School district allows religous daggers!!

[Nova]

I guess I don't see it as a custom. It has been a rule since 1699.
That's why I have said it's a tough call. IMO

I'm sure there's a distinction to Sikhs, but to outsiders such as I, a custom is a rule is a custom is a rule. I don't recognize any divine authority that requires the carrying of a dagger.

To use an extreme example, aren't we all demanding that Muslims everywhere interpret jihad as a symbolic process rather than a literal war on the infidel (and rightfully so)? Well, jihad is a "rule", too, and a far older one than the kirpan.

Religious rules change, often out of necessity, and reasonable and creative alternatives can almost always be found.

 

[Nova]

I would suggest that sometimes the point of religion is that some things in it stay the same. Change is not the only way to be reasonable; one can apply reason to consistency, as well.

Excellent point and absolutely correct. Until your kid brings a knife to school with my kid.

I was not arguing that religious custom has no value nor that all such customs should be discarded. Keeping kosher has no meaning to me, but I don't belittle its importance to Orthodox and Conservative Jews. (On the contrary, I rather respect the commitment required.) But keeping kosher in no way poses a threat to others. Arming schoolchildren is another matter.

 

[Nova]

By the way, a special thanks to all who are posting in this thread!

I'm not often on the side of limiting fundamental civil rights, so this is a very interesting debate to me. (It isn't that I'm sitting up nights worrying about 4th graders with tiny daggers.)

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm sure there's a distinction to Sikhs, but to outsiders such as I, a custom is a rule is a custom is a rule. I don't recognize any divine authority that requires the carrying of a dagger.

To use an extreme example, aren't we all demanding that Muslims everywhere interpret jihad as a symbolic process rather than a literal war on the infidel (and rightfully so)? Well, jihad is a "rule", too, and a far older one than the kirpan.

Religious rules change, often out of necessity, and reasonable and creative alternatives can almost always be found.

There is a BIG difference IMO.
A kirpan is not meant to kill. JIhad is.
Surely you see the difference.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

There is a BIG difference IMO.
A kirpan is not meant to kill. JIhad is.
Surely you see the difference.

Actually, Jihad is just a word meaning "faithful struggle," and doesn't necessarily mean violence or war, and is a religious requirement of Muslims - if some members interpret in violent ways, that doesn't mean that is the sum total of the concept's meaning. (The less violent interpretation is not a symbolic reading or an especially modern one, either.)

ETA: Sorry for going O/T.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Actually, Jihad is just a word meaning "faithful struggle," and doesn't necessarily mean violence or war, and is a religious requirement of Muslims - if some members interpret in violent ways, that doesn't mean that is the sum total of the concept's meaning. (The less violent interpretation is not a symbolic reading or an especially modern one, either.)

ETA: Sorry for going O/T.

I'm assuming Nova meant the violent actions of Jihad. I may have misread though.

 

[Nova]

There is a BIG difference IMO.
A kirpan is not meant to kill. JIhad is.
Surely you see the difference.

Of course, I do. I said jihad was an "extreme" example.

But in the wrong hands, both customs can do harm, even lead to death.

Let's be clear: most Sikhs see the kirpan as symbolic, just as many (most? I don't know) Muslims see jihad as symbolic. But both are also understood by others as literal. We know about jihadists. But per Wiki, at least, some Sikhs see the kirpan as a necessary weapon to be used LITERALLY in the defense of virtue and/or others. Do you really want to trust a 10-year-old to make that call? I do not.

As far as I'm concerned, letting children carry daggers to school is a precise equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: it's the point where the individual's fundamental freedom has to yield to the safety of others.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Of course, I do. I said jihad was an "extreme" example.

But in the wrong hands, both customs can do harm, even lead to death.

Let's be clear: most Sikhs see the kirpan as symbolic, just as many (most? I don't know) Muslims see jihad as symbolic. But both are also understood by others as literal. We know about jihadists. But per Wiki, at least, some Sikhs see the kirpan as a necessary weapon to be used LITERALLY in the defense of virtue and/or others. Do you really want to trust a 10-year-old to make that call? I do not.

As far as I'm concerned, letting children carry daggers to school is a precise equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: it's the point where the individual's fundamental freedom has to yield to the safety of others.

I understand all that. BUT, if the family believes the child MUST wear it, what are they to do?
I guess the only choices are let them wear it or ban them from public school and let them go to private school or be homeschooled.

That's why I've been saying tough choice.

