Religious dagger OK at Auburn elementary school

[rug]

An Auburn School District official said Thursday that students and staff of the Sikh faith are permitted to wear ceremonial knives for religious reasons.

Originally published October 23, 2014 at 12:11 PM | Page modified October 23, 2014 at 5:47 PM

AUBURN, Wash. — An Auburn School District official said Thursday that students and staff of the Sikh faith are permitted to wear ceremonial knives for religious reasons.

Assistant Superintendent Ryan Foster reiterated the policy after KING-TV (http://kng5.tv/ZOVg4d ) reported about one boy being allowed to wear the small dagger at Gildo Ray Elementary.

Foster told The Associated Press that a long-standing district policy allows the daggers to be worn under the clothing of observant Sikhs.

"It can't create a disruption of the learning environment," Foster said.

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2024851207_apxschooldagger.html

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. I resignedly await the next iteration.

In which some religious group decides that they need to wear religious pistols.

'Please excuse Johny's sig sauer, he's a member of the new evangelists of christian brotherhood, and our faith demands we go armed at all times.'

[rug]

2. While you're waiting, this is the purpose of the kirpan:

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or its tenets. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways its religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapons than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

Sikhism is a 500 year old religion with over 20 million followers worldwide. It is ranked as a major world religion with even more followers than Judaism for example. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) who preached a message of One God for all of humanity founded it. He stressed loving devotion to God and universal principles of morality, truth and honest living and full equality of mankind irrespective of race, caste, creed or sex. Nine successive prophets succeeded Guru Nanak, the line ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. Sikhism is not a new-age movement, cult or sect, but a well established and respected major world religion with it's own distinctive beliefs and practices.

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since its early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is meant to inspire a Sikh in their daily life,

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. A weapon is still a weapon, even if you personally carry it for 'symbolic' reasons. nt

[rug]

4. A pencil is still a pencil, even if it's sticking out of someone's eye.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. That's a good point, given the billions of people

stabbed with pencils every year.

And the fascination small children have about handling pencils!

[rug]

6. Nice pun but I suspect there are more people stabbed in the eye with a pencil than with a kirpan.

Not to mention crayons stuck in noses.

[riqster]

7. Bollocks. This is a real religion, not some sort of NRA-front group.

I suppose you have stats showing a large number of Sikhs killing people with these knives?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

8. My point is actually

that others will use it as an precedent to demand that they're allowed to do something similar.

[riqster]

9. Then phrase it better.

It comes across as "they shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion because it might cause a problem due to the actions of others". And that is unconstitutional crap.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

11. Well, there is that too.

Especially in schools that post signs that say things like 'weapons free zone'. I can certainly see some Sikh kid getting bullied and having his dagger stolen by other kids, who then use it on someone, maybe even that kid.

That too would be 'causing a problem due to the actions of others'.

[riqster]

14. We'll see if it actually happens. Sikhs have been in public schools for many years.

As have Jewish students: someone COULD steal a student's phylactery and strangle someone else with the strap: but so far as I know, we don't advocate taking away the religious freedom of Jewish kids.

The Establishment Clause is very clear. Hands off our religions.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. Separation of church and state is clear to me.

Keep religion out of government. Public schools are government property.

(Edit: I do understand that's not how 'separation of church and state' works, that was a snap back reply. But we do place limits on just what may or may not take place, religiously, on school grounds. And I honestly think we don't place enough such limits, although it's almost always Christian groups that are demanding they be allowed to do things on public property I think are beyond the pale.)

[riqster]

16. Indeed. Do we confiscate crucifixes? Do schools forbid students having Qurans in their lockers?

No, and no. You want to ban kripans? Better ban combs, bibles, amulets, talismans, eagle feathers, jewelry, hats, scarves, hijabs, and lots of other items.

The separation of church and state is designed to keep the STATE from meddling in religion. It is NOT designed to inhibit personal religious beliefs and observances.

A child with a Star of David or crucifix on their is no different than one with a Kripan. How often do you post on the necessity of banning those other religious items?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. See the edit I was writing while you were writing your comment.

I would be all in favour of banning crucifixes and every other religious symbol as well.

How often do you post on the necessity of banning those other religious items?

Well let's see, the only time I've ever posted on banning daggers from being carried in public schools was this diary. Ditto crucifixes, stars of David, etc. So 'just as often' would be my response.

You're off base on assuming I'm being a 'religious hypocrite'. I'm an atheist, who doesn't think ANY religion should be in public schools.

[cbayer]

19. You could take this one step further and forbid and religious people from being in

public schools, couldn't you?

Or maybe we could adopt a "don't ask, don't tell" policy when it comes to religion in schools.

And while we are at it, let's forbid the students from having any symbols that might indicate that they are atheists.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. Works for me.

'Don't discuss or promote religion at school, period'. That's pretty much 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

And I never wore any 'atheists symbols' to school. Unlike my religious counterparts, I saw no need to push my beliefs into their educational experience.

[cbayer]

32. Your position is so extreme. It makes me very grateful

that we have a first amendment that protects individuals from those who might share your POV.

You may not have worn any atheist symbols, but there are people who do (see the avatars around this site). Would you prohibit those as well.

Surely you must know that there are both believers and non-believers that are invested in trying to (de)convert others to their POV. But most believers and non-believers are not interested in doing that at all.

Your claim that you aren't pushing your beliefs is pretty funny in light of your position here that everyone needs to at least look like you, even if they don't share your beliefs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. I would be willing to go along with prohibiting 'atheist symbols' too, yes.

As long as we were prohibiting religious ones.

And I wish we had a first amendment that protected me and individuals like me from having religion forced upon us at every turn. That didn't leave me having to keep my religious views quiet because every potential employer is religious and can easily discrimiate against me because I'm not, and easily hide it by simply not telling me why I don't get a job.

[cbayer]

42. I wouldn't go along with prohibiting either one.

Where else should we draw the line in terms of how people can express their identity.

Should we prohibit political beliefs and affiliations? How about sexual identity?

If you are so fragile that you think someone wearing a religious symbol is somehow forcing their beliefs upon you at every turn, the world must be a frightening place. Since 84% of the world's population identifies as religious and many of them express this is some way, often symbolically, it must be very intimidating.

It's against the law to discriminate against you because you don't have any religious beliefs. I sincerely hope that if you ever have proof of that happening, you take legal action. I know that there is discrimination out there and I believe the way to extinguish it is by fighting against it. I don't believe imposing another level of discrimination is the key at all.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

44. Ah, 'so fragile'...

Yes, minority groups are always the problem, not the systematic way in which the majority's views are protected and maintained. It's always that anyone has 'too thin a skin' or 'is seeing oppression everywhere', not that there actually is an unwritten oppression built into the systems.

Always good to mock those who aren't part of the 'in-group' when they tell you that yes, they do feel intimidated and discriminated against based on their differences.

