catwho wrote:
I think the NC schools dug a hole for themselves by saying "If you were Muslim or Hindu it would be different."
Which is curious, given that Islam generally views nose piercings as mutilation and most sects forbid it. There certainly is no religious requirement for nose piercings in Islam. It's common in Indian
culture, but has no specific relevance to the Hindu religion at all. There is no religious requirement to wear one, just strong cultural trends which vary from region to region.
BTW, the most common cultural historical meaning of the nose ring worn by women in India was to show that she was "owned" by a man. In the same way you might pierce the nose of a herd animal to keep it nearby, so was the woman bound to the man. The piercing itself is decorative, and tied to coming of age. An actual ring is typically only worn during marriage ceremonies (with the obvious connotation present).
Quote:
Okay, so her family's religion is only 2 years old. In the eyes of the law, that shouldn't make it any less valid.
Honestly, she's got *more* claim to the ring being a part of her religion, but I seriously don't think any religion requires that one must wear a nose piercing at all times or violate some rules of faith. I'm also of the opinion that religious beliefs which appear constructed specifically to enable its members to do things which are normally not allowed shouldn't pass constitutional muster.
I'd argue that the dress code should be applied to everyone. If they don't allow nose piercings, then they don't allow it for everyone. Their first mistake was even suggesting (or allowing) exceptions on religious grounds in the first place.