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.
  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #71
Gokul43201 said:
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.
It is?

If so, it would be a fallacy of the excluded middle -- one has the option of opposing (or just being agnostic towards) both dress codes and the cause this girl/the media is trying to push.

But Ivan already rejected that option.


From me: I don't believe anyone here has made explicit what the present scope of the freedom of religion clause is. Would you?
I don't have the training. :smile:

My argument with Ivan so far hasn't gotten past pure principle -- the specific extent of the scope is too fine of a detail to be relevant.


Incidentally, I get the impression that most of the people in the thread think that this situation is beyond the scope, or are trying to defend the cartoon that everything should be covered. But if someone were to make a passably coherent, non-cartoonish argument that this situation is covered, I probably wouldn't have much to say one way or the other on the argument.
 
  • #72
Hurkyl said:
I don't have the training. :smile:
Let me try a different question, if you'll humor me. I gather from your earlier post that you consider the CoBM to lie outside the scope of a religion that the Constitution protects. Why?
 
  • #73
There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.
 
  • #74
Gokul43201 said:
Let me try a different question, if you'll humor me. I gather from your earlier post that you consider the CoBM to lie outside the scope of a religion that the Constitution protects. Why?
A combination of "I know it when I see it" and the compelling similarity to the jokes that went around in my youth about founding a religion that preaches X just so you could claim religious freedom whenever anyone else says not X.

It's enough to satisfy myself. It's not enough to be relevant to any deep discussion on the issue.
 
  • #75
cristo said:
There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.
Umm, the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING. Going by the case law (see, for example Tinker v. Des Moines) the school would have to demonstrate a good reason (health related reasons, for instance) for regulating freedom of expression.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Gokul43201 said:
... the school would have to demonstrate a good reason (health related reasons, for instance) for regulating freedom of expression.

They regulate freedom of expression every day - with dress codes.
 
  • #77
I personally regulated one young fella's freedom of expression when he told me to "F off" right in my face, right after I interfered with his freedom of free assembly when I told him and the rest of the clot that were blocking my classroom door to move along.
 
  • #78
Chi Meson said:
I personally regulated one young fella's freedom of expression when he told me to "F off" right in my face, right after I interfered with his freedom of free assembly when I told him and the rest of the clot that were blocking my classroom door to move along.
:smile:

Obviously schools must have dress codes. Many schools have banned gang related clothing, even banning things like shoes with Nike and other popular logos (read that the other day). I mean, I might not want to wear shoes in public places, but most places don't allow you in if you are barefoot.
 
  • #79
DaveC426913 said:
They regulate freedom of expression every day - with dress codes.
And many dress codes have been successfully challenged and overturned by courts.

If challenged, the school would have to demonstrate that their choice of dress code is based on their ability to "reasonably forecast that the student expression [beyond that code] would cause substantial disruption or material interference with school activities or would invade the rights of others".

A more lenient test is sometimes used by courts, which requires only that the purpose of the specific dress code may be anything that is shown to be promoting the common good, so long as it is not specifically aimed at restricting free expression.

See, for example: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
Evo said:
:smile:

Obviously schools must have dress codes. Many schools have banned gang related clothing, even banning things like shoes with Nike and other popular logos (read that the other day). I mean, I might not want to wear shoes in public places, but most places don't allow you in if you are barefoot.

To be honest, I don't know why you'd ban logos, unless you were a total snob school... my school was very liberal about that. Probably because there were no real gangs in Spokane Valley. You could wear pretty much anything in my wardrobe.
 
  • #81
cristo said:
There is clearly a reason for the school to impose this rule (maybe health and safety). I don't see why the first amendment would trump such a practical reason.
I believe it is primarily a matter of the administration (adults) imposing on students conformity to an arbitrary and specious rule (adolescents or children). It seems to be an example of the age-old authoritarianism, as was the case when I went to school.

On the other hand, I imagine the appeal to religion is equally specious.

I doubt a nose ring is distracting to the function of learning in the classroom.

We had to deal with non-uniform dress codes when I was in junior and senior high schools. Each school had its own dress code, and some were more tolerant of long hair on males than others - some schools (mine) allowed, others prohibited it - and the later might suspend a male student for long hair. One of my university mates had to wear a short hair wig to conceal his long hair.
 
  • #82
Astronuc said:
I believe it is primarily a matter of the administration (adults) imposing on students conformity to an arbitrary and specious rule (adolescents or children). It seems to be an example of the age-old authoritarianism, as was the case when I went to school.
I can definitely see the need for dress codes in a school. One kid is wearing something that another kid makes a derogatory comment about, another kid steps in, then more. You just do not need to add that kind of potential conflict into a group of kids that are there for an education. A school is not the place where a kid needs to show off their individual clothing and jewelry.
 
  • #83
OK, can someone clarify for me (not being from the US), what does the Freedom of Religion section of the amendment actually cover?

Is it simply that people are allowed to believe what they want? Or does it, as I suspect it doesn't, say that people are allowed to practice any religion they want, and carry out any practices relating?