It's against the law to discriminate against you because you don't have any religious beliefs. I sincerely hope that if you ever have proof of that happening, you take legal action.

I take it you haven't had to go looking for work in a while. HR departments are extremely adept at knowing exactly how to avoid providing any potential 'proof' as to why you are denied a job these days. Businesses have no desire to allow lawsuits t proceed. Barring somebody being such an idiot that they tell you outright why they won't hire you, no such proof will ever come to light.

[cbayer]

47. No, minority groups are rarely the problem.

But individuals who think they have the answer and that everyone else is delusional often are.

While I understand and agree that there is discrimination, the way to eliminate this is by challenging it when it occurs, not by applying the same kind of discrimination upon others, which is what you seem to want to do.

I'm not mocking you, by the way, I am challenging your extreme beliefs, beliefs that you appear to want to impose on others.

There is a growing, vocal movement among some nonbelievers. I truly think that it is our next civil rights movement and that we will effectively combat the discrimination that occurs. But we won't do it by discriminating against believers. That never works.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. I'll challenge your language.

Is it 'discrimination' when you ask every student to wear a school uniform?

While I certainly think you can 'discriminate' by having everyone do the same thing - ie, the 'no one should be allowed to sleep under bridges, whether rich or poor', which in reality only discriminates against the poor, since you're not going to find rich people needing to sleep under bridges, I disagree in saying that certain areas of public life should be 'free from religion' is anything more than protecting the public from being coerced into the religion of the majority.

I think we' as a nation, are failing in our attempts to avoid a 'state religion' in a variety of places - from the word on money to the end of the pledge, to government meetings being opened with prayers. And while we focus on not allowing teachers or schools to bring religion in to impose upon students, it's simply an end-run around that objective if we allow religious students to do so as their parents' proxies. The religious administrators and teachers have their plausible deniability, and 'clean hands', but the result is the same, with students being repeatedly exposed to the symbols and tenets of specific religions, thanks to the actions of their peers.

[pinto]

60. I went to a public secondary school. Two brothers in my class routinely wore yamulkes on holy days.

There was no problem that I was aware of. It wasn't seen as promoting a specific religion in a publically funded school. I think there's a certain degree of intent or effect. For instance, if a teacher wore a yarmulke, that may pose a question. The difference? The teacher is in a position of authority. That could be seen as promotion in some views.

(on edit) Just remembered, I came to school with an ash cross on my forehead on Ash Wednesday, as did a lot of my classmates. It was a heavily Catholic region. Again, no problem that I was aware of.

I also went to a Catholic school - there it was understood up front that some context of the religion would be present in the classroom.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

61. Privilege and power issues always revolve around who is doing them.

Christianity is the 'power religion' in the US. So in context of who benefits from the institutional decisions built into how the US runs schools, the privilege accrues to Christianity. And no school is exactly like any other - in some, very few students will ever bring religion into school with them. And I don't see those as being problematic environments. When only a few people are doing so (two), it's not a real problem, especially when they're not in the 'de facto' state religion. As a greater and greater percentage of those who attend 'bring it', the pressure and dangers for those who do not conform become greater.

Check the recent list for the Fox News video where atheists are told to 'accept the culture of Jesus' in southern schools.

[pinto]

66. I'll check out the video. If a public school setting, that's way over the line.

Christianity, of any form, is certainly the major faith segment in the US. The problem I see with institutional decisions regarding religion at the school level are often at the local level - school boards, counties, etc. I would like to see more of them challenged, if appropriate, on constitutional grounds. The religious right is trying to co-opt the intents of the 1st Amendment, imo. When there's a good case, I'd like to see each and every one challenged.

When you say "bring it" are you referring to students? Or Administrators?

In my instance, the yarmulke thing was actually pretty interesting. One of the brothers was a good friend, so I got some of the significance. Yet among us all it led to some good back and forth. Not in the class setting but at breaks, lunch, before and after school, the secret smoke at the edge of the parking lot. Curiosity. I'm 62 and far removed from that setting. I think things have changed along the way. At least it seems so.

[cbayer]

74. No, I don't think it's discrimination when students are asked to wear uniforms, though

there are definitely those that disagree with me and think it impairs students rights to self expression.

But that is neither here nor there, as it has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

You are talking about having everyone do the same thing by conforming to some areligious norm. That is wrong. They should nor more be required to appear areligious than an atheist student should be required to appear religious.

You have somehow decided that having no religion is or should be the norm. Not only is that pretty arrogant, it is patently untrue.

I'm with you in fighting against those who truly want to impose religion into legislation or judicial decisions, but I am equally opposed to those like you who would seek for it's elimination. I see neither position as acceptable and find it equally repulsive that extremists on either side would see this.

If you want your rights protected, I would suggest that you work for the protection of the rights of others who may see things differently from you. There are bright lines, and you point some of them out, but when you begin to impose your "beliefs" on individuals, you have really crossed the line.

Many of the arguments you are making here have been made in that past by those who wished to restrict the rights of other groups. I am sorry to see that here.

[riqster]

20. I almost agree. I don't think PROMOTION of religion belongs in schools.

That is different from BEING religious. In my opinion, banning such non- prostletyzing religious expression would violate the constitution, by banning personal religious expression.

To say that a kid can't have a copy of the Wiccan Rede tucked into his wallet, or carry any other religious object elsewhere inside of their clothing, that smacks of active government interference, censorship, and Big Brother activity of the worst sort. What would you do, pat the kids down on their way into school?

That is NOT in any way how a free society should operate.

The Sikh student had his Kripan inside his clothing. That is one of the five K's, along with the others: uncut long hair, a comb, a bracelet, and underwear.

So to forbid his religious expression, you would he obliged to forcibly cut his hair, confiscate any combs or bracelets, and force him to go "commando". You willing to go to such extremes in the name of "freedom"?

Because quite frankly, that would not be free at all. Instead of a country with freedom of and from religion, we'd have a country that forbade religion. That ain't any better (or indeed different) than a theocracy.

[cbayer]

22. I would say that a student wearing or carrying religious symbols is being religious

not promoting religion. I feel strongly that part of the 1st amendment is that these kinds of things will be protected and people will be able to practice/exhibit their religious beliefs without government interference.

I think we agree here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

25. I don't believe there's a state in the union that actually forces you to attend public schools.

I believe every single one has options for private schools, home schools, online schools, even religious schools, for those who feel they can't 'leave their religion at home'.

So no, I wouldn't 'force' anyone to do anything. I would say 'If you wish to attend a government-run school, you need to be prepared to leave your religion at home'.

You're not 'forbidding religion'. They're free to spend 24 hours a day being religious. you're saying there are places that are 'religion free zones', so that the government is not endorsing religion by allowing a majority of students or staff who belong to one religion to create an atmosphere that explicitly reminds students or staff who do not belong that they are a minority.

