My school outlaws "Satanic or cult related" clothing/accessories. I don't know about cults, but I'm pretty sure Satanism is classified as a religion. Can they do this (no other religious clothing/accessories are outlawed)?

Comments

• Can you add, "In what ways does Christianity differ from a cult?"

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• JohnThePyro gave a really good answer. If you decide to do this, after the polite verbal confrontation, go home and write a letter to the principal with these questions, politely phrased, and say, "Because this matter may go to litigation, please respond in writing no later than ten business days from the date of your receipt of this letter." Then send it registered mail, return receipt requested. That's so they can't pretend they didn't get it. Putting things in writing terrifies school districts, especially when they don't have a good answer. I would change "others' religions more important than mine" to "more acceptable than mine." Have fun! Be brave. :)

  • Report
  

  by Ankhorite on March 25th, 2008

• Good answer.

  • Report
  

  by hedge-rider on April 24th, 2009

Comments

• Can you state the name of the Case? I wish to do further research on this. +4 and many thanks in advance!

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• In light of the "bong hits for jesus" case that was recently decided, it is now rather clear that students don't have a guaranteed 1st Amendment right.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• When I was in school, I was taught I had rights. When I told my mom, she said I did not have ANY rights until I turned 18. I don't know why. I think children should have rights and they should be appropriate. I think the first ammendment rights should not be infringed upon, even for children, but that as adults are, children should be taught that they are also responsible for anything they do say. Not as harshly.

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• Children do have rights generally. The major exception is in schools. For example, it would be illegal for a cop to search a teenagers backpack without probable cause (or other legal reason) off campus, but it often can be done on-campus.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• Yes, but it is also obvious that they have to have a clear and compelling reason to restrict First Amendment rights. This example (question) is not only about free speech, but freedom of religion. Here is some interesting information on faith symbols in public schools. http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_clot1.htm

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Here is a case (this was won, of course): http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usfl&c=cases&id=2351

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• It is interesting to me that most of the Pentacle related claims that inspired the suspensions and subsequent court cases are based on complete myth and ignorance on the subject. I expect this to some degree, but I wish more people knew the truth. There is no way to teach the meaning or spread the truth without bieng seen as "pushing" the religion.(which is strongly discouraged in Wicca and Paganism for those of you who do not know) Yet everyone knows what the cross means, and the star of David. It is kind of catch-22. If you don't ask, we wont tell. If we don't tell you, you mistake it for that which it is not.

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• Exactly. Our own resistence to proselytizing (which I agree with) works against us in this regard.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Except you are citing cases that are old. The Supreme Court decided the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case in their last term. Furthermore, this is a free speech issue. If the students wanted to wear the satanic equivalent to a burka, then it would be a freedom of religion issue. However, wearing a shirt with the devil on it is not "excercizing" religion. Thus, preventing the wearing of such a shirt does not restrict the free excercize of religion. In addition, the case you cites deals with the excercize of religion.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• The bong hits for Jesus case isn't about religion. Wearing the Sigil of Baphomet is the equivalent of wearing a cross, so whenever crosses are banned, by all means ban the Sigil of Baphomet. Wherever wearing a t-shirt with Jesus on it is banned, ban a Satanic t-shirt. However, you cannot treat religions differently. I also beg to differ that when we are talking about Satanism (which is the belief in a deity/member of a pantheon) and cults, we aren't discussing religion. Satan is a figure straight FROM religion. He certainly isn't historic or scientific. What differentiates Christianity from a cult, for example? In order to be clear with the first amendment, the rule would have to state "any religious symbol". I wish it did. Then the Christians would be on our side for a change.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Antigone: I agree. I don't appreciate others' proselytizing, so I agree with abstaining from doing it myself. Unfortunatley, if we did proselytize our respective religions we would be more likely to attract "fluff" anyway instead of self-taugh, real and studied people who really wish to be a part of the religion and not the hollywooden hype. It is sad but true.

