You really don't get it, do you? A spaghetti strainer is not a religious object so it doesn't have Constitutional protection.
I understand if the school allows one student to wear religious.objects they have to allow all. However , there could be exceptions if the object was causing major problems which apparently was not the case in Bountiful until the teacher made it a problem. You colander example doesn't count because it is a kitchen utensil and not a religious object. If it were a religious object it would have protection and I would accept that.I never said I wouldnt. My feelings as well as dagny's do not trump the law which was my point. The school does have somene say if an object is dangerous or disruptive. If riots broke out over Ash Wednesday crosses, the school would have a case for banning them. If spaghetti strainers were religious objects and they kept falling off kids' head and making a racket or if the kid fell and put his eye out with the handle, same thing. The courts would have the final say though. However, it IS a kitchen utensil, not a religious symbol so the example is stupid. Got it? I am a teacher and have taken required workshops on religion in the schools and have taught both comparative religion and the Constitution. I think I am as familiar with the law as you are.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 01:18AM by bona dea.

Obviously you don’t know the healing power of boiled noodles. The colander is just as valid as the pope’s hat or the hijab to those in the faith. Maybe you just need more pork in your meatballs.

Lol. No problem with strainers, but they should be used to cook pasta, not for headgear. That is just not right.

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously you don’t know the healing power of
> boiled noodles.

I would like to bear my testimony that the noodle is true. The one true restored boiled noodle.

A collander is indeed religious headgear. Refer to the DMV court case.
Pastafarianism is just as legit as any other cult.

Whatever.

OP has not done their research and Dave has. A little grace when admitting to being in the wrong would go a long way.

Haha, your posting really tickled me! I agree with you completely, its just the mental image of colanders being a religious object cracked me up!

Colanders were a great idea to test the legality for state DMV photo restrictions under the federal Real ID Act. Founding a religion based on pasta is both delicious and humorously appealing.

Before attacking Jacob, Bona Dea, and saying someone is stupid, you might want to take a breath, look into it, and perhaps lighten up. We are here to support and learn from each other’s ideas and knowledge, not to call names, after all.

I didn't say Jacob was stupid. I said his comparison was stupid. My post was a response to avery snarky post from him in a closed thread. Check it out.I didn't start it and I was no more attacking him or calling names than he was. BTW,regardless of the drivers license photo, a judge rules that Pastafarianism isn't a recognized religion in the US a few years ago.It is recognized in a couple of countries but not here.
You may find Pastafarianism amusing. I find it extremely.silly. To each his own



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 01:15AM by bona dea.

A colander should be protected under the First Amendment, Jacob?

That's crazy. Next thing you know, someone will argue that a knife is religious and can't be banned from public places!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next thing you know, someone will
> argue that a knife is religious and can't be
> banned from public places!

I don't know whether your response is meant straight, or in ironic jest, Lot's Wife, but all "baptized Sikhs" are "expected" to carry knives (called "kirpans") at all times.

In response to my Google query: "do Sikhs have to carry knives?" the response is: "Plenty of Sikhs, both students and [school] staff, have worn their kirpans to school for years." [There are many interesting returns if you Google this particular question, some of them specifically relating to students in schools.]

I live in an area where Sikhs are a solid, but also a minority, presence (there is a gurdwara, a Sikh house of worship, nearby, in Canoga Park).

So this particular religious query is a real thing.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 02:49AM by Tevai.

Yes, I know. I could have written knives and combs--which, as you know, are also part of the Sikh kit--but knives are more apt since they indicate that even weapons are protected speech in the First Amendment context; so too can gang symbols be.

The possibility that a religious adornment, seen or hidden, could cause a disruption is not the main issue. Weapons in schools are in some (very significant) situations covered by Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Speech.


PS: I wondered who would be the first to get the Sikh reference and put the odds that it would be you, Tevai, quite high.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PS: I wondered who would be the first to get the
> Sikh reference and put the odds that it would be
> you, Tevai, quite high.

:)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, I know. I could have written knives and
> combs--which, as you know, are also part of the
> Sikh kit--but knives are more apt since they
> indicate that even weapons are protected speech in
> the First Amendment context; so too can gang
> symbols be.

