I missed a post by the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, who took strong issue with my recent post arguing that Sikh students shouldn’t be allowed to carry kirpans (their daggers, the wearing of which is a “religious requirement”) into public schools that have a zero-tolerance policy for weapons. In his rebuttal, “Lay off on the Sikh student allowed to bring a knife into his school,” Hemant defended the Sikhs as a beleaguered minority, whose religious “rights” I am apparently infringing.
Hemant makes a number of arguments: Sikhs don’t sanction using the dagger in a violent way; there are other things in schools, like scissors, that can be used as weapons; that kirpans have never been used as a weapon in American schools, and so on. But I really don’t get what he’s riled up about, for he also says this:
I do agree with Coyne on one point: I don’t see why the Kirpan has to be, for example, a stainless steel symbol and not a more harmless wooden one with a blunt tip. The faith calls for a Kirpan without going into specific makes and models. The school could easily create a compromise around that.
Well, that’s precisely what I suggested, and, if implemented, I would have no problem with it. Let the kirpan be a symbolic one, which satisfies both religious dictates and the school’s “no weapons” policy. So I’m not at all sure what Hemant’s beefing about, since we’re in basic agreement. Why all the palaver about “they’ve never stabbed anyone before”?
At any rate, to his credit, Hemant allowed a response from one of his co-bloggers, Terry Firma: “Kirpan controversy: Why Jerry Coyne is right and Hemant is wrong — Sikh daggers have no place in public schools.” Terry notes that Sikhs’ minority status is irrelevant to whether they get a right that no other students have; that the kirpan (unlike other religious symbols, like a cross worn around the neck) is a weapon; that Sikhism (contrary to Hemant’s claim) says that the kirpan can be used as a defensive weapon, and, indeed, has been used as both an offensive and defensive weapon in both the U.S. and India (Terry gives videos showing this).
Finally, in response to Hemant’s claim that kirpans are safe because they’ve never before been used as weapons in school, Terry quotes another writer:
I yield the floor to another atheist writer, James Kirk Wall:
“Should a drunk driver not be arrested if he’s been driving drunk for years without incident?”
I stand my ground here: Sikh schoolchildren (these ones are between the ages of 6 and 12) should not be allowed to carry daggers to schools, especially schools where other students must abide by a zero-tolerance policy for weapons. That is not only unwarranted religious privilege, but one that puts that privilege before the safety of other students. I’m happy for Sikh children to carry small symbolic kirpans, made of wood or cloth, and that would seem to be a good compromise. Why does Hemant insist on the right of an adolescent to carry a dagger into schools?
And I ask both Hemant and those commenters who agreed with him this: “If a religion required its advocates to carry loaded guns into schools, would that also be okay? If not, why not?”
A crucifix can be used as a weapon, at least on TV. Any Sons of Anarchy fans out there?
I’m trying to remember if that was one that Hammer made up out of whole cloth, or if it was something present in the original Stoker. (I was watching the original Hammer “Dracula” a few days ago, and I should have been having some (more) ham with it ; meanwhile, if the rain switches from the horizontal to the more-nearly vertical, I might amble up the coast to Slain’s Castle, where Stoker allegedly got some of his vampiric inspirations.
Been a while since I read Stoker. Actually … I may have put that back to the second hand bookshop when we moved. which would have been an error.
There are no religious “rights” in the public sphere. To carry it to the extreme, Islam believes in killing nonbelievers. Should they be allowed to?
Religious rituals are childish. It is time for these people to become adults. They can do what they want in private or in their religious buildings but that does not extend to the public sphere.
The obvious issue is that, if kirpans that are usable as knives are allowed, we don’t have to assume the Sikh kid will use it. It becomes a sharp knife that is within reach of any student that wants a knife and is willing to steal it. This will not only jeopardize the safety of the rest of the student body, but also of the Sikh students themselves.
A-yup. There’s a big red target sign painted on anyone who is known to be armed. (whether or not it is concealed) The truly blinkered would be well-advised to remember that simple fact.
As in cops frequently get their guns taken?
Oh, get real. The consequences of even trying to do that is to get killed, or at very least, to end up doing some serious jail time after your impromptu facial reconstruction. Do you think before you comment?
Most cops shot in the line of duty are, in fact, shot with their own guns. It is not particularly difficult to snatch a pistol from another person’s holster. I’m not going to do your research for you, but this is easily Googled.