If it does say the latter, where do you draw the line? If my new religion said I was allowed to take illegal substances and had to sacrifice someone during a full moon, would that be accepted and protected? If that isn't protected by Freedom of Religion, why do other laws / rules trump these situations but not that of the nose ring?

Telling someone they can't wear a nose ring because it is against the rules of the school would then be no more unconstitutional than telling someone they can't take drugs.

I know they are on slightly different ends of the spectrum so far as doing wrong goes, but they are still using the same Freedom of Religion.

Can someone clarify this point to me?
 
  • #84
Evo said:
I can definitely see the need for dress codes in a school. One kid is wearing something that another kid makes a derogatory comment about, another kid steps in, then more. You just do not need to add that kind of potential conflict into a group of kids that are there for an education. A school is not the place where a kid needs to show off their individual clothing and jewelry.
I really don't the students cared much about what people wore - at least not at my school. There was occasionaly conflicts between social groups - but not about dress.

We did have a crack down on girls wearing short skirts, short shorts and halter tops. I was only mildly distracted when the girl one seat ahead of me in the row to my right would lean forward and expose her left breast. I couldn't help but look because to see the teath or the chalk board, I had to look in that direction. I didn't mind, and she'd just smile. :biggrin: She was quite attractive and popular, so I figured she had a boyfriend, so I didn't think about her.
 
  • #85
jarednjames said:
OK, can someone clarify for me (not being from the US), what does the Freedom of Religion section of the amendment actually cover?

Is it simply that people are allowed to believe what they want? Or does it, as I suspect it doesn't, say that people are allowed to practice any religion they want, and carry out any practices relating?

If it does say the latter, where do you draw the line? If my new religion said I was allowed to take illegal substances and had to sacrifice someone during a full moon, would that be accepted and protected? If that isn't protected by Freedom of Religion, why do other laws / rules trump these situations but not that of the nose ring?

Telling someone they can't wear a nose ring because it is against the rules of the school would then be no more unconstitutional than telling someone they can't take drugs.

I know they are on slightly different ends of the spectrum so far as doing wrong goes, but they are still using the same Freedom of Religion.

Can someone clarify this point to me?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is subject to interpretation by the courts, and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.
 
  • #86
I think one key point of this thread is that dress codes are often set aside for religious purposes. We had a "no hats" rule when I was in high school, but Jews were allowed to wear their yarmulkes.

Whether or not using drugs is protected by religion is completely irrelevant to this thread. Exceptions to school dress codes are ALREADY ALLOWED for religious purpose.

It only boils down to what is a religion, and who gets to determine it. Any talk about drugs or murder is completely off topic.
 
  • #87
Jack21222 said:
I think one key point of this thread is that dress codes are often set aside for religious purposes. We had a "no hats" rule when I was in high school, but Jews were allowed to wear their yarmulkes.

Whether or not using drugs is protected by religion is completely irrelevant to this thread. Exceptions to school dress codes are ALREADY ALLOWED for religious purpose.

It only boils down to what is a religion, and who gets to determine it. Any talk about drugs or murder is completely off topic.

The CoBM is an established church in America, and she claims to belong to it. That's good enough for me.
 
  • #88
Astronuc said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It is subject to interpretation by the courts, and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.

OK, so what the section of the above I see affecting this situation I have highlighted. Aside from that area, there is no other way this violates this ruling.

Now it does say it is open to the interpretation of the courts. Which I see could produce one of the following outcomes:

1) The court agree she can wear the nose ring, but would then have to grant that right to all other religions in order to avoid discrimination against other religions (leaving only those who do not conform to a religion to follow the dress code - discriminating against non-religious types? Or would they simply say hang the dress code for everyone?)
2) The court decide she cannot wear the nose ring on the grounds of religion and therefore must adhere to the dress code. This ruling would also have to be extended to all other religious groups to avoid discrimination. (Everyone ends up following the dress code, all is fair).

Personally, option 2 is the most straight forward and presents the least problems as far as I'm concerned.

Just as a side note:
It says "and it could be repealed if a certain majority voted to do so.", which means the constitution can be overturned if the majority want it. Just thought I'd bring this up as it has come up in a number of threads regarding 'majority rule' with people saying the constitution cannot be simply overturned because the majority of the population want it - which it clearly can be as it says here. Also, it shows that majority rule could overthrow this section of the constitution and then allow congress to create a law banning burqas - again, from another thread but this shows that the majority can vote to change the constitution and so ban the burqa, and by doing so they make it perfectly legal and not against the constitutional rights of anyone - because they've changed them.
 
  • #89
Char. Limit said:
The CoBM is an established church in America, and she claims to belong to it. That's good enough for me.
Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from *PUBLIC* schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules, if we really want to follow separation of church and state. Of course, that's how I personally feel about it.
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Evo said:
Good enough for what? You think that dress codes should not apply universally to all students equally or that they should? Should we abolish all religion affiliated trappings from PUBLIC schools? Religion has no place in a tax payer funded public school and a person's religion should not trump school rules.

Exactly, as I showed above. To rule religions can be allowed to override rules such as dress code simply discriminates against non-religious. But that's ok of course because the constitution allows it.