Teen suspended for religious nose ring

[Evo]

The teenager, Ariana Iacono, belongs to the Church of Body Modification. Should "religious" items of clothing and jewelry be forbidden in non-parochial schools?

A soft-spoken 14-year-old's nose piercing has landed her a suspension from school and forced her into the middle of a fight over her First Amendment right to exercise her religion.

Ariana Iacono says she just wants to be a normal teenager at Clayton High School, about 15 miles southeast of Raleigh. She has been suspended since last week because her nose ring violates the Johnston County school system's dress code.

"I think it's kind of stupid for them to kick me out of school for a nose piercing," she said. "It's in the First Amendment for me to have freedom of religion."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rel_piercing_church

 

[BishopUser]

"Church of body modification"? This is kind of like that time I tried to convince my teachers I was joining the "church of beer" - didn't go over quite so well.

I think if she was hindi or some other widely known/respected religion, the school would have had no problem with her claim. I think the issue is whether or not the "church of body modification" is a legitimate religion or is it just a (not so) clever method to get religious exemptions whenever piercings are against the dress code.

The wiki page says the church has approximately 3500 members in the US. At first look it doesn't seem like a very legitimate religion in my opinion.

 

[cronxeh]

I wonder if they can use peyote in their practices for 'spiritual' purposes, since it modifies your brain

 

[Dembadon]

I wonder if they can use peyote in their practices for 'spiritual' purposes, since it modifies your brain

Hopefully you aren't implying that the use of illegal substances and having body piercings are analogous.

 

[arunma]

I think if she was hindi or some other widely known/respected religion, the school would have had no problem with her claim.

I think this is correct. From what I know by talking to lawyer friends, freedom of religion doesn't allow you to just make up a religion, and expect everyone else to tolerate your funny religious requirements. And there are other limits. For example, as had been alluded to, Native Americans are apparently required by their beliefs to smoke a mind-altering substnce. It's a well established religion, and this does protect their right to smoke it. But you can't just walk into school with a joint because you happen to be Native American. Now if this girl were part of a more popular religion, there might be a controversy to be had. But this body modification thing is a fake religion, plain and simple. We can debate all day about what constitutes a real religion, but for practical purposes nobody takes these guys seriously. Thus, this shouldn't be treated as a First Amendment case.

I still don't see why this is such a problem. Back when I was in high school (which was only 8 years ago) girls used to wear noserings.

Oh, by the way Bishop, it's "Hindu." Hindi is a language, Hindu is an adherant of Hinduism. Sorry, I'm Indian.

 

[cronxeh]

Hopefully you aren't implying that the use of illegal substances and having body piercings are analogous.

No I'm implying religion and use of drugs is analogous.

 

[loseyourname]

This is what I was getting in that thread about legitimized discrimination when I said we privilege belief systems based on how old they are. Every religion had to start somewhere, and when it did, its adherents were viewed as kooky and "illegitimate" by adherents of the previously prevailing religion.

Remember how Mitt Romney came under scrutiny because of the wackiness of Mormonism two years ago? The whole Joseph Smith being told of ancient golden scrolls by the angel Moroni and Jesus visiting the Americas and all that. How is that any wackier than Moses seeing a bush catch fire then talk to him to tell him where to find stone tablets telling him not to kill, right after that same bush had just slaughtered all the firstborn sons of Egypt?

But since one supposedly happened 3,000 years ago and the other only 200 years ago, it's more okay to believe one than the other.

 

[Jack21222]

Is it the government's job to decide whose religions are real and whose are fake?

 

[Saladsamurai]

No I'm implying religion and use of drugs is analogous.

Oh god. If I had read this a moment sooner, my coffee would have been sprayed all over my new computer. :rofl:

baaaziiinng!

 

[Chi Meson]

"Church of body modification"?

Then the "Church of Never doing any assignment."

"The church of constant disruption."

"The church of never bathing."

"The F****** Church of F****** saying anything you F****** want whenever you F****** want to."

It's no religion, give us a break.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you look at their page, the so-called church of BM only asserts that we have the right to modify our own bodies. It isn't a mandate. I see no consequences cited for taking off a nose ring for six hours a day.

If I'm a Catholic and cannot attend Church on Sunday because of a school function, by Catholic beliefs, I have committed a sin. So this would be a violation of my religious rights. But I am not free to pray outloud during class just because Catholics are taught it is good to pray.

On the other hand, what business is it of the school's if someone wears body piecings? While the BM church seems to be a scam, it seems to me that the school district is abusing its authority. Their job is to educate, not legislate. So, at a glance, I would tend to support the girl's right to wear whatever jewelry she wants.

I have little patience for some of the wanna-be politicians that run our schools. My longest friend in life was an educator, and later, a politician. He was constantly complaining about people who use the school system to push their personal agendas. If the parent or parents of a child allow him or her to get body piercings, that is a family matter and not the business of the school district.