“Most” are shot with their own guns? According to the FBI website, from 2002-2011, 543 police officers were killed in the line of duty, 46 of them with their own gun. You’re right, it was easily googled.
🙂 Looks to be pretty consistent with this stat (8% or 52 of 616, for 1994-2003), as reported by policeone.com. Seems concordant with recent slight declines in violence overall, the consistency across time being typical of rare, but random events all other things being equal (i.e. no policy changes).
In any event, like everything on this planet, context matters. I was originally a bit irked at Gould’s (apparent?) suggestion that my premise was wrong, because cops getting their guns taken are generally rare events… and I got a little snippy in my haste to reply. I suppose I’d do well to take my own advice.
That’s consistent, if one assumes that police officers are often killed by things other than guns.
“That’s consistent, if one assumes that police officers are often killed by things other than guns.”
Consistent with what? The FBI statistics show of 543 police officers killed, 500 were killed with firearms, 3 with knives, 35 with vehicles, and a few other random weapons. I dont know what your point is.
It’s extraordinarily rare. By the time that they’ve received combination lock codes from a senior officer to open the gun locker in their vehicle (if, of course, they have any firearm trained officers to do the opening) they’re normally wired up enough that they’re more likely to kill an innocent passer-by than have their gun lifted.
I don’t think this is really considered, however. Carrying the kirpan is considered in the context of schools who have zero tolerance policies for weapons which means it is unfair to allow someone to carry a kirpan while not allowing others to bring knives because of the policy.
In theory, if there was no zero tolerance policy, carrying the kirpan would not be an issue.
I think why people wouldn’t be allowed to carry loaded guns into schools would be they posed a strong danger to the safety of others. It is fairly simple to decide: your freedom of religion is ok until it infringes on other freedoms and rights. That could be safety or dignity or whatever. This is why there are restrictions put on the kirpan and these restrictions are typically accepted by the wearers (sewn into clothes, made out of different materials, made so the kirpan cannot be unsheathed made out of metal that is not more dangerous than a spoon), etc.
What concerns me is some arguments suggested that because the belief is stupid, it shouldn’t be accommodated. I find the repugnant. I think we should, as a society, seek to accommodate where it is reasonable to do so.
Incidentally, I have thought about the kirpan and how Canada decided to allow it, in the context of burqas and niqabs and because I think it affects the restricts of the wearer from interacting with others and being all that woman can be, I oppose it. The freedom to wear it on religious grounds should not trump dignity and equality.
That’s the most illogical column I’ve ever seen on that site.
That’s all you have to say? How about some context. What is wrong with this column? Don’t bring weak arguments here, you won’t get away with it.
That wasn’t an argument. It was a statement of opinion.
Sikh fundies argue that the religion doesn’t allow symbolic weapons, they have to be actual weapons. The point of the kirpan is that you have to be ready to defend your faith.
That is exactly the argument that was made to me in the 1970s, when my Sikh school friend was at appreciable risk from the Nazis in the school. So us nerds, weirdos, and other ne’er-do-well non-Nazi people had to gang together for mutual protection. Didn’t help much, though it didn’t take a trainee geologist to figure out the wonders of the rock-in-a-sock.
I’m confused as to why young Sikhs aren’t already carrying fake knives or empty sheaths with a handle glued/welded to the top.
My, how times have changed. When I was 13 (1974), I wore a 6-inch folding Buck knife on my belt day and night, and no one ever questioned my wearing it in school. Hell, my teachers borrowed it often for craft projects; it was the sharpest cutting edge we had in my under-funded school. It still seems weird to me that in 2014, my daughter could get in huge trouble if she carries her little 1-inch pink swiss army knife to school by mistake.
Yes, times have changed and yes, it is weird.
Should schools have zero-tolerance policies concerning students bringing weapons to school? It seems obviously reasonable, for some value of ‘weapon’ (think ‘assault rifle’), and once there’s agreement on that it’s just quibbling about the details.
Does that include boots? The mess you can make of someone’s face with a size-8 steel-toed boot is a sight to be seen. Or not, if you’ve a weak stomach.
My general feeling is that this isn’t (or shouldn’t) be about religion, but about zero tolerance. I don’t know enough about this exact case, but I know in BC there are cases where Kirpans are fused to the sheath and cannot be removed. I’m guessing that would fit your wood/cloth reasoning. But it seems like a ‘zero tolerance’ policy would prohibit wood or cloth kirpans. They have banned deaf kids signing the name “Hunter” and kids eating sandwiches into the shape of a gun.