How about one of these knives? Would they be stupid example?

Henckels Pro S Chef Knife.
Wusthof Classic Ikon Santoku.
Messermeister Meridian Elite Stealth Chef Knife.
Global Santoku (G-48)
MAC MTH-80 – Professional Series Chef Knife with Dimples.
Shun Classic Chef Knife.

Actually Jacob thinks no one should have religious symbols like ash crosses, or religious jewelry in schools because they are a distraction and, apparently,a form of bullying. The colander thing came up as an example of things which would have to he allowed also to he fair to everyone.I think it was dagny who said that. My point is that they are not the same thing.You have to read the other thread to follow the argument.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 03:19AM by bona dea.

I believe that overt expression of religious devotion is no better than proselytizing and would be definitely distracting.

And no one expression isn't better than another because one is more accepted than another. The whole concept of the First Amendment is to protect those who could be potentially disenfranchised. It is never the majority that gets their rights trampled on it is the minority. In the same way that you are saying that the teacher in Bountiful wouldn't have asked a Mormon to remove their CTR ring while at the same time asking a Catholic to wipe of the Palm Ash off their forehead. I'm saying that who are you to determine whether or not one persons expression deserves protection or not.

+1

A cross is a torture device that has become a religious symbol. I would think someone defending a cross might recognize how things become associated with a cult.


If some SAYS it is a religious symbol, what are the rules? Do 10 people have to agree it has religious meaning? 10,000? Are necklaces with Moroni established enough?


It may a kitchen utensil to you, but in a certain context it represents a view regarding religion which has as much basis in fact as any other.


I'm just saying we should be prepared to apply fairly to others the allowances we want for our own sacred cows. There are lots of religious doo-dads, rituals and rules that are self imposed. Just recognize we have set up a situation that Pastafarians will expect to participate in equally.

I think readers can understand the issue from both sides.


Edit: changed thing to think due to typo and duplicate word



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2019 08:22AM by dagny.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You really don't get it, do you? A spaghetti
> strainer is not a religious object so it doesn't
> have Constitutional protection.

One of the points of the Pastafarian religion was specifically this. The fact that it is a colander isn't really the point. It could be a teapot if you prefer. The point is that religious expression having a litmus test is wrong. It puts everyone in a situation where they have to guess or use their best judgement. This teacher is the perfect example.

> I understand if the school allows one student to
> wear religious.objects they have to allow all.
> However , there could be exceptions if the object
> was causing major problems which apparently was
> not the case in Bountiful until the teacher made
> it a problem.

I dispute this statement that the teacher made this a problem. I stated before that it was obviously a distraction because the teacher had to take the unusual step of asking him to clean his face. I asked before, do you think the teacher did this because they were a bigot or because they were distracted? Surely this isn't the first time this teacher encountered a student who had dirt on their face.

> You colander example doesn't count
> because it is a kitchen utensil and not a
> religious object. If it were a religious object
> it would have protection and I would accept that.I
> never said I wouldnt.

And yet you would have everyone going around just accepting historical norms at the expense of their "Constitutionally" protected expression.

> My feelings as well as
> dagny's do not trump the law which was my point.
> The school does have somene say if an object is
> dangerous or disruptive. If riots broke out over
> Ash Wednesday crosses, the school would have a
> case for banning them. If spaghetti strainers were
> religious objects and they kept falling off kids'
> head and making a racket or if the kid fell and
> put his eye out with the handle, same thing. The
> courts would have the final say though.

You can't have it both ways, either the school gets to choose or they don't. You have consistently said that schools who violate a student's first amendment right are wrong. And yet you consistently say that there are legitimate reasons to violate a student's first amendment rights.

Incidentally the courts have ruled on this multiple times. And those rulings have created as much clarity as confusion. The reason is that protected right of expression doesn't trump the establishment requirement. That is why you have colanders on drivers licenses, disparate Ten Commandment rulings, no school prayer and school prayer, and any number of other examples.

> However,
> it IS a kitchen utensil, not a religious symbol so
> the example is stupid. Got it?