My DD is in middle school. And I've seen a little boy with the white thing on his head with the little ball looking thing on top of it. I never knew what religion he was until this thread. In looking up info, I've seen several of the exact head coverings on Sikhs. I wonder if he wears one under his clothes?
Short of a pat down, we may never know.

 

[Nova]

Actually, Jihad is just a word meaning "faithful struggle," and doesn't necessarily mean violence or war, and is a religious requirement of Muslims - if some members interpret in violent ways, that doesn't mean that is the sum total of the concept's meaning. (The less violent interpretation is not a symbolic reading or an especially modern one, either.)

ETA: Sorry for going O/T.

You're not OT, but I'm not sure you are right about the original meaning of jihad. It has never been explained that way to me.

Islam was spread by the sword throughout the Middle East and most of North Africa in about a century; in less than 2 centuries it had made major inroads in India and threatened to take over Europe.

I think early Muslims took the concept of jihad rather literally.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

Of course, I do. I said jihad was an "extreme" example.

But in the wrong hands, both customs can do harm, even lead to death.

Let's be clear: most Sikhs see the kirpan as symbolic, just as many (most? I don't know) Muslims see jihad as symbolic. But both are also understood by others as literal. We know about jihadists. But per Wiki, at least, some Sikhs see the kirpan as a necessary weapon to be used LITERALLY in the defense of virtue and/or others. Do you really want to trust a 10-year-old to make that call? I do not.

As far as I'm concerned, letting children carry daggers to school is a precise equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater: it's the point where the individual's fundamental freedom has to yield to the safety of others.

As I have said from the beginning, this is not a clear cut or simple issue for me. Personally, I have no troubles with the kirpan, and I don't believe this is a frivolous matter (akin to taking toys to school), or a minority trying to screw the majority, etc. I can honestly see both sides of the argument. Really, my only interest in this is theoretical and academic, since I teach in the area of cultural anthropology of religions.

However, in general, I tend to prioritize freedom over security, but that is a personal rationalization of circumstances and objectives. It is also personal for me, as one of those minorities that should be grateful for what tolerance we are offered according to some.

Lucky that WS doesn't have to solve any of these issues, I guess.

 

[Nova]

I'm assuming Nova meant the violent actions of Jihad. I may have misread though.

Not at all. My understanding is that moderate Muslims understand the term to refer to spiritual struggle; fundamentalists are more likely to understand the term as a literal call to violence on behalf of the faith. In comparison to the kirpan, I was referring to the violence, as you quite correctly read.

 

[southcitymom]

By the way, a special thanks to all who are posting in this thread!

I'm not often on the side of limiting fundamental civil rights, so this is a very interesting debate to me. (It isn't that I'm sitting up nights worrying about 4th graders with tiny daggers.)

Devil's advocate ...and a most charming debater!

 

[southcitymom]

No, you're not missing my point. You're just pointing out the hole I opened in my own argument. B----! :waitasec:

So I will close the hole by arguing that the difference is a cross is not by nature a weapon; a kirpan is, even if its use as a weapon is intended to be symbolic.

Here's how reasonable Sikhs are dealing with the issue:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan


Look, all or nearly all religions descend from belief systems that at some point in the distant past practiced human sacrifice. But our ancestors eventually invoked reason on the subject and substituted symbolic sacrifices (such as Holy Communion) for actual blood offerings. (I'll apologize in advance to the Christians I just offended, but the practice of communion wasn't invented out of thin air.)

In my view there is no reason the application of reason to religion can't continue. As the Wiki paragraph suggests, many (probably most) Sikhs have already found symbolic remedies to the problem of arming children. The rest of the Sikhs can follow suit.

It never hurts any of us to apply a little reason to our faith.

BBM - those who died in ages past as a result of crucifixion may disagree with that!

That said, I share your desire to mesh reason and spiritual reverence to the highest good of our communities. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.

I'm just difficult because it would tickle me pink to see a school filled with students sporting reverent spiritual symbols of many differing faiths and belief systems.

Truly, you should appoint me Queen of USA Education!

 

[Nova]

I understand all that. BUT, if the family believes the child MUST wear it, what are they to do?
I guess the only choices are let them wear it or ban them from public school and let them go to private school or be homeschooled.

That's why I've been saying tough choice.

My DD is in middle school. And I've seen a little boy with the white thing on his head with the little ball looking thing on top of it. I never knew what religion he was until this thread. In looking up info, I've seen several of the exact head coverings on Sikhs. I wonder if he wears one under his clothes?
Short of a pat down, we may never know.

