« Studying, studying... | Main | Reading better than Typing? »
March 18, 2005
American Vs. European Liberty:
In the US, we can"t stop children from bringing knives to school-- if they bring those knives for religious reasons.
In arguing against the act, Ringo cited a 1995 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that barred a California school district from enforcing a policy against weapons on school grounds against a group of Sikh children. A central tenet of the group's faith requires adherents to wear at all times symbols of their faith, including a kirpan (a ceremonial knife, which a U.S. District Court has described as dangerous). In Cheema v. Thompson, the 9th Circuit applied RFRA of 1993 and said the school district would have to permit the Sikh children to wear their knives to school, as long as they were dulled and "sewn tightly" to their sheaths.
In France, students cannot wear headscarves to school, when such things are specifically religious in intent.
And then there was a centre-right government under pressure from the far right National Front. The law was passed in March, ahead of regional elections. Polls at the time suggested that between 60-70% of the population supported the ban.
I am not going to say which is better, which worse. I do find it to be an interesting contrast. Something interesting to note: the two rulings are not opposed; the American ruling is designed to keep the menacing arm of the state as far away from students as possible, respecting their rights as human. In France, the ostensible reason for the law is to keep parents from oppressing their children-- thus protecting their human rights...
Posted by Andrew at March 18, 2005 10:45 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.punningpundit.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/678
Comments
It worries me that the US schools have been discriminating based on religion. If one group is allowed to bring knives, then all students should be permitted to do so on the same conditions. If one group can where a headcovering in class (such as jewish students) then all should be allowed to under the same restrictions. The school should not have to ask your religion in order to determine whether or not you are breaking a rule.
Posted by: RevChad at March 18, 2005 11:28 AM
I agree with RevChad. The school's rule isn't about religious discrimination, it's about safety. If it said sikh can't carry knives that's discrimination, but they're applying their rule to everyone.
Posted by: Alexa at March 18, 2005 04:00 PM
I think of it like poligamy laws. The law hasn't been overturned because it is applied to everyone evenly and doesn't discriminate based on religion. The law neither says "Mormons cannot practice poligamy" nor "only morgons can practice poligamy." Similar standards have been uphead with animal sacrifice. An area cannot outlaw animal sacrifices for religios purposes without applying the law over everyone and ban the killing of animals for food.
Posted by: RevChad at March 19, 2005 10:32 PM
Hm... I was tracking right up until the killing animals for food. How does that equate to animal sacrifice? If I'm following the logic right, wouldn't that then mean you had to extend it to not killing anything, like say plants? So no more harvesting plants?
Posted by: Rand. at March 23, 2005 08:40 AM
Killing chicken for food: You cut off a checken's head and hang it upside down to drain the blood. All of this is done in a sanitary area. Later you cook and eat.
Killing chicken for religion: You cut off a chicken's head and hang it upside down to drain the blood. All of this is done in a sanitary area. Later you dispose of the body similarly to if your pet died, or you mount it as a trophy or whatever.
The point is that when a law is made against sacrificing chickens, the law makers is not against the killing of the chicken but the religious practice so such a law is unconstitutional. If the law makers set sanitation requirements for the killing of chickens, these would apply to people sacrificing them unless the sanitation requirements specified the killing of chickens for food which most would. The state can also require that the chicken's death be swift, as long as it applies in both cases. The point is that the law has to be written so that any regulation of animal sacrifice regulates the killing of animals for food at least as much.
This would not effect the killing of plants unless someone wanted to make a law to prevent plant sacrifice. I choose the example of chickens to be specific and point out that the regulations on goats could be totally different. A town can outlaw the killing of goats, but allow the killing of chickens, hense allowing the sacrifice of chickens but banning the sacrifice of goats.
Posted by: RevChad at March 23, 2005 10:18 AM