The allowing of ceremonial knives on school grounds

[Kara_CS]

I can't remember the word for it, but I saw my fiancee eyeing a ceremonial dagger since she has a mild interest in Paganism, and I bought it for her. It hasn't been sharpened at all, it's just an object for a ritual and not made for cutting or stabbing. So I don't really see the problem. Plus, I grew up in a hick town and all the wannabe cowboys were allowed to have their pocket knives on them, so again, I don't see a problem here.

[Duelist925]

I'm not comfortable with it. Yes religious symbols worn by the student should be allowed but they are usually not weapons. Forgetting the strawman arguements of other religions deciding to carry swords and such, here are some questions:

1. is everyone allowed to have them?
2. are you allowed to inspect them to make sure they have not been sharpened?


And even so no, sharp or blunt it is a knife, even if its small. remember the kid stabbed to death with the tiny little jackknife? it doesn't take much.

1: Should they have religious reason to carry one, sure, why not? but the primary issue here is religiously important blades, ceremonial ones. So, no, not everyone--just those with a religion that calls for it.

2: Yeah, why not? Make it a stipulation--kirpans must be inspected at random to ensure it's either completely blunt, or glued into the sheathe.

Further....

If it's sharp, it's a knife. if it's blunt...its a chunk of metal shaped like a knife. A blunt knife can't do a hell of a lot of damage that any number of things freely available in the classroom can't also do.

As Andara said, if you really wanna stab someone, a pencil works wonders. Hell, I've seen someone drop a candy cane they'd been sucking on for awhile, and the thing jammed right into the fleshy bit between thumb and index finger. A metal ruler? Those corners can gouge damn well.

Thats not even getting into the kinda havoc a kid could do with a school issued baseball bat. Or, hell, a mop handle.

[Signmaker]

And even so no, sharp or blunt it is a knife, even if its small. remember the kid stabbed to death with the tiny little jackknife? it doesn't take much.

A blunt knife is not a knife, it is a spatula/stick. I'm not talking about dull, where it is designed to have a cutting edge but it has worn down. Blunt kripans have "edges" with profiles resembling the backside of a wooden ruler, and tips rounded to ~1" diameters. A conventional metal ruler found in about every school has a more dangerous profile, so if a blunted kripan is a weapon, so is a ruler.

I can't remember the word for it, but I saw my fiancee eyeing a ceremonial dagger since she has a mild interest in Paganism, and I bought it for her.

Athame. They tend to be a little more pointy, with edges that at least look like they could be sharp. Though they are mostly for special uses, and not something a pagan would carry full time.

1: Should they have religious reason to carry one, sure, why not? but the primary issue here is religiously important blades, ceremonial ones. So, no, not everyone--just those with a religion that calls for it.

I'd argue that anyone should be allowed to carry them, regardless of religion. Otherwise you are giving special priveleges to one group, and not the general populace. No one has to 'prove' anything.

[Hyena Dandy]

I'd argue that anyone should be allowed to carry them, regardless of religion. Otherwise you are giving special priveleges to one group, and not the general populace. No one has to 'prove' anything.

It's not a special privilege. The purpose of the exemption is to make sure that someone can actually be there. It's not allowing religious, ceremonial blades because you want to allow them. It's because you can't ban someone from being in a place on religious grounds.

Generally, exemptions are made to "You can't have that here" for religious, or medical reasons. The reasoning behind either of those is both. That it's not right to ban someone from a place for their religious beliefs, or medical needs.

To ban a Sikh from someplace because he has a full beard, or a turban, or a Kirpan, is to ban him for being a Sikh.

The reason you should have to prove you have a religious or medical reason, is that you should have to prove that keeping you out of here for this reason is saying that you can't be here at all.

[wolfie]

To ban a Sikh from someplace because he has a full beard, or a turban, or a Kirpan, is to ban him for being a Sikh.