[cbayer]

27. You need to be prepared to leave your religion at home if you attend a public school?

That is a gross 1st amendment violation. Thank the heavens that our founders had the foresight to protect us from both religious theocrats and from zealots like yourself that would prohibit the right to religion and religious expression.

[riqster]

37. Quite true. My people came here to be free.

Not to live under a theocracy, OR an "atheocracy".

Both are equally repugnant. And equally illegal.

[cbayer]

41. Agree. It is startling to see this kind of extremism.

While I stand firmly opposed to some of the inroads the religious right has made, my opposition is just as firm when it comes from the opposite extreme.

[riqster]

29. You, then, want a segregated society. In which religious people may not express themselves...

However quietly, or even silently, even in places they paid for? Dafuq?

That is no different than requiring blacks to attend separate schools. Or demanding that LGBT kids closet themselves.

Your idea of freedom is no more in alignment with the constitution than that of Teavangelicals: you know, the ones who say that if you are in the South, you should accept religion in public schools, and if you don't like it, go to a private school.

We ALL pay for public schools. To say that only atheists are welcome in them is bullshit.

[cbayer]

31. Well said. I am rather stunned by this extreme position.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. I feel you're misprepresenting my position.

I'm 100% in favour of allowing religious people in public schools. I just don't want them bringing their religion with them.

I don't want to hear them talking about their personal myths, displaying their 'symbols' in front of me.

I'm saying if THEY feel they can't live without doing so, they do have the CHOICE not to go to public schools.

[riqster]

43. Crap. The Sikh kid's knife WAS NOT ON DISPLAY.

So your position throughout this thread is contradictory at best.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

46. No, I've been talking about multiple beliefs I hold.

None of which are contradictory. I don't believe anyone should bring any weapons to school. That was belief number one.

Then, when I was challenged by somebody who seemed to suggest I was trying to favour one religion over others by bringing up crucifixes and stars of David, I also brought up my belief the no religion belongs in public schools. The vast majority of my comments in my thread are responses to people who are supportive of Christianity, and have nothing to do with the original OP, but simply are replies to the individual comments to which I was responding.

My objection to knives in school was a separate objection, not based on religion.

[riqster]

48. Again, crap. "Weapons" at school?

The knife in question is a ceremonial object and not a weapon. Pencils and compasses have sharp points, and they are not weapons. House keys have points, and they are not weapons.

So that is fallacious.

Then you started down the even more ridiculous path of the USA being an atheocracy.

Regardless of which bit of bilge being promulgated, it's a hateful, bigoted, segregationist, authoritarian, fact-challenged worldview you are articulating here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Thank God you're here to protect Christians from us

hateful, bigoted, segregationist, authoritarian, fact-challenged atheists who might dare to suggest that just maybe we shouldn't be surrounded by religion in our public schools!

If it weren't for you, I'm sure that by now our all-powerful authoritarian cabal would have destroyed public schools by asking people not to bring their religion into an environment dedicated to learning non-religious subjects.

[riqster]

62. Oh, I would not for a moment assume you speak for all atheists. Just yourself.

And thank the FSM for that.

[phil89]

52. A "real religion"?

wow

[riqster]

63. As opposed to the construct I responded to.

Which was, in essence, "people will invent a new 'religion' just so they can carry guns in school". That, to me, would be more a way to use the appearance of religion for purely political purposes: not a religion created as a religion first and foremost.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. All religions are 'invented'.

Every. Last. One.

[riqster]

117. S'truth. As are many human creations.

I was addressing only the motivations of the creators.

[cbayer]

18. This is a longstanding tradition. Are you aware of any religions that have

a tradition of carrying a pistol?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. What does length of time matter?

Aren't we supposed to treat the beliefs of Mormons as if they were as valid as those of Sikhs or Jews, despite the short time the Mormon Church has been around?

Are we to assume that Gods would only reveal themselves to followers during a certain window of time? That no religion that didn't exist as of the 1800s or earlier can be valid?

If a God revealed himself to me today, demanding that I consider flamethrowers holy, would that be any less real simply because I would be the first prophet of the new religion, as opposed to the 18 billionth follower of some prophet who got his message a few thousand years ago?

[cbayer]

24. It matters because you are proposing that someone would invent

a religion in order to justify a certain behavior.

That's a big difference than a long standing tradition involved in a well established religion.

Again, the Mormon church is well established and you are talking about inventing something new.

It's a tricky question, and I can't give you definite answers, but false religions are created for nefarious reasons and that is something that merits investigation.

The length of time does matter as a factor in that investigation, though it certainly wouldn't be the only factor.

One would also want to consider whether there is a history of violence associated with the carrying of a particular thing.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

54. As long as it's not sharp

No problem. Children have religious rights as well as adults.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

59. Now somebody downthread posted a picture

that showed a 'dagger' that was actually a piece of jewelry. I have no 'weapon' objection to that. It actually would be about as dangerous as a crayon.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

68. Actually, they are a dagger

Decided to investigate, and kirpans are daggers. Various countries and national travel laws have various rules on them. However, I would imagine that it doesn't have to be sharp, especially for children.Many kirpans are, however, which is why there are official laws in place on where one may and may not carry them.

If the kirpan was sharp, I would not allow the child to have it. I would ask that it be replaced with a dull one.

[cbayer]

76. Welcome to DU and to the religion group TMWAH! Love your name.

I appreciate your investigation into this. I knew that there were different kinds of kirpans, and I am not surprised that different environments might call for a different type.

The important thing here to me is that the kids are able to practice this part of their religion that presents no threat to anyone else.

[exboyfil]

10. As opposed to bringing a knife to cut a steak

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/18/10-year-old-arrested-for-using-knife-in-school-lunchroom/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

13. She should have said her deeply held religious beliefs demanded it.

As per the Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby, it is not up to the judiciary to decide how deep religious beliefs are, so anything and everything is now acceptable as religion, as long as someone says that it is, and 'Freedom of Religion' is the new libertarianism.

[cbayer]

26. But that would have been a lie.

If it were the truth, she might have a case.

I totally agree that SCOTUS has gone way too far religious rights and I think the fallout is going to be significant, but I don't think this case has anything to do with that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

28. As opposed to an honestly held but delusional belief?

So it's bad to bring a knife to school if you just want to, and lie about it, but right to do so if you 'have a vision' that 'god' believes you should take a knife to school?

[cbayer]

30. Define delusional? Do you think all religious beliefs are delusional?

Yes, weapons are not allowed in schools but an exception is made for the symbolic dagger carried by Sikhs. There is a difference.

If you have vision, then it would be important to evaluate whether that is a symptom of an illness or not. If you want to bring a symbolic dagger to school, it would be important to determine whether that were an established custom within your religion or just your individual desire.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

34. Me personally?

Yes, but in this case I was speaking hypothetically of a person who even other religious people would agree was delusional.

