Quote:
Originally Posted by Deckard
In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.
For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.
Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )
|
Yeah, you know this one's tough for me to nail down exactly where I stand on it. Normally, I'm all for supporting people's right to wear the traditional garb that comes along with their religion, but given the details of the article and what you just outlined as the other of the "four k" elements, this seems somewhere on the fence between religious tradition and fashion to me. I lean towards saying it shouldn't be allowed in fairness to all the other students who aren't allowed to wear jewelry, but I don't know.
But she is a girl, so maybe we can just all agree that this was clearly a misogynistic policy from the school and move on.