True. Some families may face difficult choices. I don't know how to avoid that. (And frankly, I'm not really all that sympathetic. Per source above, most Sikhs have already found symbolic alternatives. If a family is so literal they must have their 10-year-old wear a real knife, then I suspect there are other problems in that household that may be of greater concern to parents and children alike.)

As for the practicality of enforcing the rule, I'm not advocating we strip search 10-year-olds. But if the rule exists, then the first time a kirpan makes an appearance, the school can act--without waiting for another child to be injured. And that's really what matters.

 

[WhyaDuck?]

BBM - those who died in ages past as a result of crucifixion may disagree with that!

That said, I share your desire to mesh reason and spiritual reverence to the highest good of our communities. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.

I'm just difficult because it would tickle me pink to see a school filled with students sporting reverent spiritual symbols of many differing faiths and belief systems.

Truly, you should appoint me Queen of USA Education!

BBM

SCM, I agree. For me, the best way to assure freedom of religion is not to exclude it all, but to allow it all.

It's a difficult thing, balancing these priorities. Many religious minorities want their kids in mixed schools, b/c integration is a good thing, but secular schools can be difficult things to navigate, as many find it difficult to explain compartmentalization to children.

Oh well.

*shrugs, and goes to see whatever new penis enlarger story Steely has posted some place around here*

 

[Kimberlyd125]

True. Some families may face difficult choices. I don't know how to avoid that. (And frankly, I'm not really all that sympathetic. Per source above, most Sikhs have already found symbolic alternatives. If a family is so literal they must have their 10-year-old wear a real knife, then I suspect there are other problems in that household that may be of greater concern to parents and children alike.)

As for the practicality of enforcing the rule, I'm not advocating we strip search 10-year-olds. But if the rule exists, then the first time a kirpan makes an appearance, the school can act--without waiting for another child to be injured. And that's really what matters.

BBM - I totally disagree. I'd say they are doing what they think is right. Not bending on their faith. Teaching their children that they are to take their faith serious.
Why would you suspect there are other problems in the household that may be of greater concern to the parents and children?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

BBM

SCM, I agree. For me, the best way to assure freedom of religion is not to exclude it all, but to allow it all.

It's a difficult thing, balancing these priorities. Many religious minorities want their kids in mixed schools, b/c integration is a good thing, but secular schools can be difficult things to navigate, as many find it harmful to explain compartmentalization to children.

Oh well.

*shrugs, and goes to see whatever new penis enlarger story Steely has posted some place around here*

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Nova]

As I have said from the beginning, this is not a clear cut or simple issue for me. Personally, I have no troubles with the kirpan, and I don't believe this is a frivolous matter (akin to taking toys to school), or a minority trying to screw the majority, etc. I can honestly see both sides of the argument. Really, my only interest in this is theoretical and academic, since I teach in the area of cultural anthropology of religions.

However, in general, I tend to prioritize freedom over security, but that is a personal rationalization of circumstances and objectives. It is also personal for me, as one of those minorities that should be grateful for what tolerance we are offered according to some.

Lucky that WS doesn't have to solve any of these issues, I guess.

I completely agree, except that when it comes to children, I tend to privilege security over freedom.

I didn't actually mean to imply that I think this is a trivial matter. Certainly as a principle, it is central to how we understand our basic civil rights.

But I will admit I have become less patient of late with people's right to literalism in magical thinking, because there looks to be a good chance that right may sink us all.

 

[Nova]

BBM - those who died in ages past as a result of crucifixion may disagree with that!

That said, I share your desire to mesh reason and spiritual reverence to the highest good of our communities. The two are not mutually exclusive, of course.

I'm just difficult because it would tickle me pink to see a school filled with students sporting reverent spiritual symbols of many differing faiths and belief systems.

Truly, you should appoint me Queen of USA Education!

As I certainly meant to imply with my mention above of the student told not to carry his Bible, I have no problem per se with students wearing or carrying personal religious symbols.

I can imagine a problem, however, if wearing a cross, say, becomes dictated behavior by a majority of the student body. This may be why some schools have banned all religious iconography; but I think we should be able to find a solution short of that.

You have my vote for Queen of USA Ed, if and only if you promise not to let the "Army of God" kids to bring their AK-47s to class!

 

[Nova]

BBM - I totally disagree. I'd say they are doing what they think is right. Not bending on their faith. Teaching their children that they are to take their faith serious.
Why would you suspect there are other problems in the household that may be of greater concern to the parents and children?

Because I think fundamentalism (note the lower case "f") is intellectually lazy. And generally goes hand-in-hand with sexism, racism, xenophobia and, not uncommonly, child abuse.

There, I said it. Not PC, but I think the evidence of the world backs me up.