Indeed, if we were to posit that the supernatural truly exists, there would be no real way to actually separate out delusional beliefs from 'true' religious experiences, since a 'God' could send visions via any mechanism at all. The mere fact that people who believed in a different 'God' would be willing to believe the person who has a vision from a different God than theirs as being delusional wouldn't make it any more likely that it was or was not a delusion. A God could certainly choose to deliver messages through what we see as an 'illness' if they so desired.

[cbayer]

36. Well, your belief that all religious people are delusional is why

we have a 1st amendment. It's to protect religious people from these kinds of beliefs.

There actually are very tried and true methods of separating out delusional beliefs from religious beliefs. There are many with extensive expertise in this area. I am guessing that you are not a member of that group.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

40. Heh, nice ad hom.

There actually are very tried and true methods of separating out delusional beliefs from religious beliefs. There are many with extensive expertise in this area. I am guessing that you are not a member of that group.

No, what there are are 'very tried and true methods' of labeling one set of delusional beliefs as being delusional while being careful not to label the delusional beliefs of other groups with more power as delusional. Shared delusions gain the political power to avoid being labeled delusional.

[cbayer]

45. It's not an ad hom, it's a true reflection of the position that you hold.

Are you a BSN? If you are, then surely you are aware that there are psychiatric professionals that are able to determine whether someone is delusional or not. Or perhaps you haven't had much exposure to psychiatry. There is no evidence that I am aware of that would support your contention that "shared delusions" gain political power in order to avoid being called delusional.

Please look up the definition of delusion. There is a critical part in there that requires that there be evidence to the contrary before it can be called that. Do you have evidence that what religious believe is not true?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

49. Yes, I am a BSN, and yes I've done psych rotations

and taken psych classes. And while I agree there are ways to proclaim something delusional, I also believe that it would be professional suicide for a psychiatrist to challenge delusions that are socially acceptable.

If I were to tell you I saw a unicorn yesterday, would you say that was delusional or not? Do you have evidence that I didn't?

I think most psychiatrists would be more than willing to proclaim that a delusion on my part, despite the fact that they didn't have any 'proof' that I didn't.

[cbayer]

53. It's not about proclaiming, it's about diagnosing.

Delusions are generally part of serious psychiatric disorders. Your contention is not only an attack on religious people, but on those with serious psychiatric illnesses as well.

It wouldn't be professional suicide at all. Religious beliefs are generally accepted by those in the psychiatric fields. What would be professional suicide would be to take your position, as all of the major professional organizations have very clear standards about this.

I'm not going to diagnose you here. That would be highly unprofessional. You may or may not be delusional.

What most psychiatrists would do is merely conjecture on your part. There might be many reasons for you to make the statement that you saw a unicorn, and not all of them would be psychiatric.

Your use of the word "proclaim" is really interesting in this context. It almost sounds religious, lol.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

57. I'm not diagnosing either.

As a nurse, the only things I can diagnose are 'nursing diagnoses'. I can't even tell you 'You've got the flu' as a diagnosis. I can "diagnose" symptoms, not diseases. Ie, patient presents with moderate serosanguinous discharge.

While I might 'consider' people as being delusional, I'm never going to diagnose them as such, barring the unlikely eventuality that I decide to go on to the MD. And even though you don't think it would be professional suicide, even in that case, I'd avoid the hot potato of daring to do such with any delusions that might be considered religious.

I don't take political beliefs to work, and I don't take religious beliefs to work. When a patient presents religious ideas, I am pleasant, vague, and generally agreeable. None of them ever know I'm an atheist.

[rug]

69. What would you do with an atheist patient who declared himself to be Christopher Hitchens?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. Not bring up religion?

My role as a nurse is to create an environment that makes the patient feel comfortable and in as little stress as possible, given that simply being in a hospital is a stressful thing already. As such, it's not my place to disagree with them on anything not related to to their treatment, or even do more than to try to convince them of the need for such treatment. Nurses are also 'patient advocates', so if the patient even really feels the need to disregard medical advice, it's not even my job to pressure them to agree to treatment, only to convince if possible by offering information on the likely outcomes, side effects of specific treatments or refusing same.

Despite my prior time in psych wings in school, I have no particular plans to work psych units in the future, so orienting or reoriented a patient to reality is going to be limited to patients coming out from under anaesthesia or other disorienting drugs or those dealing with various forms of dementia, and we generally stick to concrete, rather than abstract concepts there. 'What day is it, where are you', etc, not 'what are your ideas on religion'.

[cbayer]

75. Well, then you may be well over your head in calling people delusional.

I asked you earlier to define delusional, but you did not. So I assumed you were using it in it's generally understood clinical sense. If you mean it in a different way, please clarify.

That fact that you don't take religious beliefs to work is completely irrelevant, as you don't have any. But you probably take your non-religioous beliefs to work, whether they be about social issues or political issues or your own sexual identity or on and on. You are wanting people to stay in the closet when it comes to their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs do not infringe on your own rights in any way.

I'm glad you are pleasant, vague, generally agreeable and, I suspect, patronizing when dealing with your religious patients.. Your "beliefs" are very much at play whether you say you are an atheist or not. And there is no reason that they should not be.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Patronizing?

Simply because I'm willing to be open in this particular forum, when asked directly?

As to a definition, I'm using the general layman sort of meaning - believing in things that don't exist, or that there is no way to prove they exist.

By 'generally agreeable', I mean that if patients bring up any non-medical topic, I let them make their own conclusions that I agree with them by being vague. Religion, politics, whatever. I don't tell them they're wrong, I don't let them think I even believe they're wrong. If they're Fox True Believers, I let them believe I am too, because my job is to keep them comfortable and healing quickly, not to proselytize for any belief or non-belief I personally may hold.

[cbayer]

80. They way that you describe your interaction with patients who are religious came

across as fairly patronizing. If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

If you are using the lay term, then I will give you much more leeway. However, I will challenge you if you say that it means believing in things that don't exist. Until you have evidence that those things don't exist, you have no standing to say such a thing.

If you want to define delusional as believing in something for which there is no proof, then you are using a very broad, lay definition which becomes troublesome when applied to other areas.

If you tell me you love your wife (this is just an example) and there really is no way for you to prove that, can I call you delusional?

All good clinicians master the technique that you describe. Neither disagreeing nor agreeing with them when it comes to religion or politics is the most professional thing to do. I would hope that you would never tell someone that they are wrong when it comes to their religious beliefs, even though you do seem to believe that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

82. I actually have seen quite a few religious nurses who 'take it work'.

Many of them don't seem to see it as a problem to tell patients they'll 'pray for them', or even to offer to 'pray with them'. They're competent as clinicians, usually moreso than I, thanks to more experience, but I do find that a bit troubling.

