Hacker News Reader

Comment by drivebyacct2 | Hacker News Reader

This would be so much more interesting and supportable as a privacy issue. Instead the first upholding of this policy will be in the face of religious superstition and will tarnish future attempts to resist or address this policy.

This is infuriating to me, as I fought the precursor to these policies when I was in highschool to the point that I had organized a protest with enough people that I was basically threatened until it dissipated. Now, more than ever, we treat our schoolchildren EVEN MORE like prisoners except that we still spend far more on prisoners than we do our education for our youth...

View on HN

"I feel it's an invasion of my religious beliefs," she told InfoWars. "I feel it's the implementation of the Mark of the Beast. It's also an invasion of my privacy and my other rights."*

FTA. I get that it's popular to automatically dismiss something when you catch so much as a whiff of religious overtones, but the student did in fact also mention privacy as an issue of why she refused to wear the badge.

My point was merely that complaining about the "Mark of the Beast" is a good way to get people to roll their eyes. I certainly think this policy is a horrible precedent but ultimately I think a secular redress involving something that could actually be upheld would be a better focal point.

This, "my religious belief is as good as anyone elses" is a can of worms, a dangerous discussion and will derail from the immediate problems with these policies. They turn places of education into centers of control and survelliance. There is so vastly much wrong with treating humans like this, let alone students, that I cringe that criticisms will be dismissed because of the particulars of an individual's religion.

(Aka, I agree with you, my fear is that this being a religious issue rather than a privacy issue will be over all detrimental to actually fixing these policies. Hope that explains things more.)

Point is valid and taken, however the comment made here[1] actually makes the counter-point I was preparing to after reading your response. Essentially, sure-the lean towards religion is slowly moving back in the other direction towards pragmatic and progressive thinking; does not mean we shouldn't give it consideration when we (I, not sure about yourself but definitely the case in the expelled Texan student) live in a country that has a founding document that explicitly cites religion as a guaranteed freedom.

===

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820028

Ok, let me get this straight.

School makes RFID solution for tracking/library/food stuffs. Student objects based upon religious and privacy grounds. Judge granted her a reprieve based upon Freedom of Speech and Religion grounds.

I do have a good deal of knowledge and understanding of different religions and beliefs. I know of none other that specifically mentions the "Mark of The Beast" and the full context mentioned in Revelations.

So are they preparing a non-Christian tracking service?

I don't think that we can say these people are trying to create a non-Christian tracking service. I doubt they are acting with (that extreme a degree of) malice.

That doesn't change the fact that the effect, regardless of intent, is approximately the same.

I think a sensible way of handling religious exemptions, to prevent giving special privilege to those with more restrictive religions (or those with religions more open to loose interpretations, or simply those with religions), is to permit anybody of any religion or lack of religion to claim religious exemptions that anybody else could.

If a Christian student is allowed to opt-out of the RFID system, then a Buddhist student or an atheist student should similarly be allowed to opt-out, even though they lack the "mark of the beast" stuff in their belief system.

I would concur as well. I believe they were doing this RFID system for 2 reasons: the students, and the contract. However, the reprieve allows all Christians to exempt themselves from this program.

My underlying worry is the Government will make further all-encompassing rules on the hopes that few are able to be exempt from them. This will be done by a religious test in front of a Judge.

However, it is all the worse that this occurs at a secondary school. With the rule of in loco parentis, it really is a dictatorship and a prison. At least outside that compulsed system, there is more regular rule of law.

Thankfully religious exemption only kicks in for things that ultimately are pretty trivial (DMV photo requirements, for example), or in limited settings (such as schools, where as you said loco parentis is in effect).

There are probably a few counterexamples, but the only ones I can think of are historic. You can now claim conscientious objector status in the event of a draft for non-religious reasons, though this was not always the case.

Actually, (and this surprises me greatly I must say) the US Selective Service System would serve as a great example for how religious exemption in other situations should work.

From http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm :

>Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest. In general, the man's lifestyle prior to making his claim must reflect his current claims.

I quite like that; seems very reasonable to me. If all religious exemptions were reworded into something like that, I would be a very happy man.

No politician or judge in Texas who likes their job will ever roll their eyes at this accusation.

If this general issue were limited in scope to Texas, then I wouldn't be concerned about anyone but judges in Texas.

That she was able to effectively use a (honestly, kind of nutty) religious argument is great for her, but I don't think it does the rest of us much good. If this becomes a trend, I could definitely see it ultimately being marginalizing.