How about construction sites (must wear hard hat) where Sikhs refuse to wear a hard hat because it can't be worn at the same time as a turban? Or the military, where being clean-shaven is mandatory so that a gas mask will fit properly?

Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith? A few hypotheticals:

- The Church of Jesus Christ (Crusader) based in Quebec requires the faithful to carry a cross-hilted sword. Note that the literal translation of the French version of Canada's national anthem includes "When your arm knows how to carry the sword, it knows how to carry the Cross".

- The Church of Styphon (borrowing from H. Beam Piper) requires its members to carry a Fireseed-based weapon.

- Quoting from "The Noble Savages" (David Drake story set in "The Harriers" universe): "This, said Wenzil, pointing to the stunner in her cutaway holster, "is an icon of my religion. It would violate my cultural personhood to force me to give it up." The team leader thinks to himself that it was pretty much true for Wenzil.

To allow members of one religion to carry their ceremonial weapon, while forbidding members of another to do the same, is discrimination.

[Nyoibo]

Wait, what other religions are being forbidden from carrying weapons that thier faith requires?

[s_stabeler]

Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith?

simple: what are the beliefs of the religion? if there are more beliefs than " we wear a weapon all the time" then it is more or less fine. If the sole belief of the religion is bearing arms, then it is likely fake.

[Hyena Dandy]

Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith? A few hypotheticals:

I would guess that from United States v. Ballard, the choice would be that if it's a sincerely held belief, you can be allowed to. Sikhs in the army are given an exemption for facial hair and turbans. I don't know about construction sites, but I would think the answer is that they SHOULD be allowed to, as the only person endangered in a construction site would be the Sikh.

As for your hypotheticals.

If Church of Jesus Christ (Crusader) actually exists, then I think a religious exemption may be made. Though they may be asked to do the same thing Sikhs are, and render the sword inoperable.

H. Beam Piper and David Drake are fiction writers, and thus, beliefs that fictional characters hold are not protected, because those aren't real people. But since Wenzil doesn't exist, he can't take his gun anywhere anyway.

[otakuneko]

How about construction sites (must wear hard hat) where Sikhs refuse to wear a hard hat because it can't be worn at the same time as a turban? Or the military, where being clean-shaven is mandatory so that a gas mask will fit properly?

Two options:

a) Have the Sikh applicant sign a waiver, indemnifying his employer from any liability should he suffer an injury that could've been prevented by a hardhat or gas mask.
b) Refuse to hire the Sikh on grounds that wearing a hardhat is a bona-fide job requirement. Anti-discrimination/Equal Employment laws have exceptions, and this is one. If Steven Hawking applied for a job as a forklift operator, no one would bat an eye when he was refused.

[wolfie]

a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.

[HYHYBT]

So get a hard hat big enough to fit over the turban, problem solved.

[SongsOfDragons]

I swear I've heard of Sikh head protection that fits under the turban. The turban itself isn't the thing - iirc it's their long long hair which they're not allowed to cut...

[s_stabeler]

a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.

with waivers, it isn't that they have no legal standing, IIRC- it is that they are interpreted as narrowly as possible- in other words, the waiver protects against reasonably foreseeable risks, but not if the employer got careless.(for example, if you do extreme sports, a waiver won't help if the operator doesn't bother with safety gear. In the case of the Sikhs, there is a reasonable accomodation- there are less risky jobs that a Sikh can do, while still being employed by the company ( I'm sure there are office-=based positions)

[Seshat]

In many religions (all that I know of, but I don't know every single religion out there!); the religious leaders will consult with safety experts and come up with a compromise accomodation that suits both the religious requirements and the safety issues.

So in the case of the sikh turbans and hard hats, I expect (might be wrong, but expect) that there is some sort of hard hat that fits under or over a turban; or that there is an exemption in the religious law that says a hard hat is a suitable head covering when it's needed for safety reasons, or .. I dunno. Something.

Again, I may be wrong. But few religions actually would prefer their people having their brains bleeding out their ears, rather than wearing something safety orange on their head.