 

[leroyjenkens]

We have laws and rules that everyone should have to follow. I don't care if your religion is made up 10 seconds before I posted this or if it's 5 thousand years old. One religion shouldn't have precedence over another religion for any reason.
If they tell her that her religion isn't real, now they're insulting her religion. If they want to have laws respecting religions, they have to be consistent.

Native Americans are apparently required by their beliefs to smoke a mind-altering substnce. It's a well established religion, and this does protect their right to smoke it.

I don't agree with that at all. Everyone should have to obey the rules. Either you change your religion to not include the "requirement" to smoke pot, or you go to jail.
I bet their "religion" has been changed many times with not much protest, but when they can't get high anymore, all hell will break loose.

What happens if someone is part of that religion and they're allergic to marijuana smoke? Do they force them to smoke it and die? Or do they just not require it for that one person? And if it's not required for that one person, then it's not required by anybody. Religions people make exceptions for their religions only when it suits them.
"You better get on your knees and bow to Mecca or you're going to hell. You have to do it or else you go to hell! You hear me? HELL!"
"But I have bad knees and I'm in a wheelchair."
"Oh, well then you can just sit in your wheelchair and pray."

 

[Gokul43201]

"Church of body modification"?

Then the "Church of Never doing any assignment."

"The church of constant disruption."

"The church of never bathing."

"The F****** Church of F****** saying anything you F****** want whenever you F****** want to."

It's no religion, give us a break.

I've actually met a person who works for someone writing a book of how tattoos control "energy" flows between people. She really believed this stuff as sincerely as any Christian or Hindu or Muslim I know believes in their own version of things.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I bet their "religion" has been changed many times with not much protest, but when they can't get high anymore, all hell will break loose.

Do you make this statement with any factual basis (the implication that they only keep this rule around because they want to get high especially) or just making it up on the fly?

This is always a serious grey area. As an extreme example, let's say there was some sort of nature based religion, which is 4000 years old and well established historically (though not so much today) which dictates that wearing clothes is sinning. How should that case be treated?

 

[Dale]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no authority over one's religious opinion, but does have authority to make and enforce laws that govern individual behavior even if that behavior is motivated or permitted by their religious beliefs. The "wackiness" of the religion is not an issue.

However, in this case wearing a nose ring is not illegal. I don't know enough to know if the school board overstepped their legal authority.

 

[Hurkyl]

On the other hand, what business is it of the school's if someone wears body piecings? ... I would tend to support the girl's right to wear whatever jewelry she wants.

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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This isn't really about religion. It is about having the right to live as we please. Whether it be drugs, or jewelry, or tattoos, the government needs to do its job and stay out of our personal lives.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

It doesn't matter. The school is imposing authority where it shouldn't have any. Their job is to educate, not legislate.

I don't think it is irresponsible. I think the entire argument about this girl is backwards. We wouldn't have a problem if the school district stuck to its business.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Do you make this statement with any factual basis (the implication that they only keep this rule around because they want to get high especially) or just making it up on the fly?

Making it up on the fly.
If it was something undesirable that they "must" do, there's a lot higher chance that it would be gone by now. It probably never would have been included in their religion in the first place if that was the case.

This is always a serious grey area. As an extreme example, let's say there was some sort of nature based religion, which is 4000 years old and well established historically (though not so much today) which dictates that wearing clothes is sinning. How should that case be treated?

They should have to wear clothes just like anyone else, or they could change the law. I don't think being naked should be a crime anyway.
But if they allow one person to do it because they're part of that religion, you can't put other people in jail for the exact same thing. If the law sees an activity as harmful to society, it remains harmful to society, regardless of the beliefs of the person breaking the law.
But even if they did allow it, anyone could just go walking around town naked and claim they're a member of that religion. There's no way to prove they're not.

It doesn't matter. The school is imposing authority where it shouldn't have any. Their job is to educate, not legislate.

But they have a dress code. Every student should have to abide by it. If they can claim a religion prevents them from adhering to the dress code, then all the students could join that religion. Even better, they could make a new religion that prevents them from adhering to ANY of the dress code rules, not just nose rings.

 

[Hurkyl]

It doesn't matter. The school is imposing authority where it shouldn't have any. Their job is to educate, not legislate.

Ah, a 'witty' sound bite. I'm convinced!

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.

 

[russ_watters]

This isn't really about religion. It is about having the right to live as we please. Whether it be drugs, or jewelry, or tattoos, the government needs to do its job and stay out of our personal lives.

Except when the government needs to get involved in our personal lives, right?

It doesn't matter. The school is imposing authority where it shouldn't have any. Their job is to educate, not legislate.

