SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Thursday, September 16, 2010, 3:34 PM

Another apparently unsolvable conflict of church and the state in the guise of public schooling: a girl in North Carolina has been suspended from school for wearing a (very small) nose ring, which is against the dress code, unless the child has a religious reason, which this child claims to do, as she’s a member of the Church of Body Modification.

It has, AP reports, “a clergy, a statement of beliefs and a formal process for accepting new members.” Their minister says that the school is saying that ”because they don’t agree and because they choose not to respect our beliefs, that it can’t be a sincerely held religious belief.” He

describes the church as a non-theistic faith that draws people who see tattoos, piercings and other physical alterations as ways of experiencing the divine.

“We don’t worship the god of body modification or anything like that,” he said. “Our spirituality comes from what we choose to do ourselves. Through body modification, we can change how we feel about ourselves and how we feel about the world.”

The church claims roughly 3,500 members nationwide, having started about two years ago, after adopting the name of a similar group that had been dormant for several years.

What makes this group religious escapes me, beyond the fact that it has a point of view and is organized in the same way as some existing religious bodies.  A desire for change and feelings about the world are not in themselves particularly religious. The group’s Statement of Faith does not help answer this question.

But on what grounds can a public body, like a school or a court, declare the Church of Body Modification not religious, especially when freedom of religion has been subsumed under a more general freedom of conscience? What, besides pedigree, differentiates them from certain old religious bodies that have decayed into ethical societies with weekly lectures?

Thanks to Worldwide Religious News for the link.

3 Comments

    ER
    September 16th, 2010 | 5:22 pm

    The key under the law to evaluating whether a group is religious or not is (a) the beliefs they claim are sincerely held; and (b) the beliefs occupy the same place in their lives that belief in God occupies in the lives of those who believe in God. (The latter point is from a case called United States v. Seeger.)

    The problem of insincere claimants is a recurring one. It happens a lot in the context of prison religious exercise, and also happens with respect to military conscientious objection cases. There are fewer cases where a non-religious group claims religious rights.

    Applying these two rules, an ethical society that has no belief in the transcendent cannot claim free exercise rights under the US Constitution, nor can a parodist claim rights to free exercise. There has to be a connection between the forum externum (what the rest of us can see) and the forum internum (one’s conscience). Courts and the military routinely turn down claimants who claim religious freedom but are insincere.

    The main issue in the Church of the Body Modification cases (this is not the only one) is whether the belief is sincere or not. Thus far few have been found to be sincere.

    Ray Ingles
    September 17th, 2010 | 11:38 am

    ER –

    Applying these two rules, an ethical society that has no belief in the transcendent cannot claim free exercise rights under the US Constitution, nor can a parodist claim rights to free exercise.

    Right on the latter – a parodists’ beliefs are not sincerely held – but I’d like to see you elaborate on the former. Atheists have qualified for conscientious objector status since a case in 1968.

    carouser
    September 17th, 2010 | 9:39 pm

    Though a bit unusual, if we’re to take the right to worship freely as ‘serious,’ who’s place is it to decide which abstractions are ‘real’ and which are mere fancy?

    http://scallywagandvagabond.com/2010/09/north-carolina-teenager-suspended-from-school-her-nose-piecing-claims-its-part-of-her-religion/

=