Ahhh, finally he decides to waltz through the doors and join us!
Only 72 hours late.
Ok, let's go through your essay....
Lots to think about there Chuck. My natural (probably kneejerk) reaction was one of cynicism about more concessions being afforded to faith. Who's to say an atheist might consider an
A for Atheist bracelet "important", for instance? That sort of thing. Well ok, atheism isn't a faith, but ultimately when you strip away the reverence, it's about what the student (or their parents) consider to be important, not about whether there's a deity or deities looking down on them.
But I can also see there are other aspects that come into this, not least the issue of school uniform and jewellery policy in general. My schools seemed to manage a compomise quite well - there were rules about extravagant hair styles and length of skirt (that one was a killer for me) but small religious adornments were permitted, and if they looked like they might present a health and safety risk, then they were either removed by the student, or the student sat out that particular aspect of the curriculum. There also seemed to be an unspoken understanding that there would be a big difference between, say, a Hindu gemstone on the forehead, and a head-to-toe burqa. I'm not sure how a bracelet of this size would have been treated - I suspect that health and safety might have required its removal in certain subjects and activities, but I'm not sure.
It's tempting to shrug our shoulders and say "Whatever happened to common sense?" but I think cases like this bracelet clearly do highlight those very lines we have to draw that I mentioned earlier, and that's why I agree that we need to enquire about the underlying reasons; what's served by disallowing this bracelet or any jewellery? What's served by the uniform policy?
And as you say, what was
really served by taking this particular case all the way to court? Victim status, attention and a spot of David v Goliath rebellion?
Ok, back to cake.