So says you, and that is the problem. I say that palm ash is dirt and you disagree with me.

> I am a teacher and
> have taken required workshops on religion in the
> schools and have taught both comparative religion
> and the Constitution. I think I am as familiar
> with the law as you are.

One of my issues with this statement is that you are protecting one expression over another and using an illogical shield to support your ruling. All the time ignoring the fact that your whole argument is that expression should be protected. This isn't about sensitivity training or comparative religion this is about making snap judgement using faulty logic. The teacher in Bountiful made a snap judgement and was wrong. All you're doing is taking it to the other extreme.

You are right, Jacob. The standard is not yet clear.

There has been a single circuit court decision against colanders, which are a silly example making an important point. It is not reasonable to act as if that Nebraska court's ruling is ultimately binding on the entire country.

If I were a school or a teacher, I'd want the higher courts to clarify the rules as soon as possible. Until then, it's a guessing game.

Some schools prohibit certain things...

"What counts as a “substantial disruption” to school or school activities?
A “substantial disruption” occurs when school administrators or teachers are unable to proceed with regular school activities due to the interference caused by a student’s clothing. Rumors, gossip, or excitement amongst students does not count as a “substantial disruption.”"
https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/school-dress-codes-and-uniforms

I think a colander worn on the head would be a “substantial disruption.”

Oh I agree that a colander would be disruptive. But again that really isn't the point. The point is selective protections based on subjective yard sticks.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point
> is selective protections based on subjective yard
> sticks.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the post that prompted this one.

I think the other point was that subjective yard sticks can be seen as just sticks like knives can be seen as kitchen utensils and ash dirt?

As a Mormon my underwear when it was found to be significant where my coworkers had no significance in their skivvies was quite disruptive.


I don't think colanders could have that kind of power but as something for kids to play with I'm sure it could be more disruptive.


The significance of objects for people does seem to be the point and it seems more a matter of degree than of hypocrisy.

My point was that as of today a colender is not considered a religious object. I said in a previous post that when and if the courts rule that it is I would give it equal protection with other religious symbols even though personally I think the whole thing is stupid.BTW, all Constitutional protections are not absolute. If a dangerous weapon were declared a religious object, I doubt that devotees would be allowed to carry it wherever they want because of safety concernens.Polygamy was declared.illegal after all even though Mormons disagreed.

"My point was that as of today a colender(sic) is not considered a religious object."

To you it is not... by Pastafarian's it is.

"I said in a previous post that when and if the courts rule that it is I would give it equal protection with other religious symbols..."

Why do you have to wait for courts to decide what's a religion? Have courts "ruled" that Islam is a religion? Have they ruled about the Catholic religion? I did do a search, and while it was quick, I didn't find any instance where Catholics had to prove they were a religion in a court. What I did find is that DMV's (government offices) and state run universities allowing colanders to be worn in Driver's licenses and student ID's... It seems as though at least some goverment offices accept Pastafarianism as a "real" religion. But that's not good enough for you.

"... even though personally I think the whole thing is stupid."

It's "stupid" to YOU. I think the LDS church is silly... and it's provably false, it's totally fake, it's tenants are completely made up. Yet, you're OK with it having 1st amendment protection under the law. What makes that different?

"If a dangerous weapon were declared a religious object, I doubt that devotees would be allowed to carry it wherever they want because of safety concernens[sic].Polygamy was declared.illegal after all even though Mormons disagreed."

Going for the slippery slope/strawman argument.

We aren't talking about weapons, we're talking about a hat. You don't see it as a hat, but then again, a hijab is just a scarf worn over the head. This is the entire point of equal protection. It's there because people, like you, think you know better than the people practicing that religion and want to decide for them how they should do so, or if they even can.

Yes, Pastafarianism was created by a guy who wanted to prove a point, but today, actual and real people do practice it. Is the start of this religion any worse than the start of the LDS church, which was created by a man who just wanted to get rich and sleep with as many women as he could? I would argue that the Pastafarian religion is doing far greater good than the LDS church is, it's certainly far less damaging to its adherents.

You deem deem the LDS church worthy of legal protection, but not Pastafarians. To me, that's silly.

