Sikh student allowed to bring dagger to public school as a gesture toward religious tolerance

104 thoughts on “Sikh student allowed to bring dagger to public school as a gesture toward religious tolerance”

1. If ever there was a no-brainer when it comes to accommodating religion, this is it. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

2. While there is ample evidence of the danger of guns where is the evidence of the danger in allowing Sikhs to wear their Kirpans?

   1. I guess, then, that all students should be allowed to carry knives in schools. There’s no evidence of students being killed by hand grenades, spears, or zip guns in schools, either, so should we allow those, too?

      1. Having the weapon concealed is not consoling either. A nail bomb strapped to the body under a jacket is an intimidating weapon precisely because it is concealed.

         It means that Sikhs can carry a lethal weapon, where other citizens cannot. Absurd pretention of an imported minority group.

         Macho, warrior cultishness? Superior because exempt.

         No knives in schools. Full stop!

   2. Where is the evidence of the danger of people bringing knives on planes? The vast majority don’t pose a threat, therefore they should be permitted to.

      1. Ummm. . . you do know that the 9/11 hijackers used boxcutters, don’t you? Those are basically knives, so that’s your evidence. They were used to cut the throats of flight attendants.

         1. Jerry, I was pointing out the flaws in Mike’s argument, not arguing that knifes should be permitted. As far as 9/11 is concerned, that is an n of 1.

            1. n = 1
               fatalities = 2,996

            2. 13,000,000 people fly every day worldwide, and hijackings are rare.

   3. I’ve never heard of kids being harmed in school by bazookas, and my particular pastafarian sect imputes religious significance to bazookas. Let my kid take the family bazooka to school!

      1. Let my kid take the family bazooka to school!

         With one or several … what are the projectiles in bazookas called? Rockets?
         Actually, I don’t need to know that. It’s a useless item of information.

         1. A bazooka is a type of RPG I believe, RPG as in Rocket Propelled Grenade.

   4. Great googlymoogly.

      Where is the evidence that knives are dangerous? Really?

      Where is the evidence that if you leapt off the roof of my house you’d seriously injure yourself? It’s never happened. Not once! So come on everybody! Up to the roof! This will be fun!

      1. I believe I can fly so jumping off your roof poses no threat to me. Can I bring my machete for ceremonial purposes?

         1. Well, as long as you can demonstrate that you *sincerely* believe you can fly, then I guess I have to give it a green light.

         2. Let me guess…anti-gravity waves emanate from the tip of your machete, so you hold it point-up towards your belly when you launch yourself off the rooftop, right?

            If so, I do believe we can accommodate you just fine!

            b&

3. There was a similar case in Canada and the Supreme Court ruled that it was okay to carry the kirpan. Since these knives are ceremonial, they are typically not sharpened and some carry non metal kirpans. They also have to wear it under their clothes so it isn’t readily accessible by them or others who could steal it. I believe the Supreme Court thought through these things well and I don’t see the kirpan as a big deal.

   A relevant section from Wikipedia on the Supreme Court’s considerations:

   The Supreme Court replied the claimant himself was not violent, and the limitations accepted by the claimant made a theft unlikely. The thief would have to seize the claimant and look under the claimant’s clothing. Additionally, there was little to no proof students have used kirpans as weapons in schools. Although cases involving airline security have resulted in the banning of kirpans on planes, the Court quoted the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as saying whereas people know each other in a school, planes will always carry different people who never know each other. There is little opportunity to judge whether a passenger is violent. As for the argument that the kirpan could encourage other students to bring weapons to school, as defence against the kirpan, the Court replied this was speculative. Of relation to this concern was the worry that the school atmosphere would be negatively affected. The Court replied it was untrue that the kirpan represented violence, and that it had religious meanings instead. The Court also found this theory could be offensive to Sikhs and would thus contradict multiculturalism. If some students feel it is unfair that the claimant can wear a kirpan to school while they cannot carry knives, the Court suggested schools should teach these students the importance of freedom of religion.

   1. I should note that there were restrictions put on the carrier that were accepted and I find it odd that in this case there were none considered (like a non metal kirpan or unsharpened metal). The Supreme Court acknowledged when considering this case that limitations to freedom of religion are acceptable when that freedom infringes on the safety/rights of others.

      1. Old timer that I am, I remember frequently carrying a pocket knife to school (as well as others), the teachers were well aware of it and if we were carving sticks or somesuch at lunch, they just kept an eye on it.

         My wife said that she was frustrated because her parents thought it was inappropriate for a girl, but her brothers and the other boys could carry knives.

      2. This crazy, fear driven world we live in. Like many people I carried a knife to school, it was not big deal. TSA isn’t so clever either, a while back I accidentally grabbed a jacket with a lockback knife in the pocket. Went right through security.

         But there is a very negative component of our current fear culture. People are being restricted, NOT because of anything they did, but what OTHERS ARE AFRAID they might do. I am damned sick of being constrained to alleviate other people’s fears.

         1. I couldn’t agree more about the culture of fear. It applies to so-called ‘health & safety’ as well. People saying ‘if something happens (the something is never well-defined) we could be blamed for not having done (something) to prevent it’. So they do something fairly pointless, usually at someone else’s inconvenience and expense. ‘Security’ and ‘health and safety’ seem to be the modern equivalent of religion, and no-one dares call it bullshit for fear of being persecuted for blasphemy.

   2. …the Court suggested schools should teach these students the importance of freedom of religion.

      Freedom of Religion: A special kind of freedom extended only to people with imaginary friends.

      1. Actually that isn’t even close. I personally wouldn’t want to live in a country that didn’t allow people to believe what they wanted to. It certainly wasn’t pleasant to live that way in the Soviet Union.

         Further, Freedom of Religion in Canada has been used to protect atheists from being subjected to religious hounding, a notable case being Gideon bible distribution being thrown out of schools when an atheist parent complained and threatened legal action.

         As an atheist who was forced to pray as a child in school, I would never inflict the same force on anyone else.

         1. If knives are considered too dangerous for children without imaginary friends to bring to school, then allowing children with imaginary friends to bring a knife to school is not only close to extending a special kind of freedom to the religious kid, that is exactly what it is.

            1. You seem to be jumping from generalities to specifics. Your fist post claimed that Freedom of Religion is bad because it is only for the religious and gives them extra rights above all others. This is not the case. Are you saying that there should be no freedom of religion?

               Further, as I stated in my example, limitations on the kirpan were put forward and accepted. I’m sure it would be ok for kids to come to school with unsharpened metal (rulers are made of this) or wooden knives (as Jerry suggested).

            2. No, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be religious freedom. From what I read, it wasn’t clear to me that students who weren’t Sikhs would be allowed to bring whatever a Sikh can bring to school for whatever reason they wish – religious or otherwise. If so, then I don’t have a problem with it either. In general, I’m with Jerry too, at the Auburn (his is misspelled) school it seems to have been decided that the Sikh students can do something other students can’t for religious reasons. With the same limitations (unsharpened, wooden, etc.), any student should be able to do the same thing even if they just feel like it.

            3. So I guess since you don’t believe in freedom of religion, you don’t think people should be allowed to believe what they want, go to church, pray, where crucifixes or any religious dress?

            4. @Diana

               I think it’s pretty clear that Timothy’s point is not contr religious freedom in general, rather, only that religious freedom shouldn’t be allowed to supersede rules or laws that should be applicable to everybody. You’ve heard of the “One Law for All” campaign in the UK, no?

               If a school has a no knife policy then you don’t get to break that rule simply by citing “sincerely held religious beliefs”. This is just like Hobby Lobby.

               And yes, even if the knife is dull. Water pistols are commonly banned. Why should my non-religious child be prevented from bringing a water pistol while some other child is allowed to because of a crazy religious belief?