This is fundamentally a privacy issue that could effect anybody, but if the only effective arguments against it are religious exemption then what we have created is a situation where you are only free to exempt yourself if you can effectively form an argument against it in your particular religion (if you even have one...).

That is not a situation I am comfortable with.

The religious angle is explicitly protected by the constitution. Privacy, not as much. You're rights to privacy relate to religion, privacy of your home to house soldiers, privacy against unlawful search and seizures, and the 5th amendments protection of incriminating yourself.

> That is not a situation I am comfortable with.

For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it, it might have been the smartest thing our founding fathers did. After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy?

Consider that while you can argue for privacy, arguments for tracking could be made. And while you might hate the "think of the children" argument, it's a very real issue for many.

Personally, I'm happy with the situation, that the case can be challenged, and while religion might be apart of it, it's privacy that is at stake, and everyone knows it.

You just have to ask yourself: does your belief in your right to privacy trump someone's acceptance of being tracked?

>For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it

You have misunderstood me almost entirely I fear.

I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. That is fine for the people involved, but I do not think it sets any sort of useful precedent for the rest of us. Atheist, Buddhist, or other non-Christian students presumably still have to fight to opt-out of this system, but now Christian students (clearly the majority) are effectively exempt.

> After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy?

Well, a few things. First off, religions invented or employed to take advantage of religious exemptions tend to be poorly received. A few people have tried to wear spaghetti strainers in their DMV photos as "religious headgear", and generally I believe they eventually win the right to do so, but they have to go through lengthy and draining fights just to gain access to the same exemptions that more mainstream religions would receive automatically (when was the last time a Jewish person had to fight to defend the legitimacy of Judaism in order to wear headgear in an official government photo?)

Secondly, even were the process of inventing religions to gain access to religious exemptions streamlined, this ignores the possibility that the individual already is religious, and religious in such a way that claiming an additional religious affiliation is out of the question for them.

Thirdly (and very related to my second point, to the extent that it probably doesn't require individual mention), it ignores the possibility that the student is opposed to religion, and wishes to obtain the same consideration that Christians are being afforded, but has a moral opposition to lying about one's religious beliefs. Telling that student to lie, invent and "adopt" a religion, and then only then enjoy the same protection, is I think unreasonable.

There is a very easy solution to my uneasiness however that still allows students to make the (very easy) religious exemption case: Allow everybody, no matter their "claimed" religion (whether genuinely held or not), to take advantage of exemptions that would or could be afforded to other religious students. If Christian students are permitted to exempt from anything, non-Christian students should also be permitted to exempt from the same thing, without having to find a non-Christian basis for doing so.

Stated more clearly, nobody seeking religious exemption should be expected to claim affiliation with that, or any, religion.

If that were the case, both in the letter of the law and in practice, then my uneasiness would be entirely calmed.

EDIT: if "religious exemptions" were handed out with the same stated standards for conscientious objection from the US Selective Service, the result would be quite similar to what I earlier proposed and I would be entirely satisfied.

The part I quite like: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical" -- http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm

The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.

> I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument.

No, I understood you perfectly. What you seem to think is that privacy should have played a more important role, despite their being nothing in our countries history to suggest otherwise.

> privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here

No, it hasn't. This is wrong from every angle.

First, it has not been dismissed here. It's apart of the case.

Second, it's not even the strongest point to stand on. Our constitution does not protected against privacy, but religion.

Thirdly, this is not special to this case. It did not start here. It started with the foundation of our country.

You then proceed to make some arguments that basically say you can start your own religion if this matters to you, you might already be religious (and I assume where your religion does not believe in protecting your privacy), and that someone might lie about being a Christian to afford them the same rights (ignoring the part about creating or establishing your own religion).

> The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.

Religion is merely a coded set of beliefs. That you would be okay with this ruling but against religion being used is... well, hypocritical. They are tantamount to the same thing. In either case, belief is being held above privacy. Heck, even this ruling understands this similarity.

Regardless, your point basically amounts to: I don't like that the girl used religion first and privacy second while ignoring law and the girl involved.

And yet, with all you say, you completely ignore the fact that privacy still would not be the first issue.

In the end, I think you are just hiding your real stance: you are against religion regardless of what it does. Your "being disappointed about a belief structure being above privacy in this case" is a lie.

>something that could actually be upheld

Are you implying that the First Amendment (ie: religious freedom) is not something that can or has been upheld in court?

I understand the concern you voice, however in doing so you come across as so intolerant of religion that you're unwilling to even consider working with religious people when your goals coincide. Moreover, you seem to think that only one legal strategy is correct and only one legal strategy can be exercised at a time in order to challenge a rule or a law. I sincerely hope you represent the minority of HN and that most users are much more tolerant and inclusive.

