Nosestud as an religious symbol

But Christians do not wear nose studs as a proclomation of faith.....they wear crosses....on a necklace, in earrings, on thier shirts...etc...

And the rules are written out for everyone, I agree. From the handbook it says, in regards to dress code violations....

"Reasonable accommodation will be made by the school principal or designee for those students who, because of a sincerely held religious belief, cultural heritage, or medical reason request a waiver of a particular guideline for dress or appearance."

Who are we to say her religious belief isn't sincerely held?

 

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said!

Well except the being a Christian thing as it relates to me. :mrgreen:

 

Ah yes, point taken. So also, according to the handbook then, did she or her mom ask for a waiver or just ignore the rules and show up with the nosestud thus getting expelled?

I see the point that it is her right but there is also a correct way and an incorrect way to go about things. Maybe "correct" isn't the right word..

IMO I think this whole thing picked up by the media is making a big stink out of it and making it sound as though Johnston County schools are horrible in this situation.

 

So then the question is, should they have asked for permission first? Sought the waiver? And then what? If the school said no, and she did it anyway, she'd probably be in more trouble.

I'm willing to bet that neither she nor her mother read the handbook prior to this incident, and probably didn't even know it was against dress code. Is ignorance an excuse? Well, no. But honestly, how many people read the handbook front to back?

In regards to the media, I think you're probably right. But they blow everything out of proportion. Think about it this way....if a Christian child had been told they couldn't wear their cross, or a shirt that said, oh I don't know, "Jesus Loves Me", the ACLU, Rev Sharpton, Billy Graham and CNN all would have been at the school the very next morning.....

If I'd been in a position to make the exception, here's how I would have handled it. I would have allowed the waiver for as long as it took for the piercing to heal, then I would have asked that she wear a flesh colored piercing during school hours as to not draw attention to herself. Not a placer.

But, I'm not in charge....lol.....

 

Gosh, Josey if we can't read and write how are we supposed to read up on all the govt-funded services available to us and fill out the forms to apply for them?

 

Jen, you know I love ya, but we will have to agree to disagree. Sometimes life just ain't fair to everybody, and while it might suck for the individual...................life will go on if she can't wear a nose stud.

 

She can put in a clear plastic space-holder thing during the day. She could have also asked for a waiver at the beginning of school instead of making a spectacle out of herself.

 

That would require taking some personal responsibility instead of asking the world to kiss you hind end because you don't like the rules.

 

And I could choose not to wear a cross around my neck, or a little silver ring that says faith....

I'm just sayin', even being Christian, it seems unfair that more accomodations are made for those of the Christian faith than any other, and that's not fair.

How would you feel if a indian child was told they couldn't wear a bindi?

I just want the rules to be the same for everyone....either you allow kids to physically wear a statement of faith (jewelry, clothing, etc) or you don't.

 

She has her hole.... :?

 

Jen,
WOW! ICAM. Usually ,this stance is taken up by HughT or me. We're the condemned libertarians here, as in rights afforded to all, not just the socially acceptable.

Was in my lifetime that JFK was considered unelectable, due to his Catholicism, and the perception that he'd be directed by the Vatican in leading America. Even now, a few mainstream religious persons think that Mitt Romney's LDS beliefs disqualify him because LDS Faith is perceived to be a cult, or else non Christian because of their unique beliefs.

It appears that there is a continuum of beliefs where the "radical" ones are less valued and accepted or acceptable than main stream ones. Baptists, Methodists etc are OK, Catholics are accepted, Jews are damned because they killed Jesus, nobody likes the Witnesses knocking on their door, and no one talks about their cousins who attend the Pentecostal churches who speak in tongues, handle poisonous snakes, and drink poison in showing their faith. Yet the Hindu's, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, Scientologists, Atheists, and all other heathens and non-believers are all going to Hell because they haven't been washed in the Blood of the Lamb. And since they're going to Hell, they have no protection under the Constitution. In my mind, all of these beliefs, as well as having no belief at all, is protected. Or should be.

I guess my concern is that if one's Faith is so easily threatened by that of another, I have to ask how strong their Faith was to begin with.

As for the media getting involved only to stir things up, had this been been handled differently, I don't believe that as much could have been made of it. The schools still haven't offered any type of explanation as to their thinking or accommodation they offered. All that is apparent is that Central Office punted the decision back to the principal, who seemingly took a "no way in the world, and if you don't like it, there's the handbook, so tough" stance.

Certainly, the possibility of this growing to such an extent that tax dollars are spent to defend it is evidence that it should have been handled better. Had there been no story to begin with, we could have been arguing about other things.

 

Who's arguing? It's called a discussion group for a reason. :cheers:

 

<sigh> yeah...........that's me, trampling on the religious freedoms of others. :roll:

 

You can put a clear spacer in that is allowed.

 

suspended again! http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/8322948/
eventually she's gonna miss so much school, that she'll fail the grade :banghead:

 

Good. Maybe she and her mother will learn that rules aren't just for other people. I have ZERO sympathy if that isn't already apparent.

My husbands company has a dress code, let's see if he can get visible facial piercings and keep his job in the name of relgious freedom. Utter BS.

 

frankly this would be a non issue if the MOTHER of this 14 year old child would have NOT signed the release to get her nose pierced and told her to wait til she was 18 knowing what the rules are in regards to her Education!!

 

I think what most people are having trouble with is that this is a non-theistic religion, one that doesn't believe in a higher being or worshipers of a god or gods, therefore making it hard for most people to except it as a "religion".

This church does not require that they wear their piercings at any particular time or any amount of time, which I think is the support the school board has used as their denial to except this.
The burden of proof is on her.
#1. Show proof of membership in this church other than her word. Some type of registration of a local chapter or online chapter that she joined etc.
If she cannot prove some type of affiliation as a member of such a church then that would prove that she and mom were using it to get attention.
#2. Proof that this church requires that she wear her piercing at all times or appointed times set by the laws of this religion and church, thereby preventing her from practicing her faith.

Now, have I missed her having this proof, has this already been brought up?
Just saying you are a member of something doesn't make it true, JMHO.

But this is wear things get tricky, do they allow the kids to wear a cross around their neck, cross earrings, cross ring or a St. Christopher (which my brother never took off for years)? Because if you allow these religious artifacts how can you tell her she can't wear her nose stud? If she has proof of an affiliation to this church.

 

In some ways this reminds me of the story my grandmother use to tell us grandchildren about how the school was constantly making her left handed children, which were three out of six, write right handed because that was the way people should be writing, left handed was incorrect. Yes, that was a normal practice way back for left handed people. My poor uncle remembers them tying his left hand behind his back in order to get him to use his right hand but when he was out on the baseball field and the star pitcher of the high school team it was just fine that Charles used his left hand. lol!

 

Bill O'Reily had this case on his show tonight. 2 Fox News legal experts said the student did not have a case. I sure hope so!