            5. Well Timothy did explicitly state he was against freedom of religion.

               I think if we have freedom of religion we need to consider things and not just ban them outright because we think religion is stupid. I think putting restrictions on something for safety is completely reasonable to allow someone that freedom. Not being allowed to be who you are when you are not harming others is a terrible thing.

            6. I think I misread what you said. I blame my eyes (seriously I have cataracts now- wth). So apologies. I think we are actually pretty close in agreement. I think limitations on the kirpan so that it is not dangerous for children is acceptable. I don’t think the case Jerry noted had restrictions.

            7. Yeah, all I see him saying is that religious people should also have to abide by existing, well-founded rules and laws.

         2. In other words, my snark was not meant ot represent what I think Freedom of Religion is it is what the Canadian court thought Freedom of Religion was in the case you cited.

            1. The case I cited put limitations on that religious freedom. All freedoms can be limited in Canada where they conflict with other freedoms. This is why the kirpan was allowed but only with limitations. This is consistent with what Jerry’s post suggested.

4. During my entire time in schools, I carried a pocket knife. I start trembling and sweating if I don’t have my pocket knife. One reason I no longer fly. Different culture, different time, I suppose.

   1. Jim – I too have carried a pocket knife for decades. Sadly I have lost some nice ones to the TSA because I forgot to leave them at home before air travel. Next time I forget, I will just tell the TSA that it is a small kirpan.

      1. What gets me…well, I carry one of those Swiss Army knives with a locking blade. Makes security people freak out. But they’d freak out even more if I didn’t have my driver’s license on me…and the long edge of the license is longer than the blade on my knife. It wouldn’t take but a minute to put a razor edge on that license, or a similar edge on the various other kinds of plastic we all carry. Hell, get a “rewards card” and pre-sharpen it just for the purpose and keep it in your wallet if you’re of a terroristic mind; nobody would even think to look.

         Same thing with so much else of the paranoia and security theater.

         You want to make a dreaded “binary chemical weapon”? Go to the grocery store to the cleaning products aisle. Grab something at random from the shelf and read the warnings of what you shouldn’t mix it with, and go ahead and mix them.

         You want to create a paralyzing radiation scare? Buy a bunch of smoke detectors and dump them in the nearest reservoir.

         You really want to create panic chaos and massive economic havoc and you’ve got access to the type of resources ISIS and al Qaeda and the like have? Get your agent infected with Ebola, have him strap a bunch of explosives under his coat like any other suicide bomber, and have him blow himself up while waiting in line to go through a security checkpoint, before the actual checkpoint itself — and, of course, do it on a busy holiday travel day. Maybe even do it in two cities at the same time.

         We’re not safe as a society because we have a super-special counter-terrorism operation. We’re safe as a society because we’re all horrified at the thought of doing these sorts of things because we’re none of us that crazy. Indeed, I suspect that far fewer nuclear weapons would detonate as ordered in an all-out war, just as a significant number of soldiers in a firefight don’t even pull the trigger.

         Takes a certain type of batshit fucking insane to do these sorts of things, and not many of us have that. For good evolutionary reasons, too; can you imagine how quickly societies would rip themselves apart otherwise, how few survivors there would be? And those survivors would be the ones who didn’t rush in to do unspeakable mayhem, but rather those who, for whatever reason, gave peace a chance.

         Cheers,

         b&

         1. “Grab something at random from the shelf and read the warnings of what you shouldn’t mix it with, and go ahead and mix them.”

            Bleach + cat pee = chlorine gas.

            1. One wonders how many learned that the hard way…and how many of them still have their lungs….

               b&

      2. I used to carry a pocket knife at school, too. Then one day a bully took it from me and pressed its opened blade against my wrist. I decided to leave it at home from then on.

   2. I always carried a knife as a kid in the Seventies/Eighties. It wasn’t a weapon, it was a tool. Most of the kids I knew had knives.

      There were plenty of fights at my school but nobody ever pulled a knife. A knife is only a weapon if you use it as a weapon.

      Also, I have Scottish ancestry so I guess I’m culturally entitled to a dirk or a sgian-dubh should I ever decide to wear a kilt. Maybe even a claymore.

      There can be only one.

      1. Actually I still carry a pocketknife. I’m so used to it I forget I have it. I had a bottle of water confiscated from me when I went a club a while back but nobody noticed my knife.

      2. I have carried a pocket knife, on and off, for years. I have a really cute Spyderco knife in my pocket right now.

         Now you could argue that a pencil could also be used as a weapon, but the point of a pencil is to write with.

         1. And the point of most pocket knives is to open boxes and envelopes and to whittle wood and to open cans and bottles and to be a screwdriver and to do everything a paring knife does in the kitchen and….

            The only person I’ve ever cut with a pocket knife is myself, and only rarely, and certainly only when being a damned fool.

            b&

   3. I never carried any kind of knife until a little 1.5-inch-long promotional Swiss Army™ keychain knife from an ACS convention vendor. I found it so useful as a tool at home and in the lab that my wife gave me a Swiss Army knife for Christmas and I carried it all the time. Both went into trash cans outside airport security. My wife gave another, it suffered the same fate. I’m too likely to forget again, so I don’t have one any more.

      1. There’s a site (I can’t remember its name) where you can buy all the stuff that the government confiscates at airports. You can buy those small Swiss Army knives (I have one) in lots of a dozen or more for very little.
         Go here:

         http://www.eyeflare.com/article/where-buy-goods-confiscated-tsa/

         And look at this one:

         https://ibid.illinois.gov/item.php?id=63731

         1. Wow, with that many Swiss Army knives, I wouldn’t have to worry about leaving one in my car. 😀

         2. That is very cool!

         3. So the government is making money out of stealing our stuff? Well, well, well…

      2. Why didn’t you buy a bubble pack and post it back to your home address.

         1. Several years ago when I forgot that I was carrying a tiny Swiss Army knife I foolishly did post it back to myself – the TSA charge was about double what a new knife would have cost.

5. “… let it be a tiny symbolic kirpan made of wood,…”

   I agree and would like to add: it should be of such size as to fit on one’s lapel.

   1. Exactly, No one carries around a full size crucifix, well nearly no one.

      1. Nobody carries a life sized cross, but they do spend a lot of time climbing up on one.

   2. I’m careful to leave my tie – with tie-pins denoting trade union affiliations (UK and Norway), blood donations, and “Wol-ness” – in my hold baggage. I’ve lost tie pins to airport security before.

      1. Sure says something that the biggest threat we face in airports comes from the thugs with the badges and guns ostensibly there to protect us. Where’ve I heard of such types of protection before, I wonder…?

         b&

         1. We are really good at screwing ourselves over.

            1. And, the best part of it?

               We practically beg to be screwed over.

               Oh, Mr. Burly TSA Agent! Please grope me and steal my stuff to save me from those evil brown-skinned people behind me in line!

               b&

   3. I once saw a story that showed the comb with a very little ornamental knife stuck onto it. That’s enough if all you need to do is satisfy an old tradition.

      Only reason to carry something big enough to hurt someone is to assert yourself and your religion.

6. People should stop bitching about knives and just grow a thicker skin.

   🙂

7. Many of these comments miss the point. Knives are either permitted or they are not. If they are not, there can be no exemption for religious reasons, or for any reason. The fact that the child is in the process of being brainwashed by Sikhs doesn’t seem like a valid grounds for exemption.

   1. Many of us here are too dull to get the point.

   2. Exactly. Either knives are permitted based on the likelihood of guaranteed safety, in which case Sikhs have no privilege, or knives are all banned, in which case Sikhs have no privilege. The whole point of secularization is that religion is irrelevant to social policy and therefore gets no privileges. When it comes to decisions like these ones, religion is – or at least should be – treated as if it doesn’t exist.

8. I think I recall cases (in Canada? UK?) where a school has allowed, or offered to allow, a kirpan to be wear provided the blade is welded shut in its sheath. If it really is ceremonial and not intended to be used, I don’t see what objection a Sikh could legitimately raise to that.

   1. And you can still give someone a good thump with a sheathed blade. Pommels can be heavy enough to be another weapon end in their own right.
      But I think the injunction on the Sikhs is that their knife must be functional.
      I do have a hankering for a real sword. Then again, I also have a hankering to try pattern-welding too, and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

      1. Pattern-welding for small blades isn’t too hard, though forging a sword-quality billet is another matter…
         I make “primitive” blades (forged, not ground into shape, and not pattern-welded, but plain 1095 high-carbon steel). You are welcome to hop on a sea turtle and visit my shop if you want to make one. 🙂

         1. Sea-turtle?
            That would be your “Mineral Arts” site, with the various ironmongery? Which reads like it’s in Arizona / SW-USA somewhere? I don’t think I’ll be turning up any time soon – if ever. Certainly not until the Africa project is finished.
            Hey, you (or micro-minerals Dan) used an MBC-10 microscope ? Ohh, I was so pissed-off when mine got burgled”

            1. Yes, we still use the MBC-10. Very nice microscope. And yes, we’re a two-geologist household in Saguaro Land.

            2. The MBC-10 was very much fit-for-purpose. I can’t find anything that provides the same necessary functionality without providing unnecessary and expensive complications like zoom. It’s hard enough keeping track of several thousand photos taken at different magnifications when you’ve got (2×2 + 2×1) fixed magnifications to worry about, without the complications of an indefinitely variable zoom too.
               I really should get back onto ebaY to find a second-hand one.

         2. How open is that offer? I’ve got lots of other projects I need to do first…but I could see making my way through them to wanting to try my hand at making some cutlery….

            b&

9. In regards to the ongoing kirpan debate it is obvious that some people believe that freedom of religion, adherence to a particular faith and, importantly, all its accompanying tenets remain unassailable in a modern society. Most religious faiths have their origins in the past when societies and times were different. That does not mean that such traditions should automatically continue in the modern age, at least without some rationalization and compromises. So it is with the public wearing of knives, something that was until recently, common in all civilizations and societies, not just in the Sikh faith. The bottom line is that a knife is a knife!

   For many the crux of the issue is whether or not it is reasonable to continue such practices today just because faith, religion or some other man-made belief supposedly demands it. Put another way, why is wearing a knife for religious purposes given automatic deference, while to do so in almost any other situation is usually prohibited or, at very least, viewed with apprehension? The answer is self-evident. While it is not in dispute that knives are useful tools, it is also true that they can be weapons; so is it reasonable to set limits on when and where they can be carried? Our society obviously believes it is, especially where the reasons for doing so are not related to a nebulous tenet of faith which most do not believe and would suggest is no more worthy of following than any other personal opinion or belief. Consequently, it could be argued that it is reasonable to set limits on behaviors, while still allowing the underlying belief.

10. Another example of PC dogma in the service of inane beliefs. Religiously motivated actions that threaten public safety are in violation of the principle of church-state separation, full stop.

    1. Actually I should say that actions that threaten public safety are not acceptable whatever their motivation.

       1. Driving a car or lighting a campfire poisons the air, demonstrably harming public safety, but they are acceptable.

          There are levels of risk, and even harm, that are acceptable to inflict on others in the satisfaction of personal freedom. People can disagree on where the line should be drawn, but I think reasonable disagreement can be had about children having knives, especially ones used carried as tools or decoration. This was the norm in decades past, and although it may be the case that the current generation lacks the requisite maturity and respect for others, I don’t think there’s anything inherently too risky about people having knives.

11. I agree that it’s wrong for the school’s zero-tolerance policy to be applied unequally. People should be treated equally regardless of religion.

    But I’d much rather the policy be abolished. There’s a continual stream of stories of kids being kicked out of school because they drew a picture of a soldier with a gun, or bit a cookie into an L shape, or pointed their finger at someone and said “bang”. I honestly feel society is significantly more threatened by authority figures enforcing policies unthinkingly than a kid in a school with a kirpan.

    In the 50s, at least in rural areas, children routinely had guns and knives. A boy of fourteen could go to a country store and buy long-rifles with no questions asked. But they never* used them against other kids. I do admit a worry that today’s kids lack a similar level of maturity, though…

    * According to the old people I’ve heard talk about this.

12. I am with Diana on this one.

    Our Supreme Court (SCC) struck down the last bans against Sikh students wearing kirpans in school — unsurprisingly, in reactionary Québec & Alberta — about a decade ago. I don’t know anyone who is at all phased by the notion of kids wearing kirpans to class. It’s widely regarded as a non-issue.

    I suspect that the gap in attitudes here is likely due to cultural differences between the USA & Canada — particularly, how we conceptualize equality. The USA (that is, SCotUS, various levels of government, institutional bodies, & (as a result) the citizenry more broadly) has long adhered to what is termed ‘formal equality’: treating likes alike. In theory, every American is treated exactly the same; this is the US ideal.

    To understand Canadian culture, it is important to recognize that this is *not* our ideal. In fact, we (i.e., the SCC, our institutions, etc) explicitly reject formal equality in favour of what is termed ‘substantive equality’: equality of impact & outcome. Indeed, when our Charter of Rights & Freedoms was drafted, the language was carefully chosen to ensure that substantive equality would be upheld (rather than formal equality) because the drafters were troubled by the kind of decisions being made by SCotUS.

    Our courts have repeatedly upheld the position that, as McIntyre J. once put it, “every difference in treatment between individuals under the law will not necessarily result in inequality &, as well, that identical treatment may frequently produce serious inequality… [T]here is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals… [M]ere equality of application to similarly situated groups or individuals does not afford a realistic test for a violation of equality rights [&] a bad law will not be saved merely because it operates equally upon those to whom it has application. Nor will a law necessarily be bad because it makes distinctions… It is … obvious that legislatures … must treat different individuals & groups in different ways. Indeed, such distinctions are one of the main preoccupations of legislatures… [F]or the accommodation of differences, which is the essence of true equality, it will frequently be necessary to make distinctions” (Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 143, at 164–5).

    Similarly, & more obviously applicable in this case, “[t]he equality necessary to support religious freedom does not require identical treatment of all religions. In fact, the interests of true equality may well require differentiation in treatment” (R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. at 347 per Dickson CJ).

    It is quite interesting that, despite this acceptance of religious accommodation, Canada tends to be more secular & more progressive than the USA.

    On a related note, Kevin Vickers, our recently much-lauded Parliamentary Serjeant-at-Arms, was instrumental in ensuring that Sikh MPs could wear their kirpans in our House of Commons (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/parliament-to-accept-and-embrace-wearing-of-kirpan-sergeant-at-arms-explains/article614877/). He has been widely honoured for this &, despite initial grumbling from (of course) Alberta & Québec, the decision was not a controversial one — likely because we had already grappled with the issue a quarter century ago. Members of the RCMP, for instance, have been able to wear turbans in uniform since 1990 (http://www.kpu.ca/news/first-sikh-rcmp-officer-wear-turban-will-receive-honorary-degree-kpu).

    1. Wow Kevin Vickers is pretty great! I didn’t know much about him until he saved the day and many lives when he stopped the attack on parliament earlier this week. You normally see someone like that as just a guy carrying that big gold stick and think he is there for a ceremonial purposes only, but it is clear that he has a really important role.