It will be a .protected symbol.when the courts rule that Pastafaianism is a religion and that the claim the coldest as a.symbol. That hasn't happened in this country

Tell me, when exactly did the courts rule that mormon garments are protected? When did they rule that ash crosses on foreheads are protected? Has a clerical collar been challenged? And yet, I'm willing to bet that you would agree that those are likely protected.

Government offices and schools have accepted Pastafarianism. They've done this, often to forestall a lawsuit they know they will lose. You believe that you can define what constitutes religion as you want.

Your definition seems to be: Only those religions which have been accepted by courts... Unless those religions have never been challenged in courts, with the caveat that if YOU don't like them, then they must wait for a court case.

Ironically, this was the reason that Pastafarianism was created. People trying to decide what is an acceptable religion and what isn't. People from "accepted" religions trying to specific what should get protections and what shouldn't, which was expressly what the 1st amendment was trying to protect against.

It's been asked of you before, by the person you've called out with your post no less, "who are you to determine whether or not one persons expression deserves protection or not?" Religious Freedom extends to all religions regardless of whether or not YOU deem them acceptable.

Excellent, well-reasoned post, Finally Free. Thank you. It was a pleasure to read your logical and thoughtful post, that you clearly took time to compose.

Your posts set an example which should be followed by others.

They.didn't rule on garments since the 1st Amendment covers religious expression. Mormonism is a real religion with real believers even if it isn't "true". In the US Pastafarianism is not recognized. It is a parody made up to mock religion.Religion is.protected.by the 1st Amendment. The right to wear anything you want to public school because you made up a deity made of spaghetti isnt.Where do you draw the line? If you don't get the difference, I give up.

The other religions made up a deity too. Some of them even know it.

Give me a break. Religions have tradition and real believers. They were not made up as a joke recently by someone who thought it was funny to make fun of established beliefs.Find me someone who isn't nuts who believes the FSM is real. It is a freaking joke. I think I will make up a religion that demands that I drive my car 100 miles per hour on the wrong side of them street and demand the Constitutional right to do so. Maybe I can worship a sports car and wear a steering wheel around my neck.Where do you draw the line? See how stupid it is? Probably not.
Another issue I have is that the courts have enough to do without anti.religious nuts with way too much time on their hands demanding then right to.wear a spaghetti strainer in their driver's license photos.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 07:56PM by bona dea.

I see it is stupid, but I also see the established religions are filled with their share of stupid too. That's the point.

Do you really think the belief that a Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree* sounds more plausible than a stupid blob of pasta?. Then making the torture device for the zombie a symbol for this belief is supposed to be respected because more people believe it?

Don't worry, the pasta is just symbolic. They don't all take it literally.

I do understand the problem comes with drawing a line but that is the cost of religion getting into everything. Big religions always think the line includes them and excludes everyone else. As long as they want religious privileges, tolerance and respect, they need to recognize there will be people who challenge that line. If you give religion an inch, they will take a mile. Before you know it, they will be telling you what to do with your body and what to think about everything.

*Credit to whoever originally stated it this way.

I think there is a difference between a made up parody of a religion and an established faith and whether the established religions are stupid is NOT the point. Neither is whether the are true. The .point is you don't get to make something up and then demand Constitutional rights for your beliefs which you pulled out of your butt and no one believes in anyway because you made it up as a joke. Some religions may be more questionable than others, but Pastafarianism IS NOT A FREAKING RELIGION.AND DOESN'T GET RELIGIOUS PROTECTIONS.Maybe in the distant future when people have forgotten its.origins it will be.considered a.religion but it isn't now. There core to compare wearing a colander to school with wearing a.cross is dumb.

Ipse dixit



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 08:28PM by jacob.

No, that isn't what I said. In the case there is a group such as Pastafarians which is new, ridiculous, clearly made up, doesn't have any real believers and which was started as a joke or maybe sci fi as is the case of Scientology and that group wants to have the protections of religions, then the courts would decide. Established religions already have the status of religion. Newer religions such as Mormonism are based on established Gods. Anyone can believe what they want and worship what they want. They can't pull stuff from their butts and call it religion and they can even worship.spaghetti but they don't need to go expect their home to be called a religion by others. Religion is sort of like pork in the sense that it may be hard to define but is easy to recognize when you see it. Pastarianism isn't a religion.

Ipse dixit squared.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ipse dixit squared.

Thank you, Jacob, for an erudite and challenging post. I agree!

It's an interesting set of theories: established religions, sincere believers, established Gods.

Can you point us to supreme court decisions that substantiate your views or are we to take that on faith?

It is called common sense.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ipse dixit

Oooh cool! Thanks, I seldom see anything to look up anymore so I like it. :)

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...IS NOT A FREAKING RELIGION.AND DOESN'T GET RELIGIOUS

There is no need to shout. In fact I think the Pastafarians would be quite amused by your passion about them!

They are but a simple people, worshipping in their own quiet way, sometimes with sauce and cheese. Other times, just with butter.

Can you find me one sane adult who actually believes.in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I know there are people who claim to be Pastafarians who have certain things they believe they should do, but that in itself doesn't make them a religion.

No, the 100 mph example is not constitutionally germane.

Employment Division vs. Smith (1990) found that Freedom of Religion covers belief. If a law is passed to criminalize something for secular reasons--smoking peyote or driving above the speed limit--and then infringes on the right of an individual to violate that proscription, the law is valid and must be obeyed. The only exception is when the law is imposed to specifically target a believer.

Freedom of Religion covers belief, not actions, if the law against the action is based on an independent secular basis.

Yes, and also Reynolds vs. United States (to bring this thread back to Mormonism)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/98/145

Particularly the reasoning to question #5 as noted in the link.

Absolutely agree. I pointed out earlier there are limits.to.religious freedom.Polygamy was the example I used. Guess you missed that.

I disagree. Mormonism is not a real religion it is a cult.

Cults and religions are not mutually exclusive. You can be both.

So it appears your position is that government is allowed to decide what is and isn't a legitimate religion.

I think that is a very dangerous road to go down.

If a judge in some state rules that your beloved catholicism isn't a legitimate religion, are you OK with that?

But they have a long history you say. They have believers you say.
Do you think there is a minimum number of believers a religion should have to be legitimate? Is there a minimum length of time a religion must exist to be legitimate? If so, what are those numbers and why?

My.answer is several posts above in the wrong place.

I don't see where you answered my questions.
How many members does a religion have to have, and how old does it have to be to be a legitimate religion?
And how did you arrive at those numbers?

And do you really want the government to have the power to decide which religions are acceptable?
Would it be OK if Mormon judges in Utah decided that Mormonism was the only legitimate religion? What if they then decided that only LD$, Inc. could have tax exemptions, and other religions couldn't because they weren't real religions?

The standard you cite is that the colander must render the class "unable to proceed with regular school activities." I don't think a colander does that.

It might cause "rumors, gossip, or excitement amongst students," but by definition that does not rise to the level of "substantial disruption."

I disagree. If the kid was in Science class fellow students might to to make pasta.

I guess so.

But there are already so many things to eat in chemistry class.

:O

I would add, EB, that if a kid wore a colander to chemistry class and people wanted to use it to cook things, they could borrow the Sikh kid's kirban to use to cut up the hamburger and cheeze.

Because the Sikh knife, which can't be taken on airlines when over 2.36 inches, is protected as a religious symbol in public schools. So in comparative terms the colander might not be excessively disruptive.

Lot's Wife,

You draw a picture of a very interesting class! Thank you!

All that is needed now is kindling to start a small fire to cook the pasta with.....are there any BoM's perhaps, lying around?

Science class probably has a bunson burner, problem solved



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 06:50PM by sbg.

Jacob,

Your response was logical, well-reasoned and had clarity. Your restraint in responding is admirable.

The school gets to decide what rules to put in place and thFBPPVe courts can decide if those rules are Constitutional if there is a lawsuit. That is the way it works and it is not having it both ways. As for your other points, I disagree. So be it.

Not sure when the random letters got there. Ignore them

Wrong Place, sorry about that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/13/2019 04:48PM by Finally Free!.