Atheist sues over school uniforms

[Jewel]

If religion-based objections are heeded by the district, a parent asks, why aren't hers? (http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/living/education/6617429.htm)

Parents who object to school uniforms in one Salem County school district may opt out of the requirement on religious grounds if they get a note from a rabbi, pastor or imam.

So where does that leave an atheist who objects to the district's red, white and khaki uniforms?

Helpless, says Sherrie Wilkins, an atheist and mother of two elementary school boys in the Penns Grove-Carneys Point Regional School District.

When Wilkins fought the uniform code at public board meetings, she lost. When she sent her boys to school out of uniform last year, officials sent them home. When she kept the boys home, school officials took her before a municipal judge, who ordered her to return them to school.

Frustrated, Wilkins took the school board to federal court in Camden last week.

Citing the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, Wilkins' lawsuit argues that atheists should have the same rights as religious parents.

[Shake]

Right! Either enforce it for everybody, or get rid of it altogether. I'm more in favor of a solid dress code rather than uniforms.

There are some very good points made in that article.

[Yangja Isuko]

dress codes and school uniforms are a completely foreign and alien concept to me. and i very much doubt that it has a positive effect on education.

i can understand parents/teachers being concerned about kids carrying concealed weapons underneath baggy clothing and such. 'but if they are, then there's something seriously wrong with society, not the clothing. they should probably look for the root problem by examining their fears of children with concealed weapons, if you catch my drift.

[RufusAtticus]

School Superintendent Joseph A. Massare said he had not seen the lawsuit but had been advised by his lawyer that the district's rules are constitutional.

"We're following the law," Massare said. "Atheism is not considered an organized religion, and there's nothing, as far as we know, that says the uniform would go against their beliefs."


Someone needs to get a new lawyer. It is not up to the school district to perscribe somone's beliefs for them. The fact that they think they can demonstrates their lack of understanding about the issue. It is also clearly invalid to distinguish between "organized religion" and "unorganized religion," since such distinctions are subjective and can be abused by the gov't to favor one set over others.

[cheetah]

"If the argument here is not a free-speech right, if it is just that it's not fair to treat religious people differently than nonreligious people, it seems to me that argument doesn't win," Dane said.

So, it is ok to give religious people privileges? :eek:

[Jewel]

Originally posted by Yangja Isuko
dress codes and school uniforms are a completely foreign and alien concept to me. and i very much doubt that it has a positive effect on education.


I've often heard people say that it helps to get rid of class distinctions (rich kids/poor kids) and the conflicts that can come with it, but I have my doubts. I've never seen (or looked for, actually) a study on the subject.

[cheetah]

My mom is a teacher at a school that has uniforms (I think it's like navy pants white shirts or something) and she says she personally has experienced a decrease in behavioral problems in the classroom. I know there is a logical connection missing there somewhere, like you probably want to know what kind of behavioral problems have been reduced and what that might have to do with clothing. To be honest, I can't remember, because I usually tune her out when she starts talking about her classroom :o Maybe I'll ask her about it, but it's only anecdotal, anyway.

[Evolutionist]

i used to have to wear a uniform. pretty much every school kid in the country does. it's not actually that bad and really makes no difference when everyone does it.

[xorbie]

Am I the only one here who thinks this argument is total utter bullshit?

Unless the person was part of a religion that specifically said "I refuse to wear a red-white khaki uniform" then you have to wear it if you go to that school. There are certain clothes that Jews must wear according to their beliefs, this should be allowed within reason.

That's like saying "that learning disable kid got extra time on the test, I demand equal treatment." You may think this is a strawman, but I see it as an apt analogy and equally as absurd.

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by xorbie
That's like saying "that learning disable kid got extra time on the test, I demand equal treatment." You may think this is a strawman, but I see it as an apt analogy and equally as absurd.

Bad example since the government is not constitutionally bound to treat learning abilities neutrally.

[TerriNPA]

I think that lawsuit is ridiculous. The colors are the school colors right? So I can see that due to the dress code at school that those colors are worn and that being allright. Now if the colors were for religious reasons I could see her suing but other than that IMO they should throw it out, wearing those colors does not and should not "hinder the child's creativity"

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by TerriNPA
Now if the colors were for religious reasons I could see her suing but other than that IMO they should throw it out, wearing those colors does not and should not "hinder the child's creativity"

If she believes they do then she has as much right to have an exception granted as someone whose faith tells them that their children should wear all black.

[john_v_h]

Originally posted by xorbie
Am I the only one here who thinks this argument is total utter bullshit?

Nope, I agree with you. It's a balancing act between the school's interest in promoting unity/reducing gang-color problems and the religious rights of the students. In fact, this lawsuit plays right into the hands of those who argue that atheism (or secularism) is just another religion and thus deserves no preferential treatment, which they go on to define as removal of God/10 commandments from government buildings, for example.

[Xixax]

Originally posted by john_v_h
.... In fact, this lawsuit plays right into the hands of those who argue that atheism (or secularism) is just another religion and thus deserves no preferential treatment, which they go on to define as removal of God/10 commandments from government buildings, for example.

You're skipping past something very important: The installation of that monument is promotion of an individual religion. The removal is correcting an injustice.

That would be like having Moore paint "JESUS SAVES" on the wall of the courtroom, and then claiming that removing it is somehow giving preferential treatment to atheists.

Also, why isn't the moving of the 10 commandments preferential treatment for Buddhists, Hindus and Pantheists?

I think they need to look very carefully at the need for a school dress code and decide if they are going to enforce it or not, regardless of religion.

Imagine if this were taken to a further extreme, where children were forbidden by their religion to read. Would they develop a class with no reading required? What if they were forced, by religion, to speak Hungarian? Would they install teachers able to translate the class for them?

No, there are surely Jewish private schools to which these children could attend, or other public schools, if they want to enforce the dress code so severely. Otherwise, any "good argument" needs to be given equal merit. Personally, I find the argument that it stifles creativity more reasonable than "An invisible sky god doesn't let me wear khaki and red school uniforms, it pisses him off."

[cheetah]

Originally posted by Xixax
Personally, I find the argument that it stifles creativity more reasonable than "An invisible sky god doesn't let me wear khaki and red school uniforms, it pisses him off."

:D :D

:notworthy very true!

[john_v_h]

Originally posted by Xixax
You're skipping past something very important: The installation of that monument is promotion of an individual religion. The removal is correcting an injustice.

Whoa Xixax. I'm not arguing that removal is promotion. I was just paraphrasing the position taken by the Alabama xtians in their Mobile lawsuit. They claim nontheism = religion and that removing Roy's Rock is favoring that supposed "religion."

What if a child's religion forbade her to learn to read? The courts would rule against her because it is a matter of reasonable balance between the mission of the education system and the rights of the student. Neither is an absolute.