       1. Yes, he does have such an important rôle (& it’s a venerable one, too — dating back to medieval England)! One of the positive things to come out of these dreadful events is increased media attention to the details of Parliament. Many Canadians tend to ignore the institution & it’s a shame — we should be proud of it!

          1. I was surprised our PM’s are not protected by RCMP guards. I made the joke that it’s because they are so tough, referencing the time Chrétien choked that guy. 🙂

             1. ah, great moments in Canadian history… bodyguards are for wusses
                ;D

13. Like you need to be told, but there is a very large gun problem in schools in the US. Quibbling over knives seems like a minor distraction until you see it from a secular atheist prospective and then it is just as dangerous. You can pack yourself with all the knives you can carry, chant as loud as you like.. in the privacy of your own home and that I suggest, is where it fucking stays.

    1. The kirpan is a symbol, not a weapon; it is not to be unsheathed. In any case, they are as sharp as butterknives. Even so, a kirpan is secured to the sheath by several clasps. In Canada, many kirpans have a hole through which a bolt or rivet is passed so that they cannot be unsheathed, & some are soldered into the sheath. In a few schools, students are required to sew them into their clothing, to allay fears of some community members. I’ve never heard of any Sikh objecting to such a policy.

       Schools are rife with, inter al., sharpened pencils, scissors, & metal rulers, all of which are more dangerous than a 3″ butterknife bolted into a sheath &/or sewn into the owner’s undershirt.

       1. I understand why a Sikh wishes to carry an object as a symbol as you have described but as an atheist it is not something I see as valid in a school environment. A religious cross on the wall is a benign instrument of faith likewise has no place.

          1. Those two things aren’t equal. A cross in a school subjects students from a position of authority to a religion whether they like it or not. A religious symbol on an individual person expresses who they are and isn’t pushed on anyone else.

             1. This is the primary reason why I feel very comfortable with Sikhism: it is pluralist & non-proselytizing — indeed, they discourage proselytism & oppose forced conversion.

                The other reasons are:
                (1) Sikhs don’t protest science. (This is prob. because it isn’t an issue: their scriptures teach that (a) there are countless galaxies, solar systems, stars, planets, all constantly moving; (b) after emerging from g*d, creatures assumed innumerable forms; (c) eventually, everything will collapse back into g*d. That’s about it).
                (2) They don’t terrify children with a doctrine of hell. Their g*d loves everyone — even non-Sikhs & atheists.
                (3) Central tenets incl. standing up to injustice & coercion, confronting bullies, & protecting the oppressed. This is what the kirpan symbolizes (q.v., 5).
                (4) Their g*d is genderless & formless, so they teach that all humans are equal, regardless of gender, colour, caste, creed (or no creed).
                (5) An exception to (4) is orthodox Muslims due to (3), & to a history of violent oppression by the Mughal emperors. (Sikh attitudes towards Islam have been the focus of much criticism).

                In sum, given the above, I don’t have a problem with these people. I think they’re wrong about the existence of a deity, but we can both live with that.

             2. They had problems in India in 1984 when two Sikh bodyguards assassinated the Prime Minister of India Indira Gandhi. It wasn’t pretty and thousands died in anti Sikh riots.
                Revenge trumps loyalty, the killing was retribution for the Indian army attack on a sacred Sikh temple, the two guards who had been with her for ten years it was a suicide mission.
                They have a Sikh separatist movement in India so it has political religious aspirations

             3. In that sense they may not be equal. Both are religious symbols within a school gate if you will, hidden or otherwise. Neither have a place in a learning environment at any level apart from studying it. Hopefully as something ancient and extinct. That seems equal.

             4. Then you don’t really believe in religious freedom. If you are saying someone cannot express, by way of dress, their beliefs, without harming others, simply because they are in a school then that is saying religious freedom is not accepted in a school either. I suppose you’d also say that people should not be allowed to pray to themselves because they are in a school.

                I think those who feel this way should just admit that religious freedom is something they do not agree with.