Please read my other posts before making assumptions, accusations and generalizations.

A religious defense only helps religious people. Worse though, it perpetuates the idea that certain classes of opinions are more worthy than others.

Clearly secular solutions are more valuable because they help everyone. I'm very tolerant of religious people finding safety under my umbrella even though I find their belief odious.

>A religious defense only helps religious people.

Anyone can claim religious reasons, there is no religion police (yet). To me it reads like she objected for privacy reasons and the religious phrase given is just an argument they think might be accepted more easily. (I might be wrong, but it is a possible scenario.) - (Which is a sad thing in itself.)

Religion is a very important motivating factor for a large portion of our society. If the pious want to join with the technorati against this for religious reasons, I would welcome them. Religion may not be as influential today as it was in the past, but God-fearing Americans are still a very large and powerful constituency.

Besides, if I'm reading your comment correctly, you're in favor of separation of church and state in public schools -- which is exactly the position taken by the religious protagonist of the article.

>You're in favor of separation of church and state in public schools -- which is exactly the position taken by the religious protagonist of the article.

(Genuinely asking) Is it? I want to be excepted from state policies based on my religion is NOT a well defined right. Again, there are many state/federal laws that contradict many religious texts and supersede them.

> I want to be excepted from state policies based on my religion

It is sort of a gray area. On the one hand, you don't want people to start worshiping the gods of Norevenu and insisting that paying taxes goes against the beliefs of their pantheon so they don't have to do it and the Constitution says they're okay because that's part of their religion.

On the other hand, you don't want politicians to be able to write laws that clearly harass or deny religious freedom to believers.

Where the case in the article falls on that spectrum is open to debate. Some of my personal heuristics for policymaking are:

1. If you do things the way they've always been done before, the risks are more of a known quantity. We should apply a penalty to the score we assign to any policy that involves doing new things, to represent the risks we don't understand.

2. Government often manages to screw things up, so smaller government is usually better. That way if things do get screwed up, at least there's a good chance it'll be on a small scale and/or for a short time. We should apply a penalty to the score we assign to any policy that involves a larger or more intrusive government, to represent the risk of greater inefficiency, corruption, scope creep, and unintended consequences.

3. You should apply a penalty to anything that costs money and a bonus to anything that generates or saves money, if balancing the budget is a concern. Right now, this applies everywhere: At the federal level we're running many deficits, and most state/city/local governments are being squeezed by the recession, declining grants from higher levels, and increasing costs.

All of these heuristics point in the same direction on this one.

It would be more interesting and supportable for you. People are different and have different interests and motivation. I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out something.

Meh. Freedoms are freedoms, and people want them for whatever reason they like. I don't think this really tarnishes anything.

As I alluded to in my other post, I think this is more likely to be successfully combatted as a privacy issue instead of a religious one.

If a vague reference to the "Mark of the Beast" applies to a lanyard, then why isn't my [belief] allow me to get out of [whatever I want].

Courts have often ruled that rights of minors can be restricted in school. Fighting that is enough of an issue to try to get a judgement call on a particular fine point of someone's faith.

(To put it in policy debate terms, there's a more obvious (though still plenty blurry) bright line for privacy violations than there are for individual faith exemptions).

(edit, sorry, to note, I don't disagree with you, but the courts have also placed limitations on "religious freedom" as well. There are lots of things in the [various religious texts] that aren't allowed under US law, regardless of the individual's faith, etc, etc.)

> I think this is more likely to be successfully combatted as a privacy issue instead of a religious one.

The stereotyped view of the US is of a nation gripped by religious fervour with crazies at all levels and branches of legislature and executive and judicial and etc government.

I've seen many things which would have been unthinkable in the US before 9/11 become normal afterwards. I've seen many privacies and freedoms become restricted.

While you fight this on privacy grounds it's useful to have other people fighting this on grounds of religious freedom. It leaves you free to make the arguments that you're comfortable making; that you really believe in, and it provides more people to apply pressure.

I think you didn't finish your first sentence(?) I suspect I disagree with where it was headed but, that's an entirely different conversation and varies depending on how you're affected by it.

Again, I think people are treating me as anti-religious. I seriously just want "privacy" to be the forefront issue. It's much more universal, it's easier to make a brightline ruling on and it's not subject to the muddying of people saying "my religion prohibits me from, paying taxes, doing jury duty, etc, etc".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com