If we want to stay medical, you don't even have to go to 'love'. Just look at 'signs and symptoms'. You, as an outside observer, cannot 'prove' a symptom. If you're feeling pain, I have to take your word for it. Sure I can make guesses, if you're grimacing, or holding your muscles tight, or whatever. But I can't actually feel it, or measure it (at least in any normal setting, without neuro tools to 'watch' your brain in realtime), I have to take your word for it. But 'pain' in and of itself is something common to humanity - anyone with a functional nervous system can tell that pain exists, through their own experiences. So you could be lying, if you tell me you're feeling pain 'right now', but it's certainly possible that you're feeling pain, whether or not I can tell you are.

Ditto 'love'. We've got a lot of experience that tells us it exists, as defined in a variety of ways. So again, if I were to tell you 'I love ...' I could indeed be lying, I could be telling the truth, or I could even be deluding myself. But you tell me how you define 'love', and how you prove you love someone, and I can probably point to a similar history of actions I take that are usually undertaken by human beings who 'love' someone else.

You're certainly free to disbelieve me, consider me to be lying, or again simply decide I'm delusional, but this is something humanity generally has direct experience with.

To go back to my unicorns or bigfoot (or the 'flying spaghetti monster' that someone brought up in a comment, iirc,) I think there's a bit of a qualitative difference. While there is some slim possibility they exist in some weird, remote, uncharted piece of real estate, and we simply can't find them, I think the chances are pretty strong they simply don't exist, and won't until humanity gets a LOT better at gene splicing. Now there's a lot of historical writing about unicorns, a lot of paintings of them, going back hundreds, even possibly thousands of years. Some people would even be tempted to call that 'proof'. They would say 'Humans have been writing about unicorns for a thousand years, making pictures of them, describing their habits', etc, etc. And obviously lots of people in the past believed in their existence. But do we have any actual proof? Bones, horns that aren't narwhal or ibex, DNA, whatever? I don't think so. So I'm prepared to stipulate I believe people who tell me they saw unicorns yesterday to be mistaken, quite likely deluded. Just like folks who tell me 'supply side economics works'.

[cbayer]

83. And here is the crux of the matter, imo.

Proselytizing at work or in a public school should be prohibited, imo. When it comes to health care, I find this particularly noxious, as patients are definitely in the one-down and vulnerable position.

But that is distinctly different than allowing people to wear identifying clothing or jewelry that are part of their religious beliefs.

I really like your example of pain. It is indeed so hard to prove and you have to believe your patients and have faith that they are telling you the truth. At least until you have evidence that they aren't.

So are patients that present with pain delusional because there is no proof that they are actually experience pain. I would hope that would not be your position.

How is this different than those that believe in a god? Who are you or I to say that they are wrong.

Now, if they insist that they hold the truth and that everyone who doesn't believe is wrong, or even worse delusional, they definitely carry the burden of proof.

If want to use the argument that something is right because humanity generally agrees that it is true, then you will have to concede the religion argument, because an overwhelming majority of humans believe.

I generally take the position that beliefs are not worth challenging unless they are interfering with one's ability to exist or placing someone or others in danger or infringing on the rights of other.

So if someone tells me they believe in unicorns or bigfoot or that they have been visited by aliens, I'm not going to call them delusional unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Noting that we will probably end this conversation soon, I want to thank you for this. I have enjoyed having this discussion with you and greatly respect that you keep it civil and don't make it personal.

Although we may strongly disagree on some things, I sense a level of mutual respect which makes this a very good discussion.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

85. I wasn't clear enough, I think

So are patients that present with pain delusional because there is no proof that they are actually experience pain. I would hope that would not be your position.

How is this different than those that believe in a god? Who are you or I to say that they are wrong.

I chose pain specifically as being something qualitatively different from God.

If want to use the argument that something is right because humanity generally agrees that it is true, then you will have to concede the religion argument, because an overwhelming majority of humans believe.

As I pointed out, EVERY human with a functioning nervous system (including a brain) has had direct experience with pain. That's quite a bit different from 'a majority' or even 'an overwhelming majority 'believing'. You don't 'believe in' pain - you've felt it, you've had direct proof of it. I can 'prove' to you that pain exists by doing something painful to you. I'm not trying to prove that at one particular moment in time you were in pain, just that 'pain' as a concept does have some shared reality for all of humanity. How do you similarly prove to me that God exists (in the way that humanity typically describes God in various religions)? If you want to say 'God is everything', ie, 'God is the universe', I've got no problem with that, I can interact with the universe. It 'is'. But if you want to say 'He's a 'he', who sits in judgment upon human beings after death, etc, etc, what is the actual proof, that isn't just the same thing I brought up in re unicorns? Ie, many people believe(d) in them, painted them, wrote about them, for hundreds or thousands of years, so they 'must exist'?

As to the 'challenging them', I generally agree - I'll 'challenge them' within the sandbox of an online forum, but I don't go around talking religion or lack thereof with people on a daily basis, unless I see a direct harm originating with a specific belief. And I don't go around telling people I think they're delusional, unless they specifically ask me if I consider their beliefs so. In part, because a lot of people take it as a personal insult, rather than just a statement of my opinion of non-empirically based 'belief'. And also that (people asking me if they are delusional) generally just doesn't happen offline.

And yeah, it's getting close to bedtime, I'm getting groggy here.

[cbayer]

86. And I would make the argument that pain and religious belief are very similar.

Both are highly subjective and, imo, are experiences that people have that hey can not provide evidence for.

Perhaps where your argument fall apart is that you feel that religious belief is somehow a choice. Perhaps belief is similar to sexual identity and not a choice at all.

And perhaps your not believing is also not a choice, but just a part of who you are.

You can only demand proof from those that say with certainty that there is a god (or, conversely, that there is no god).

I remain primarily agnostic. I really don't know, but I think that people with religious beliefs and those without religion beliefs are all playing on the same level field. Neither has any proof and both positions are legitimate.

As you like to challenge and have every right to do so, I also like to challenge and I will challenge those who take the position that they have the truth, the one way, and everyone else is somehow defective.

BTW, calling someone delusional is a personal insult unless you are a psychiatric professional and saying this as a part of an explanation of symptoms or a diagnosis.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

96. I believe belief or lack thereof are both choices.

And change throughout our lifetimes, depending upon our experiences. I think the way the human brain is structured, we naturally seek patterns, feel that there should be 'meaning', there should be 'reason' for everything. And I think this is how both science and faith arose.

Our ancient ancestors, who hadn't yet conceived of the scientific process, still felt that there had to be connections between things, reasons for things that happened. But they didn't have the tools to understand how weather patterns are created through the interaction of sunlight transforming into heat and differential actions of gases and liquids, so they decided there must be 'someone' or 'something' who had the power to create the storms. Lightning did damage, so it must be a 'weapon' of this superbeing, and a sign of his displeasure (since men were generally the 'warriors'.)