             5. I don’t suppose, I don’t want religion in schools. Religion has had it’s day, time to move on.
                Reality is a different kettle of fish though,
                go ahead wear your Sikh, Goth, Hare Krishna, punk garb and pray all you like, that has little to do with wanting religion consigned to history.
                I feel schools are good place to start. The idea being to neutralize the environment.
                Never mind I’ll get over it.

             6. Inferno the same about religion. I am equally atheist and anti-theist but I also know what it means to have someone else impose their beliefs on me against my will and I don’t think it is fair for me to do so to others.

             7. Well said Diana!

14. I’ve still never heard a single reason as to why religious ‘tolerance’ should exist at all. Let alone be deemed important enough to balance against student’s safety.
    Tolerating should simply mean you’re allowed to believe whatever you want and do what you want as long as it affects no-one else. The second it has the potential to affect others, religious rights should be non-existent.

    1. Precisely.

       As to potential risks in this case…has no one heard of bullying or hazing? Now that so much attention has been drawn to this “hidden” weapon, does no one think a clique of immature bullies isn’t likely to see it as an irresistible target? Sikh boys are already regarded as outsiders due to the hair/turban thing…This being America, I’m sure there are some parents as well as kids casting aspersions upon them. And since many consider Sikh’s to be Muslim, that adds just one more iron to the fire.

15. 🔪

16. I totally agree with you, Dr. Coyne. This seems pretty simple and obvious.

17. And only boys carry them, right? Hmmmm…

    1. Female Sikhs are also supposed to carry a kirpan. I remember a recent case (from England, I think) where a Sikh woman was suing her employer for firing her for wearing a kirpan.

       Sikhism is actually reasonably progressive on issues of gender equity, as fas religions go (wich is, admittedly, not very far at all).

18. When I was about 10 in the Saturday morning queue for the cinema, I saw a bunch of white kids in the queue baiting a Sikh boy (he had his hair tied up behind with no turban). The one being the most provocative had an open penknife in his hand hidden behind his back. The Sikh boy fortunately didn’t react and the white kids backed off. This was in about 1965, when immigration to the UK was an issue (as it is at the moment with UKIP). There were occasional stabbings in that cinema queue (arm wounds).

    A solitary Sikh, with or without dagger, was hardly the issue here, more the bunch of white kids, already racist by the age of ten, very likely having learnt to be so from their parents and carrying hidden weapons to the cinema. I would be against any person under age to be allowed to circulate carrying arms such as a knife (no exceptions).

19. I’m torn on this. I despise these “zero tolerance” policies. They don’t take into account… anything. I used to carry a folding knife as a kid to whittle things. Was I a danger? No. Never occurred to me to use it as a weapon. Zero tolerance is just a way of making a rule (like 3 strikes laws) so that those in authority don’t have to think, make decisions, and take responsibility. If the Sikh kid isn’t a danger to anyone, I don’t care about a ceremonial knife under his clothes.

    1. If he’s not going to be a danger, then why does he need to carry the knife. He could equally well not have it. If his religion says he should carry the weapon, as member of a warrior sect, it is also implicit that he might use it. That’s what warriors do.

       1. Supposedly the “repeated temptation” *is* the point, to demonstrate self control.

          1. And if they don’t have 100% self control?

20. Anyone on the Christian right has no right to object.

    After all, freedom of religion does not mean freedom *from* religion.

    Therefore there is no cause to complain about this boy’s religious beliefs: they have no right to be free *from* his religion.

21. Law professor Brian Leiter’s book Why tolerate religion addresses this point, and specifically discusses the question of whether a Sikh should be allowed to wear a knife in school, as opposed to any other child with an equally sincere belief (he includes the Canadian court case). Leiter argues that there is no reason to privilege religious beliefs over other beliefs. See e.g. http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/brian-leiter-discusses-why-tolerate-religion

    1. Good article. (Where was this guy when only the religious could claim CO status in the draft?)

Comments are closed.