The problem IMO is a lazy zero tolerance policy that does not permit even symbolic daggers, or at least a culture which makes people unsure as to whether a symbolic dagger is permitted or not.
As far as I can see, zero tolerance serves no purpose except to allow school administrators and teachers to pass judgement without thinking. The lack of thought is obvious in the cases you mention, about kids signing “Hunter” or eating sandwiches into the shape of a gun. There are thousands of equally ridiculous examples, and zero tolerance should be banned. That’s my opinion.
But regardless of zero tolerance, I see no reason why any student in any public school should be permitted to bring a real, deadly weapon — especially one that serves no other practical purpose, like a dagger — into school.
I agree with both of your opinions. Though, I’d be a little more harsh about describing the actions of administrators and teachers in those types of ridiculous cases mentioned.
I am surprised at Hemant’s arguments on this. It seems very clear. To make an exception to a rule, allowing kirpans to be carried by Sihks, that all other groups are still bound by is problematic. The reason for the exception, that it is a traditional religious practice, should not be considered a valid reason. Following that reasoning you may as well not have any rules in the first place.
Anyone who wants to allow kirpans for Sihks should be campaigning for a general rule change allowing everyone to carry similar objects, not for an exception to the rule.
I think the confusion occurs because one person is arguing that given the zero tolerance laws the religious exception is unfair while another is arguing that kirpans should be allowed if not dangerous.
In other words, it appears there are two different conclusions but really the conclusions are the same, it is the arguments that are different.
While I come down on Professor Coyne’s side on this, legally, it is far more fraught than most seem to make it. You can certainly argue that freedom of religion as currently construed is a bad regime, but as it stands, asking Sikh students to give up their kirpans in order to receive public education most certainly IS an infringement upon their religious freedom, as no one seriously disputes that the duty to wear a kirpan is a sincerely held part of the religion. Moreover, Sikhs being a “beleaguered minority” is most certainly relevant under Supreme Court jurisprudence and the famous “footnote 4” from the Carolene Products case.
All that being said, I think this is one of the rare instances where the government can show both a compelling interest and a so-called “least restrictive means” showing–meaning that though the right to wear the kirpan exists, the government’s interest outweighs it in this narrow case. Put me down as one more in the ‘symbolic kirpan’ group, though I am well aware that will never pass muster with the actual Sikh community.
SJL had an interesting comment in the last article about how the legal system in Canada is different from the US. A portion of the most salient quote: “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…”
Several thoughts:
1. There should be no functional weapons permitted students in public schools.
2. Zero tolerance is taken to ridiculous extremes. One would think our educators should be able to use more discretion and common sense.
3. Unfortunately, any reasonably intelligent human being can turn virtually anything into a weapon. In re crucifixes: Eons ago when I was in high school, large crucifixes could not be worn in school because sometimes they were used as weapons. Juvenile and adult prisoners are very creative at turning pencils, pens, cutlery, toothbrushes, etc. into weapons.
4. I vote for the symbolic, not functional, kirpan.
5. More uniformity is needed in the permittion, or not, of all special religious clothing and/or accoutrements in public schools and other public venues for all religions, not just Muslims and Sikhs.
Sorry about “permittion”. I unsuccessfully tried to change “permitting” into “permission”.
Remember that the first amendment’s clause on religion has two parts: the government cannot establish a religion, but neither can it prevent “free exercise” of religion.
That means in order to restrict a religious practice the government must have a “compelling interest.” Given that kirpans have never been used to harm a student and the probability of one being so used in the future is very, very low, the ban isn’t justified under the law. The state’s interest isn’t “compelling.” Restricting kirpans isn’t a rational response to a problem; it’s an irrational response to a non-problem.
The comparison with bringing guns to school is silly. Guns in schools are, as we all know, a serious problem and far too many students have been killed by them. A ban on guns that omits a religious exception is eminently reasonable and justified. There is a compelling interest.
I’m not in favor of granting religious groups special privileges, but neither do I think that pointless restrictions on religious practice serve the secular cause. Such restrictions only serve to energize those who would seek to impose religion on all of us.
Kirpans are knives, and knives have been used in schools.
Sometimes even used for eating lunch with, but dog forbid that they should be sharp enough to cut anything.