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• First off, perhaps we are arguing with different things in mind. Based on the question (and my experiences with school regulations), I am picturing a student wearing a shirt with jesus or the devil on it. Wearing a religious emblem certainly falls under the category of "excericizing" religion. Wearing a shirt with Jesus or the devil is nothing more than speech. What made the "bong hits for jesus" case a big thing was the reference to Jesus. If the sign simply said "bong hits for Mickey Mouse," there probably wouldn't have been a lawsuit.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/25/free.speech/index.html Now, according to this, "'It was reasonable for (the principal) to conclude that the banner promoted illegal drug use-- and that failing to act would send a powerful message to the students in her charge,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court's 6-3 majority. Roberts added that while the court has limited student free speech rights in the past, young people do not give up all their First Amendment rights when they enter a school."

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• This case did hinge on free speech, not on religion. That is what the arguments were about. The court ruled that the Principal did not violate the student's free speech rights because she had a compelling interest in preventing the promotion of illegal drug use among students. This is, if you will note above, the same criteria I gave in my answer.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• The decision did hinge on free speech, which is what we are talking about here. However, the ony reason that it got to the supreme court is because the reference to Jesus. If the sign only mentioned drug use, there is already case law that would support the school administrators actions. [NOTE: There was a separate issue dealing with the fact that the school was off campus, but that does not apply to the question we are talking about.]

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• I'm not only talking about free speech, I'm talking about religious expression. The policy mentioned in the question says "clothing and accessories". This would include religious symbols on jewelery and clothing, and is most often used to target the pentacle/pentagram in its various forms.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Except that wearing satanic clothing (e.g. a shirt with the devil on it) is speech, not the excercise of religion. Also, your conclusion about when a school can restrict speech is wrong. A school does not have to show a "clear and compelling reason." The test for schools is a subjective one. Student expression may be suppressed when school officials "reasonably conclude" that it will "materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school."

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• You are missing what I've said about accessories...and missing what I've said about religious expression (the basis of my answer)...or are you just ignoring it?

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• If Satan is not an expression of religion, then he is just a made up character. Before the Bible characterized him as a religious anti-icon, who made up Satan as a secular character? If your conclusion is that, Satan was first mentioned in the Bible, then he is a "religious character" i.e. a representation of satan is an expression of religion.

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• I did not miss it. Read my previous post [2:35 am]. I acknowledge that wearing a religious emblem is a "free excercise" issue, but that is a small part of what we are talking about. Perhaps if the person who wrote the question would clarify what she meant by "clothing/accessories," we could clear up our varying viewpoints. Other than religious symbols, I can't think of any accessory that would be worn for the purpose of "excercizing religion." Since the asker used the term "accessories" along with the term "clothing," I am inclined to believe she is talking about more than just religious symbols.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• Zandalee: I would agree that a representation of satan is an expression of religion, but "religious expression" is only protected by the "free excercise" clause if it is also part of the "excercise of that religion." Otherwise, it is only protected by free speech. This is a distinction that normally is not necessary because both freedoms are part of the 1st Amendment. However, we have special rules for schools that restrict free speech rights (but not so much religios rights).

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• Anonymous, religious expression is also protected when it is allowed for another group. For instance, if a Christian wears a Jesus t-shirt and that is allowed, a Satanic t-shirt must also be allowed. So, because this statement explicitly applies only to "Satanic" and "cults", that part becomes an establishment issue. One religion cannot be promoted over another.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• I disagree, but if you have case law that supports that proposition, please cite it.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• You think it is Constitutional to ban the expression of one religion while allowing the expression of another? Interesting. Let me find the case law. I follow this topic closely, you see, being Wiccan and all.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• No. I think it is almost always unconstitutional to ban the "expression" of one religion (even if you treat all religions consistantly), but wearing a shirt with the devil or Jesus is "speech," not expression. Thus, you can ban the wearing of a shirt that has the devil and not ban a shirt that has Jesus.
  Note: I am only referring to schools.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

• In August, 2002, a Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright wrote, "'It is difficult to imagine how the state would have a compelling interest in limiting the religious exemption to some religious sects and individuals over others.'' (Arkansas case, so you can look it iup) Rules cannot apply to one religious sect and not another. Looking some more (and trying to get my daily work done.)

