exceptions to dress codes based on self-identified religious beliefs. Some participants express frustration with perceived double standards in how different religions are treated, while others emphasize the need for consistent application of dress codes across all students. Overall, the thread reflects a complex interplay between individual rights, institutional authority, and the definition of religion in contemporary society.
  • #31
jarednjames said:
The school dress code (uniform) in my school was in place to keep all students equal. So no student would appear less / more well off than any other. No named brands was a new rule recently brought into force.

I don't see the problem with it. I don't think any child should be made to feel bad about their own clothing / jewellery etc just because someone else has all named items or is covered in gold.
Really? I mean school uniforms cost pretty much the same amount as buying fashionable clothing. I think the problem comes when people don't have a 'sense of style' or it's different from the norm. I would never agree to wearing a uniform for school and I would never agree to any student having to wear a uniform to attend school.

This freedom of religion rubbish, is just a way to circumvent the rules. They should have to follow the correct dress code.
Really? So Muslims can't wear religious items, no more turbans, no more cross pendants... no more daggers. Nothing? I'd say I agree because I absolutely hate religion but many people, alas the MAJORITY of people follow religion why should they have to conform what I want them to?

I believe my school banned piercings on health and safety grounds as well.
Really? Maybe it'll get infected and spread a zombie creating virus? Give me a break 'health and safety' my ***. Worst that can happen is it gets pulled out by someone in which case it would probably hurt MORE to walk into those dumbass doors they have that open inwards to the hall (the amount of times I got hit with doors in school... I would know. I've also had an earring pulled out) I mean we're not talkin about shop classes where there are dangerous equipment involved and everyone is required to remove or protect various parts of their body. We're talking about sitting in a classroom learning biology.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Hurkyl said:
Then freedom of religion would be completely meaningless -- there could only be two alternatives:
  • Recognize no religion, and thus the freedom of religion clause protects absolutely nothing
  • Treat absolutely everything (all the way up to murder!) as a religious commandment, and thus the freedom of religion clause protects absolutely everything

(Of course, the right to life, protecting domestic tranquility, and all of that would outweigh the right to religious freedom in the case of murder so it would still be unlawful, but I assume you get the point)

Well certain rights outweigh other rights obviously. I mean you can't say raping children is part of your religious beliefs therefore you can rape children. It doesn't work that way.

This however is a case of favouring OTHER religious beliefs over one another based on the SAME ideas. Namely: Dress code. Why should one religion be given special privlege in regard to their 'religious dress code' over another? It shouldn't.
 
  • #33
zomgwtf said:
Really? Maybe it'll get infected and spread a zombie creating virus? Give me a break 'health and safety' my ***. Worst that can happen is it gets pulled out by someone in which case it would probably hurt MORE to walk into those dumbass doors they have that open inwards to the hall (the amount of times I got hit with doors in school... I would know. I've also had an earring pulled out) I mean we're not talkin about shop classes where there are dangerous equipment involved and everyone is required to remove or protect various parts of their body. We're talking about sitting in a classroom learning biology.
Yes, "we're talking"...

Perhaps we should get some facts about what the concerns really are between the parties before passing judgement.

It's super-easy to convict someone of stupidity if you're the one putting the words in their mouth.
 
  • #34
Hurkyl said:
But nobody's asking you to support that! They're trying to turn the old "you have to let me do _____; my religion I just invented says so!" joke into a reality -- it would be quite irresponsible to support her cause just because you are philosophically opposed to the idea of dress codes.
This argument is moot since this is not a religion someone "just invented".
 
  • #35
Why are you putting quotations around religion... just wondering. Seems unnecessary and as though you're implying something.
Well, a religion that "requires" you to smoke pot and get high seems kind of fishy to me. They should just add a requirement to eat Hot Pockets and play World of Warcraft and my friend can be their god.
Who are we to say 'that's not part of your religious beliefs TAKE IT OFF' but then let all the other people practice what they want comfortably?
Because the laws and rules or dress codes were established for a reason. That reason wasn't to single out a specific religion. If a person is breaking a law or a dress code, then they can go to jail or go to a different school if it's so important to them.
If one religion requires someone to pray before they eat, then there's nothing wrong with that. They can do that until the cows come home, it's not breaking any rules. But if their religious requirement is against the rules, then they can either change their requirement or go somewhere else.
Like I said, if you grant exceptions to some people based on their religion, then everyone else could join in and then you would have everyone breaking the rules. They can just say they're a member of that religion and who are you to tell them they're not?
 
  • #36
Gokul43201 said:
This argument is moot since this is not a "religion I just invented".

Where is the line?
 
  • #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)