My high school had a rule that said your shorts or skirt must extend past your outstretched fingers. I knew girls sent home under this policy. I also knew a girl sent home for a see-through shirt that exposed her bra. Unfair restriction of the first amendment?

 

[JaredJames]

This isn't really about religion. It is about having the right to live as we please. Whether it be drugs, or jewelry, or tattoos, the government needs to do its job and stay out of our personal lives.

Person uses Heroin, person becomes addicted to Heroin, addiction takes over life preventing them getting a job, person turns to crime to support addiction, government funds required to stop crime.

Yep, government should stop sticking their noses in, legalise drugs and just let people live their lives.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't care if your religion is made up 10 seconds before I posted this or if it's 5 thousand years old. One religion shouldn't have precedence over another religion for any reason.
If they tell her that her religion isn't real, now they're insulting her religion. If they want to have laws respecting religions, they have to be consistent.

All this is based on the premise that it is first accepted as a religion, which is not a given.

For example, I do not think that "made up 10 seconds before I posted this" qualifies as a recognized religion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But they have a dress code. Every student should have to abide by it. If they can claim a religion prevents them from adhering to the dress code, then all the students could join that religion. Even better, they could make a new religion that prevents them from adhering to ANY of the dress code rules, not just nose rings.

Is there something offensive about her jewelry? Is there any good reason to include this as part of the dress code? Or is this just one group of people imposing their own standards on everyone else?

Do I learn less if I wear jewelry?

 

[russ_watters]

Is there something offensive about her jewelry? Is there any good reason to include this as part of the dress code? Or is this just one group of people imposing their own standards on everyone else?

Some clarity please, Ivan: are you against the concept of a dress code altogether or just including a nose ring in the dress code? You're talking in riddles.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

This freedom of religion rubbish, is just a way to circumvent the rules. They should have to follow the correct dress code.

I believe my school banned piercings on health and safety grounds as well.

 

[zomgwtf]

I don't agree with that at all. Everyone should have to obey the rules. Either you change your religion to not include the "requirement" to smoke pot, or you go to jail.
I bet their "religion" has been changed many times with not much protest, but when they can't get high anymore, all hell will break loose.

Why are you putting quotations around religion... just wondering. Seems unnecessary and as though you're implying something.

Anyway I see two things wrong here.

Firstly, the girl has claimed this is part of her religious beliefs, she provided proof I assume, or at least the name of the Church and organization. The school has no right to deem that it's worthy of protection and they can walk all over it. What Ivan said about it not being 'necessary' or whatever I find to be completely irrelevant.
Some people follow their religious/spirtual beliefs in different ways but still adhere to the main organization. I mean are Christians absolutely required to wear a cross pendant? If I wear a teach and say nothing to the Muslim in the burqa am I in the right? If I asked the Muslim to take off her hijab but let the Christian wear their cross am I in the right? Go look at how many different 'veils' there are in Islam. Hundreds of them, none of them 'really' come from the Quran they were mostly just added afterwards.
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?

Second of all the government should NOT be able to deem this and that worthy of 'status of religion'. I'm pretty sure there's an Amendment about that... and I'm pretty sure it's part of nearly every democratic constituition.

Third of all... why is the school banning nose piercing ANYWAYS? Is that constituitional?

 

[Hurkyl]

Second of all the government should NOT be able to deem this and that worthy of 'status of religion'.

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)

 

[leroyjenkens]

All this is based on the premise that it is first accepted as a religion, which is not a given.

For example, I do not think that "made up 10 seconds before I posted this" qualifies as a recognized religion.

Does the constitution list the religions people must respect? If not, then how can a made up religion not be included as one of the religions that must be respected? Does the constitution specifically say that it must be a recognized religion? And does it define "recognized"? If by "recognized", that means there's a list that the government has of religions that are to be respected, all they would have to do is cross one out and that religion no longer as to be respected.

Is there something offensive about her jewelry? Is there any good reason to include this as part of the dress code? Or is this just one group of people imposing their own standards on everyone else?

Do I learn less if I wear jewelry?

Dress codes include a lot of things that aren't necessarily to prevent offensive attire from being worn.
Is an untucked shirt offensive? No, but that's in a lot of dress codes. Some make you wear a uniform. Is every alternative to that uniform offensive?

Do they learn less? Probably not. However, I understand some of the dress codes. Kids would be dressing utterly ridiculous if there were not restrictions on what they could wear. It could be a distraction.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why are you putting quotations around religion... just wondering. Seems unnecessary and as though you're implying something.

Yes. The implication is that it is not a recognized religion.

Firstly, the girl has claimed this is part of her religious beliefs...

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.

Second of all the government should NOT be able to deem this and that worthy of 'status of religion'.

OK, then who does?

Somebody has to, otherwise, https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2886305&postcount=10".

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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".

 

[leroyjenkens]

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?