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Exceptions to every rule for a certain religion... but only one.... it happens, it shouldn't but it does. I'm Pagan I support the equal right to expression of all religions. If one is banned, all should be; where the cross is allowed, so should the pentacle be allowed. I can't see why one symbol would have higher priority than another. It's like allowing a mastiff in your store but disallowing a great dane.... they're both dogs. I'm on a tired rant. Anyway all religious symbols should be held to the same categorization. Anon... sorry for misreading your comment earlier, I thought you said a representation of Satan wasn't religious expression. I misread it!

  • Report
  

  by Zandalee.Lonely.Lunatic.3yrs-here on August 3rd, 2007

• Court cases establishing the precedent that one religion cannot be favored or promoted over another are covered beginning on page 8 of this link: http://www.atheists.org/publicschools/schools2.pdf

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• See section 3 of this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=393&invol=97

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Antigone: First off, the case you cited deals with a teacher and a law that bans the teaching of evolution. This is an "establishment clause" issue, and it does not address the case of students (who have limited Constitutional freedoms). The cases in the atheist website all deal with the 1st Amendments religious protections, not the speech protections. Again, I agree that even students have the right to excercise their religion, and I agree that a school cannot promote the excercise of one religion over another. But wearing a shirt with Jesus or the devil is not the excercise of religion. It is religious speech, which is protected by the 1st Amendment, but limited when it comes to students.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on August 3rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

• You don't have to be a member of the Satanic Church to be a Satanist anymore than you have to be a member of a Christian church to be a Christian. A newly converted Rastafarian, Satanist, Wiccan, etc is no less their faith than a newly converted Christian is a Christian. By your logic, no Christian who's parents weren't also Christian (history of it) and who are not registered members in good standing of a Christian congregation should be allowed to wear crosses.

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Hey, thanks for the new idea for a question!

  • Report
  

  by AntigoneRising on August 3rd, 2007

• Antigone is right: you do NOT have to have a history with the religion to assert that you have decided to become a member of that religion. You are right, claiming "distraction" is the way school districts attempt to defend their limitation of a student's right to engage in religious speech. The U.S. Supreme Court, while generally very deferential to schools trying to push students around, is even more deferential to religious speech in schools IF the plaintiff is a Christian. However, whatever law the Supreme Court makes to favor the Christians also protects members of minority religions such as Rastas, Satanists, Wiccans, and all the others.

  • Report
  

  by Ankhorite on March 25th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Columbine had nothing to do with satanism or cults, why would you bring that up?

  • Report
  

  by JTP on August 3rd, 2007

• I bring it up only to point out that rules have been put in place for the common good. If you look at most school shootings, there is a history of false satanic writings and a false sense of warning signs. True satatanism does not promote violence any more than any other religion. However, satanism as a concept is abused as a tool of rebellion. Therefore, it has become a "warning sign" of situations like Columbine. That's all I was thinking of. Perhaps I should have explained that up front.

  • Report
  

  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on August 3rd, 2007

• Oh, I thought you were trying to bring up ties between columbine and satanism/cultism, too many people seem to believe that, and its not true >_>.

  • Report
  

  by JTP on August 3rd, 2007

• No, that was not my point, my point was exactly what you just mentioned. The false connection. However, there is the stigma, since you have rebellious kids using concepts like punk, rap and satanism as a vent to rebel without really understanding what they are doing, stigmas are created.

  • Report
  

  by Nelson - Jetpacking from bed on August 3rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments