Massachusetts School District Allows Sikh Students to Carry Knives as Part of Religious Identity
“At no time will the Kirpan be drawn while the student is in school, at a school-related event, or in school transport”
This story is actually from April, but it somehow escaped my radar. Note how the media repeatedly describes the blades as “dull” to soften the story.
From CBS News in Boston:
Sikh students allowed to carry kirpans, small dull blades, in Massachusetts school district
The Hopkinton school district may be the first in Massachusetts to allow students initiated in Sikh faith to carry kirpans, a small, dull blade worn as part of their religious identity.
A new weapons policy was adopted in Hopkinton schools last month.
Sikh students and their families will sign an agreement with the school district requiring the blades to be no more than three inches long. Students must meet other criteria in order to carry kirpans.
The district said students must have a “deeply held religious belief” and have been through the Amrit Pahul ceremony.
Participating students must have a “record of appropriate school behavior,” and the kirpan will remain sheathed and secured during school.
“At no time will the Kirpan be drawn while the student is in school, at a school-related event, or in school transport,” the policy reads.
The district and any participating family will meet annually to ensure the policy is being followed.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You know the government is f*d up when weapons carry is allowed only under the first amendment — and not the second.
“Participating students must have a “record of appropriate school behavior,”
Yeah, that’ll get struck down even faster than several states’ regulations that firearms carry licenses get issued only to people “of good character.”
I’m not sure this will be struck down, unless MA has a RFRA. Until a few years ago it would definitely be upheld, at least under the first amendment. The Supreme Court held in City of Boerne that although it is a long-standing American tradition to make exceptions to generally applicable laws in order to accommodate the free exercise of religion, and governments are permitted to make such accommodations, the first amendment doesn’t require it, and Congress can’t force the states to do so if they don’t want to.
But that was under Scalia’s Smith standard, and lately the court has begun to chip away at that, and started requiring some accommodations. So maybe this case would be a bit more complicated than it would have been until recently.
At any rate, the school is certainly permitted to make this exception to its policy, and it is right to do so, provided that there are no incidents. And if MA has a RFRA then it may indeed be required.
Remember that Prohibition had several religious accommodations built in, including the one that allowed rabbis to sell wine to their congregants for religious use in the home. Suddenly congregations expanded and many rabbis made a good income from this.
OK, a rubber knife.
My religion., fairly new, requires me to carry a 1911 .45
It doesn’t matter how new it is. What matters is whether you can prove that you sincerely believe in it, and are not just pretending. In this case you very obviously don’t believe in this “religion”, so even if there were an exception available it wouldn’t apply to you.
CBS, where you can see the BS.
Strange how public attitudes have changed. When I was a kid, as soon as we got our Tote-N-Chip cards in the Cub Scouts, we all had our (sharp) Cub Scout knives dangling from our belts. And nobody thought anything of it.
And I am unable to deduce why anyone would question these children possessing knives.
Because nowadays it’s not allowed, so there must be a special exception made for the free exercise of religion.
Because they’re getting an exception. And because it’s a rather concerning exception given the recent incident in England.
“The district said students must have a “deeply held religious belief” and have been through the Amrit Pahul ceremony.”
Funny how the same belief didn’t count for clot shots.
There are no religions, except maybe Christian Science, that don’t allow vaccinations, so all the people claiming a deeply held religious belief against the shot were lying. The state may not inquire into the validity of someone’s religious beliefs, but it may certainly inquire into their sincerity. You can’t just claim to have a religious belief and demand an accommodation, you have to prove that you actually do believe it.
He didn’t say “vaccinations”, he said “clot shot” which is a very specific vaccination. So your point is nothing more than a strawman…an attempt to disprove something he didn’t say.
Plenty of people (including myself) that have had a full course of vaccinations in their lives had strong reservations about this new, relatively untested technology being forced upon us. Equating resistance to one specific vaccine to a general opposition to vaccinations is a false equivalence. So…pick your logical fallacy.
The Wuhan Flu vaccines were a new type of vaccine, therefore religious opposition to it would necessarily be new. The fact that there’s no scripture that says “thou shalt not take the clot shot” doesn’t invalidate a religiously based opposition to it. All religions have to make determinations about new developments and technologies based on their theology. Whether those determinations are hundred year traditions or were made yesterday are irrelevant. And they don’t even have to make sense to be legitimate religious tenets. If you have any orthodox Jewish friends ask them why driving a car to Schul on Shabbat is considered work, but walking the three miles to get there isn’t.
There were no religions that objected to the Wuhan shot either. Therefore anyone who claimed a religious objection to the shot was lying, and the government could fairly decide that their purported belief was not sincerely held.
Again, the law is very clear that the government may not inquire into the truth of any claimed religious belief, but it may inquire into its sincerity. If someone sincerely believes that something is against God’s will, no matter how ridiculous other people may think it, the state must accept it, and If it has a RFRA then it must accommodate that belief. If it doesn’t have one then it may accommodate it anyway, but need not do so, at least until the recent decisions. But that’s only if the belief is sincerely held, and it has every right to inquire into whether that is the case.
As for your question, the answer is very simple. Lighting fires is one of the kinds of creative work that is forbidden on the Sabbath; walking is not. The Bible explicitly says “You shall not light a fire, wherever you live, on the Sabbath day”. Using an internal combustion engine is therefore forbidden. It’s right there in the name. Walking doesn’t create anything, and was not involved in the construction of the Sanctuary, and therefore is not forbidden so long as it doesn’t take one past the outskirts of one’s settlement (“Let no man leave his place on the seventh day”).
There are no religions, except maybe Christian Science, that don’t allow vaccinations
Except the religious exemption is not allowed to be only by some body’s doctrine, but a religious belief held by the person. Pretty sure that one was a Supreme Court decision somewhere. (I’ve researched it before, but it’s been a while.) And, no, you only have to argue for it, you don’t have to prove it. Though, it can be revoked if you demonstrate it’s not sincerely held. You only have to assert it, though, and it’s up to the authorities to show otherwise.
Indeed the criterion is the individual’s belief, but that’s not as useful to your position as you think. Testing the sincerity of an individual’s purported belief involves asking how they came by such a belief, and why they claim to believe it. And in almost all cases people come by their beliefs either from an organized religion, or from their reading of some established religious text. And no, the onus is not on the state to prove you don’t sincerely hold the belief; it’s on you to prove that you do. Which is why people claiming religious exemptions typically provide letters from experts in their claimed religion, certifying that that religion does indeed teach such a belief. If someone claims to sincerely believe something, but there are no organized religions that teach that thing, and the person can’t point at, e.g., a bible verse that can plausibly be interpreted to support it, then the government is entitled to look at their claim skeptically.
Boy you really didn’t understand that issue at all did you… what was argued was that aborted babies were involved in the development of these shots.,, which absolutely is something millions of Christians had every right to demand to not be forced to participate in… try to keep up… I know your view is always extremely narrow and limited
Using the shot did not kill even one baby. All the babies whose stem cells were propagated to produce the cells on which the vaccines were tested were murdered long ago. There are no religions that consider it sinful to benefit from the results of such research, and those who claimed to hold such a belief were clearly lying. The onus was on them to prove that they sincerely held their claimed belief, and none of them could prove that because it was obviously untrue.
Fuck you! I didn’t lie..
If you claimed to sincerely believe that it would be sinful to allow yourself to be jabbed, and that was your reason for refusal, then it’s very likely that you did lie. And the onus was on you to prove otherwise.
Some school districts have allowed the Kirpin, BUT it had to be sewn in so that it could not be drawn without cutting cloth or threads.
To OldProf2. I am 81. As soon as I could sharpen a pocket knife and handle it safely, I got my tote-N-chip and put a pocket knife in my pocket.
In a high trust society that doesn’t exist for the most part any longer.
“Our Democracy” in action.
we’re not talking about a pocket knife here–we’re talking about a dagger in the hands of a young kid–religious symbol or no, this is a weapon
used to carry a kbar in my left boot, strapped to my calf–not a religious symbol or an icon of some sort but a damned serious cutting tool
you don’t need more than a two inch blade to mortally wound an attacker–a good quality gerber, etc. is a powerful weapon when used correctly
Weapon or no, this is a religious requirement, and while states are not required to make exceptions to generally applicable laws for them, they’re encouraged to do so. And if there’s a state RFRA then that requires them to do so.
But it’s not really much of a weapon, because it’s not “a good quality gerber, etc”. On the contrary, this is precisely why, as Mike LaChance complains, ‘the media repeatedly describes the blades as “dull”’. He complains that it’s ‘to soften the story’ but it’s highly relevant because yes, it genuinely does make the story soft. It’s not a useful weapon, it’s purely a religious object that wouldn’t do the student much good in a fight.
A dagger style weapon does not have to have a sharp blade, just a pointed.
A kirpan is supposed to be a sword, not a dagger. It is not required to be pointed. It can be a two-inch dull blade, with a rounded or blunted point. This guy had no religious requirement to carry the weapon that he was carrying.
Oops. I mean Nowak’s killer had no such requirement. Here we are discussing one that is dulled, and if the school requires it to be blunted it can be blunted too.
Well, no, Milhouse, it’s not really “highly relevant.” Because any other child carrying a dull knife would get immediately suspended and the weapon confiscated.
The same people making this decision are otherwise in irrational fear of anything even resembling a weapon, and use their power to prevent others from going about with a useful tool – or even an non-useful one. It’s relevant because they see a danger in the one, but not the other.
Exactly… there are many stories of very young kids getting suspended or kicked out for bringing a plastic knife to school in their lunch box for innocent reasons like spreading cheese on crackers etc…
Of course there are, but that’s irrelevant because we’re talking about an exception to the usual rules. An accommodation for the sake of the free exercise of religion, either because of a state RFRA or because it’s the American way.
Or biting a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun.
Yes, GWB, it is highly relevant, because it justifies the special exemption being made in this case. Yes, a child who does not have a sincere religious belief that he must carry something resembling a weapon is not allowed to do so, because these people are extremely hoplophobic.
But in the case of a sincerely held religious belief they make an exception, provided that it’s more a religious object than a weapon, because it’s short, and dulled, and/or peace-bonded.
They make that exception either because there’s a state RFRA that requires it, or because it’s a long-standing American tradition (which is why RFRAs exist). (And recent SCOTUS decisions have moved in the direction of saying that at least in some cases such exceptions are now required even without a RFRA.)
Here’s the thing: I think this has become an issue solely because of the Henry Nowak incident. A single incident does not a trend make, and the outrage there is justifiably against the Police who completely ignored the pleas for help from the white victim *solely* because he was white and believed the statements of the perpetrator *solely* because he wasn’t.
Notably, the Sikh community there quickly and publicly condemned both the actions of the perpetrator and his family in helping him cover it up.
Sikhs are, as a rule, an honorable and trustworthy people. A single incident doesn’t outweigh centuries of that history. The kirpan is a long established, well known religious obligation if Sikhs.
A couple of people mentioned here that when they were kids, everyone had knives in their pockets. I was raised in a rural community and that was true of us as well. During hunting season, probably 80 percent of the students old enough to drive had a rifle or shotgun in their car in the school parking lot.
That didn’t raise an eyebrow because it was a high trust society. Were there incidents? Absolutely. even high trust societies have their outliers. I would consider the Sikh community a high trust society, even if the general American public is no longer.
As mentioned in the post, this is an old story from months ago, but is only being publicized today because of current events in the country formerly known as Great Britain. Seems quite “clickbate”ey to me. Ginning up misplaced outrage based on emotions rather than logic.
With that said, I do believe people from other cultures who choose to come to the US, need to learn to acclimate to our culture, not expect us to acclimate to theirs, so if the rule were reversed and Kirpans were banned, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. They can homeschool or go back to Punjab if they can’t conform to American standards. I just think the angst over this months old news is a bit contrived and unnecessary.
MA is literally the state that outlawed slingshots. But knife OK for religious reasons?
Slingshots?
PEASHOOTERS!
(To be accurate, the “legal” term is “bean blowers.”)
Um, yes. Special accommodations for sincerely held religious beliefs are the norm in US law, and both the USA and many states have RFRAs that require them. In fact the federal RFRA originally sought to impose such a requirement on all states, but the supreme court struck that provision down, which is why so many states have enacted their own.
In air travel the kirpan is generally subject to airport security rules and cannot be carried in carry-on luggage.
In the USA, yes. Many countries do make an exception even then, but the USA doesn’t, and this is a problem for Sikh travelers. Over the years I have made it a habit, when I see a Sikh at an airport, to ask them how they deal with this difficulty, and have got various answers. At least one has told me that they consider the kirpan in their checked baggage to be “with” them even though they’re not physically wearing it, but that’s not normative Sikh belief, its just something they’re telling themselves because they have no other choice. Making it out of some material other than iron or steel is also a subpar accommodation that some Sikhs resort to out of necessity.
Maybe they should allow knives – but only if they are made of balsa wood.
As far as I know Sikh law requires it to be made of iron or steel. But it can be dulled and peace-bonded. In extremis some Sikhs do compromise and carry a non-metallic kirpan, but that does put a burden on their free exercise of religion.
I got in trouble once In RI for bringing a “yad” which is a Jewish pointer into a school, because they said it was sharp and could be a weapon. I brought it in as a piece from my culture to show and tell the classroom, and wound up being sent home. So don’t tell me that it’s okay to bring a knife to school. I couldn’t even bring a pointer. I have nothing againts Sikh’s but a knife is a knife and it should not be in our schools; anyone could get a hold of it, and then you are looking at a stabbing. Those are real knives not symbolic tokens or metal pointers. These are the same schools that don’t allow any weapons in the building and barely want a resource officer to be there. How tremendously hypocritical this is.
You did not have a sincerely held religious belief that you had to have this pointer with you. Therefore they had no need to make an exception for you.
And what do you mean, “a knife is a knife and it should not be in our schools”? What are you, some kind of gun-grabber? Knives should be in our schools, and guns too, and it shouldn’t require a special accommodation for religious kids only. Obviously there must be some restrictions, especially for younger kids, but the norm ought to be what it used to be for most of our history, that weapons are allowed at school. Maybe then there would be fewer mass shootings at schools.
I completely disagree. As I actually work in public schools, students take each other’s stuff all the time, and the knife we are referencing is not blunt it is sharp. It is not the equivalent of a cafeteria plastic knife. There is a large Sikh community in one of the schools I work in, and they are not allowed to have the kirpan, just like any other student can not have a knife at school. Daggers are not okay for children to have in the building. Students are supposed to be learning not worrying about whether or not some kid who may have an issue with them has access to daggers during the school day. While we are at it let’s let Phillipino kids bring in their fighting stick and Chinese kids have ninja stars. If we aren’t going to learn the lessons from the many school shootings in this country then I don’t know what to say. Adults alone should have access to weapons in the building not kids without fully functional frontal lobes or impulse control skills. Honestly, it’s hard enough to get through high school with all the drugs, social media and other issues kids are seeing in the building right in their face.
Didn’t schools used to ban students wearing t-shirts with depictions of guns (and may still) because it was “disruptive” or “caused concerns” to students and staff? I recall students being disciplined for wearing a t-shirt depicting a Minuteman with a musket. But, carrying daggers is okay? How many Henry Nowak murders are enough for these people?
Yes, carrying tiny, dulled sword is okay, as a reasonable accommodation for students who have a sincerely held religious belief that they must carry one. It’s impossible that you’re unfamiliar with the core American practice of making exceptions to generally applicable laws for sincerely held religious beliefs. Under federal law and the laws of many states such exceptions are required by law, and in the rest of the states they are permitted and culturally expected, but not required.
I do understand the exception practice. That doesn’t mean I’m going to forget who is responsible when those daggers suddenly become sharp and pointed and start causing injuries or worse. And are there really that many Sikh students who want to carry these things?
And where are the ‘reasonable accommodations’ when straight, white people object to certain vaccines or object to baking wedding cakes for certain couples?
Yes, all baptized Sikh students want to carry these things. Their religion requires it, and banning it puts a significant burden on their free exercise of religion.
City of Boerne says the first amendment allows accommodations for religious practice but doesn’t require them. Congress passed RFRA to impose such a requirement on both federal and state laws, and SCOTUS said Congress had no authority to impose that on the states. The federal RFRA applies only to federal laws, not state laws. So it depends whether the state has a RFRA.
It also depends crucially on whether the person sincerely holds the belief he claims to hold. Most people who claim to object to certain vaccines on religious grounds are lying. It’s up to the individual to show that he sincerely does believe that it would be wrong for him to get the vaccine, or to allow his child to, and therefore should get a reasonable accommodation. It’s then up to state law whether such accommodations are available at all, i.e. whether the state has a RFRA.
Came here for the asinine comments, was not disappointed!