But there were all sorts of things that needed explaining, so entire groups of 'Gods' arose, each with different powers, different personalities, different goals. And because they saw Gods as being like themselves, they decided that they couldn't pay attention to everything at once, and so all sorts of 'minor' supernatural creatures arose, who had less power than the Gods, and were tied to smaller things. And, of course, if they were like us, then maybe we could ask them to use their powers to help us, to hurt our enemies, or at least not to hurt us.

But some people noticed that sometimes these 'prayers' seemed to be answered and sometimes they weren't. While some were content to simply have 'faith' and acribe it merely to the whims of the Gods, or their 'ineffable nature', others decided there must be something that could make prayers more likely to be answered. And experimentation was born, as they began to seek to find out how to get prayers more likely to be answered.

And some of those people eventually realized that the things they'd prayed for happened whether or not they prayed, as long as they did the other things they'd been doing at the same time. And realized that just maybe, there wasn't actually a God involved in what they were doing. That if they did A, B would follow, without any prayers at all. That maybe, man could start simply figuring out explanations for things happening that didn't require creating a God, or a demon, or elves, or nymphs, or whatever.

And that's where I feel the divide comes down.

Some people are still willing to simply ascribe things they don't have an explanation for to a supernatural being or beings. Others say, while we can find explanations, time and again, for things that happen that don't require and supernatural being, we have never yet actually found anything that DOES actually require a supernatural being to happen. As long as we keep studying, and figuring out more and more about ourselves and our environment, there's always an explanation to be found that doesn't require anything 'more'. So why should we even believe in Gods? We first imagined them to exist to explain things we didn't understand, but with each thing we find a way to explain that doesn't require a God, what is there left for a God to actually do? They aren't using lighting as weapons, creating forest fires, they don't cause tides, earthquakes, the movements of the stars, day and night, etc, etc, etc.

So people who see that if we study things we don't understand, we eventually learn to understand them, there is no real attraction in simply saying 'There must be a God, to explain things I don't understand, to give 'meaning' or 'reason' to my life.'

And, BTW, you can choose to be offended at anything anyone says. But it's up to the individual speaking to decide if they're actually trying to be insulting. When I say I consider any belief in the supernatural to be delusional, I have absolutely no intent to be 'insulting', I'm simply stating what I see as honestly as I see it. I'm not insulting drugged up patients when I tell them they're delusional. I'm not insulting dementia patients when I tell them they're having delusions. And I'm not even insulting Tea Partiers when I tell them their belief in 'supply side economics' as being beneficial to everyone is delusional. I'm simply stating what I see. Anyone who wants to can choose whether or not they want to be insulted, I can't control that.

[cbayer]

97. Your belief that religious belief is a choice is not

backed up by any facts or data. Could you choose to be a believer? If not, why not?

And increase in scientific understanding hasn't really correlated with a decrease in religious belief. So, while various iterations of god have been designed to explain things, the concept of god does not go away when those things are better understood.

You continue to take the position that those who have no religious beliefs are somehow superior. I reject that completely and again note that there is no evidence that would support that contention.

Belief isn't about needing a god. It is simply the belief that there is something greater out there. There is no requirement for a god, there is just a belief by some that there is one.

The old "offended" argument rings hollow for me. I don't think people necessarily choose to be offended and I do think that sometimes people choose to offend. I tend to defer to the offended party. If someone tells me that i am using language that offends them and explains to me why that is, I am likely to stop using those terms, unless, of course, it is my intention to offend them.

Calling people delusional is offensive and meant to be so, imo. When you tell a drugged up patient that they are delusional, you are probably using a clinical term to describe a clinical state. When you tell a religious person they are delusional, you are insulting them. You can control that.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

99. I don't go around telling people

they're delusional.

In a comment upthread, you (or another poster) specifically asked me if I considered religious thought delusional, so I honestly answered.

Don't ask, and you won't hear things you consider an insult.

[cbayer]

102. That might be even worse. Saying things about people

behind their backs that you would not say to their face is not really a behavior I would be proud of.

You first used the term delusional. Once you used it I asked that you define it.

Don't ask, don't tell? That seems to be the whole theme here.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

109. I'm saying it in a public forum.

It's not my fault if every religious person in the world doesn't happen to read DU, and thus my saying it here is somehow 'behind their backs'.

It's not like I go off to atheist meetings and yuck it up laughing at religious people. Like I said, I'm not mocking them, I'm not going around telling people I think religious people are lunatics or anything. I'm simply saying, WHEN DIRECTLY ASKED, that I think they believe in things that don't exist.

[cbayer]

111. I was responding to your statement that you don't tell religious people

that they are delusional IRL. Why do you suppose that is?

Is it similar to people that would use slurs to describe black or GLBT people when they were with like-minded people but would never do that when there were black or GLBT around?

Again, you were not DIRECTLY ASKED. Go back to review this thread. You brought up "honestly held but delusional belief" without being asked.

If you tell people that "they believe in things that don't exist", the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any evidence that what they believe in doesn't exist?

Of course you don't'.

[Goblinmonger]

33. So now we can call bullshit on religious people?

So if someone on DU says they are Catholic but we know they use birth control, have sex outside of the sacrament of marriage, don't go to confession, support abortion rights, support gay marriage, or anyone of the other myriad progression positions that aren't part of the RCC, then we can call bullshit on them? We can tell them they aren't Catholics? Tell them they are liars? Because I don't think that would go over very well here.

And, yes, that's an extreme example, but once we protect religion from criticism, we now have to protect those that say their religious beliefs mean they have to carry an Uzi. Because once you start drawing lines about which religions can be mocked, then you are just protecting those things you like.

If I have a Jewish student and a Scientologist, does the Scientologist get fewer 1st Amendment rights because it is more clear to us that Scientology is just made up by a shitty sci-fi writer and isn't that old? Because that seems to be what you are arguing.

[cbayer]

35. Being a member of a religious group does not require that someone follow all

the tenets of said religion. Certainly you are not an extremist who would believe such a thing?

There are as many flavors of catholicism as there are catholics, and that is one of the things that makes if much less ominous that religions or other groups that have strict expectations that everyone behave in a certain way and believe in a certain way or that can't be a member.

They aren't liars at all. The girl brought a knife to school to cut a steak. It had nothing to do with religious beliefs. Had she claimed later that it did, she would clearly be lying.

No one is protecting religion from criticism, but because it is fertile soil for scammers, I think it's important to assess when someone is simply lying.

There is no religion that says you have to carry an Uzi. None. These examples are lame. And it's not about mocking, it's about respecting the right of others to exercise their religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone.

What 1st amendment rights do you think would be granted to a Jew that would not be granted to a scientologist?

[Fumesucker]

100. Does being a member of a religious group require following any tenets of the religion at all?

If you say you're a Christian or a Sikh or a Muslim or a Rasta or whatever then that's what you are, yes?

Interpretations of scripture vary widely enough that trying to nail down just what the tenets of any particular religion might be is more than a bit difficult.

[cbayer]

103. I don't think it necessarily does require that you follow specific tenets.

Every christian, jew, muslim and mormon I know follow some but not all of the "rules". It is only the most conservative within a religious group that really try to follow them all.

I think being one of those things indicates that you follow a certain belief system that is generally exemplified by certain prophets. As far as I know, there are no agreed upon requirements for what else one would need to meet the definition.

There are some denominations that have certain requirements and there are people who are thrown out of these groups from time to time.

And this is why I consistently object to those that throw all christians, etc. into the same bowl and refuse to see the distinctions. It's even more objectionable when someone throws all religious people into the same bowl.

[Fumesucker]

104. The tenets of atheism are ridiculously simple

Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?

If you answer no then you are an atheist.

Now quite possibly you may also be an agnostic but that is a separate question.

I suppose because it's easy to throw all atheists into the same very simple bowl it's a natural reaction for atheists to throw all theists in a single bowl too.

[cbayer]

105. Well, FS, I would make the same contention about theism.

It's ridiculously simple.

Do you believe in the existence of a god or gods?

If you answer yes, then you are a theist.

You are probably also an agnostic, but you might actually think you know.

I totally agree that it is all too easy to throw all atheists into the same bowl and believe that, like theists, there are as many kinds of atheists as there are atheists. Making distinctions is important, but, confusingly, there are sometimes objections by some atheists when one tries to make distinctions.

Is turn around fair play? Or is it a better approach to not replicate the things that others do that you object to?

[Fumesucker]

106. I'm thoroughly used to being in the "evil person with no morals" bowl..

Funny thing is most of the people I hear it from have no idea that their words are aimed at me, I stopped taking it personally a long time ago.

Don't tell me you're an atheist, let me figure it out.

[cbayer]

107. No one should be used to being in that bowl.

That's a bigoted and ugly position to take and I will work with you and anyone else to challenge that belief until it is eradicated.

Whether you take it personally or not is not the issue, but I am glad that you do not.

It doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else is, as long as we accept that others may be different and that's ok.

[Fumesucker]

108. It's kind of funny actually

I have a family member who comes to me for advice sometimes on moral dilemmas because she knows I'm fairly good at cutting through peripheral issues and getting to the essence of things.

And yet she still uses the phrase "He's a good Christian man" when talking about other men around me and it never even occurs to her that I might take it as a slam on me.

From my perspective it seems that atheists are supposed to defer and cater to the sensitivities of the religious by not mentioning our thoughts on religion (something that's started several arguments with this person when I have finally spoken up after much provocation) but it never even occurs to the religious that atheists might also have feelings that could possibly be hurt by something like I mentioned.

Religious privilege is about where white privilege was when I was growing up in the South back in the middle of the last century, it never even occurred to the vast majority of the whites that being called the N word and "boy" or "girl" might bother blacks but let a black get "uppity" to a white and it was the worst thing evah!

[cbayer]

110. What do you think she means by "a good christian man".

Is the christian part literal or is it meant as some kind of metaphor? Have you considered discussing it with her?

I think you are right and there is an assumption by many that atheists should defer and cater, but I think change will come because people no longer agree to do that. That doesn't mean getting in someone's face, but it does mean having civil and thoughtful discussions with people.

While your statement that "it never even occurs to the religious ….." may be true of some, it is not true of others. And if it is the case, it would make sense to challenge that assumption when you have the opportunity to do so.

This has been very effective in every civil rights movement, imo. It took people speaking up when the N word was used.

I think things are changing and I believe that religious privilege is fading and will continue to fade.

[Fumesucker]

112. A man who is a Christian and she sees as being a moral person, it's basically a literal statement

There was one incident too personal to go into where she said something to me regarding a major tragedy in my life that was ridiculously cruel and hurtful from my perspective but she thought she was saying something that would be comforting to me.

Maybe things will change, looking at GD here on DU I'm not sure I see it though. Even on DU the religious privilege is largely unnoticed and unquestioned or even scoffed at by most of the theists despite the amount of squawking we hear about various other types of privilege.

[cbayer]

113. When that incident happened with your friend, how did you react?

And if you said nothing, can you explain to me why?

Although I definitely see a lot of religious privilege in the world, and in the US in particular, I don't see it on DU. Now it could be because I have some kind of blinders on, but I don't really see any kind of anti-atheist sentiment on DU.

I see some negative responses to individuals, but, frankly, that is because they are jerks. It really does not have anything to do with their atheism. They may use that as there primary point of identification, but I don't think it is that that evokes the negative response.

Honestly, I think it's more acceptable on this site to attack believers than non-believers. I just had a rather long conversation with a member who thinks that all religious believers are delusional. Do you think a similar conversation about atheists would be tolerated?

[Fumesucker]

114. I was already seriously distraught and it made me more so

And this is a family member although not a blood relative.

I don't recall what I said, trying to explain what was going through my head in a remotely rational manner at that point was well beyond my capabilities. It was one of those extreme negative life changing situations that only come along a few times in a normal life.

I read a lot more here than I post and I saw that conversation you are referring to, it's my opinion that everyone is delusional to some extent, everyone has irrational thoughts that don't coincide to reality I know that I do from time to time.

You might recall back in Jan 2013 when Obama had his second inauguration and some foolish atheist DUer mentioned the religious trappings of of the inaugural bothered him a bit, the pushback was quick and severe on that in GD.

[cbayer]

115. So even though you don't take it personally, it hurts you personally.

Someone recently told me that it is your choice whether to be offended or not. I totally disagree with this. Your post explains very well that it is not an optional. If someone stabs you, even if it is accidental, it still can hurt badly.

While I agree that everyone has irrational thoughts or thoughts that aren't supported by reality, I reject calling that delusional. That is a term that describes a symptom of an illness. It is unfair to those who actually suffer to use the term cavalierly to describe something that is common and expected.

I don't recall the thread that you reference, but I certainly don't think that a single thread makes the case for religious privilege.

I see frequent posts from members decrying the intrusion of religion into government and I don't see pushback.

[Fumesucker]

116. There are times we are more vulnerable than others, I got caught at a vulnerable moment

Possibly the most vulnerable moment of my life so far.

And the comment was truly vile from my point of view, emotionally it felt like gloating over my misfortune although intellectually I know it was intended as just the opposite.

Here's one of my OPs regarding religion in politics from 2008, note the amount of denial of my point in the thread and the number of personal insults thrown my way by the theists despite the fact I never responded in kind. Personal attacks were almost always deleted by the mods on DU2 but those attacks on me were left to stand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3896421

[Cartoonist]

12. Much ado about nothing

These ceremonial daggers are about 1-2 inches long. About the size of a crucifix on a chain worn by many. People freak out about the dumbest shit. How many instances are their of a crucifix in the eye?
?version=0

[riqster]

50. Plus, I still haven't seen any examples of US schoolyard assaults using Kripans.

Strawman? Oh yeah.

[Agnosticsherbet]

55. So who will be the first to start a church that declares the gun a holy symbol

and requires all members to pack their heat, as a matter of faith, of course

[riqster]

67. Probably already exists.

[Agnosticsherbet]

81. I did a quick google search but could not find one.

It would be perfect. The Second Amendment Church of the Holy Gun. SCOTUS in the Hoby Lobby case already said that belief can not questioned, even if it is demonstrably wrong.

[rogerashton]

58. it is a weapon

even if only symbolically.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2005/06/03/june-3-2005-sikh-saint-soldier/12270/

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

The Kirpan was adopted as a symbol of Sikhism in the context of Sikh violent resistance to Mughal oppression, which included the assassination of several earlier Gurus. Earlier, Sikhism had been pacifist.

[rug]

64. If a Sikh feels the need to fight, I expect he'd use something other than a kirpan.

From your PBS link:

And the last Article of Faith is the Kirpan. It’s a religious sword that is worn to remind Sikhs that they have a responsibility and a duty to stand up for justice.

Sikhs are not pacifists, but at the same time, we do not espouse violence. The philosophy is that if all other means of achieving justice have failed, it’s righteous to raise the sword. That philosophy comes out of this concept of “saint-soldier,” where the common analogy given is that a sword is merely a tool. In the hand of a righteous man, it can be used to uphold justice; in the hands of somebody who is evil, it will be used to commit atrocities.

[rogerashton]

72. Yes, and Sikh soldiers are well trained in modern weapons systems.

But so what? This sounds a lot like "the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Still don't want guns in schools.

[rug]

73. Don't want kids expelled for pointing fingers and saying "pow!" either.

[gladium et scutum]

93. Sikhs in the U.S.Army

are allowed to carry their kirpans, wear turbans and grow beards.

[rug]

95. Yes, and for some time now.

http://www.army.mil/article/36339/sikh-soldiers-allowed-to-serve-retain-their-articles-of-faith/

[riqster]

65. We could say much the same about the crucifix.

[rogerashton]

71. No we could not.

The crucifix is a symbol of the victim of violence, not the one who does violence.

[riqster]

84. No, the crucifix was and is a tool of violence.

A brutal, vicious instrument of of torture, death and intimidation. That is what a crucifix IS.

[DreamGypsy]

79. An article about a wounding with a kirpan...

...the only one I found from a quick search.

But first, a note about the meaning of the kirpan from wikipedia:

The kirpan (/kɪərˈpɑːn/; Punjabi: ਕਿਰਪਾਨ kirpān) is a ceremonial sword or dagger carried by baptised Sikhs. It is a religious commandment given by Guru Gobind Singh in 1699 in which all baptised Sikhs must wear five articles of faith at all times, the kirpan being one of five articles.

The word kirpan has two roots - the first root is "kirpa", which means "mercy, grace, compassion, kindness"; the second root is "aan", which in turn means "honor, grace, dignity".

Sikhs embody the qualities of a "Sant Sipahi" or saint-soldier. One must have control over one's internal vices and be able to be constantly immersed in virtues clarified in the Guru Granth Sahib. A Sikh must also have the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted irrespective of their colour, caste or creed.

And here's the article, Toronto Star, April 6, 2010, Brampton kirpan attack renews debate over Sikh daggers:

An attack in which a Brampton lawyer was stabbed using a Sikh ceremonial dagger is raising fears about renewed objections to the right to wear the religious symbol. The kirpan is banned in Denmark and France, but is allowed in most public places in Canada, including at schools.

The crowd of about 150 people was yelling obscenities and threats outside the Sikh Lehar Centre in Brampton when three temple officials stepped out to pacify them.

Within seconds, one in the crowd, clutching a thick steel bangle, punched Manjit Mangat, the 53-year-old president of the Sikh temple, in the face. Witnesses say at least two men brandished unsheathed kirpans, the Sikh ceremonial dagger.

The next moment, Mangat, a prominent Brampton lawyer, was on the ground — his face bloodied and a 5-inch wound in his abdomen.

What was the cause of this attack? From Law Times, Injured Sikh lawyer has no regrets:

Manjit Mangat, a former justice of the peace who practises in Brampton, Ont., is also a trustee of the Sikh Lehar Centre, where protesters turned out on April 2 to demonstrate against the appearance of a controversial preacher.

“I don’t know who my enemy is,” Mangat says. “People are communicating hate on Facebook and on the Internet. It’s hard to understand the situation, even for me.”

Doctors treated Mangat for multiple stab wounds after the protest turned violent. Although he’s now recovering at home, Mangat says tension in the community continues to simmer.

Mangat started receiving demands to cancel an appearance by Darshan Singh in the days leading up to the event.

Singh once held one of the highest positions in the Sikh religion but has stoked controversy by suggesting followers of Sikhism shouldn’t accept one of its holy books, a view that resulted in his excommunication earlier this year.

Religions are not immune to internal struggle and dissension.

[EvilAL]

87. At the other end of the spectrum

a kid in Ontario died recently because his asthma inhaler is banned due to it being a prescription drug. He died on the playground while his inhaler was locked in the office.

I don't really care about the dagger thing. I figure 'no weapons' means 'no weapons', religious or not.

[cbayer]

88. Had not heard of this. Do you have a link?

[EvilAL]

89. sure

Ryan died Oct. 9, 2012 after an asthma attack when he was outside the school building during recess.

http://barrie.ctvnews.ca/proposed-law-would-let-kids-with-asthma-keep-their-inhalers-while-in-school-1.2067655

Sorry, he didn't recently die, I thought it happened this month, but it was 2012.. They are fighting to make a law so it can't happen again...

[cbayer]

90. That is a really tragic story and I hope they change the law as a result.

Thanks so much for the link.

[EvilAL]

91. Yeah, it doesn't make sense,

it's not like he's gonna be selling puffs of his inhaler on the playground. Asthma inhalers can't be worse than carrying a dagger. I think they are still allowed to wear them in Canada in school if they are covered and in a case or sheath sewn into the clothing..

[cbayer]

92. Some of the rules regarding medications for children are really counterproductive.

They single out the child as being different and possibly defective, which makes it worse for them.

[Dorian Gray]

94. Is it possible

to make a non-blunt dagger for Sikh children to take to school? A non-sharp wooden blade? Would that violate their religious code?

[rug]

101. There are many ways to accommodate this.

There's even a thesis about it:

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/29806/9/Martin_Mary_S-201106_EDD_thesis.pdf.pdf.pdf

Here's the case she's talking about:

https://archive.org/stream/boi90_008/boi90_008_djvu.txt