Freedom of WHAT religion?

A news story LINK about the interplay of various freedoms and rights in a North Carolina school.  This time the issue is not textbooks, but rather a dress code.  That code has been interpreted to prohibit a student from wearing her nose ring (really a stud, not a ring) to school, but the student and her mother contend that the nose ring should be allowed as an instance of freedom of religion.  Those who heard Prof. Schillinger on minority and majority views of freedom of religion, at the Constitution Day panel, will now hear echoes of his remarks.  Is this practice, body piercing, a form of religious expression?  Who has authority to decide? At the center of the case is a question about the equal treatment of all religions.

In view of our discussion today in Section A, those students may be interested in the notion of hybrid rights described in this news article.  While noting that freedom of expression may be limited in certain settings, the student and her mom argue, with the ACLU, that freedom of religion trumps those limits.  The legitimate limits may be analogous to the locational barrier we discussed in class.

From Yahoo News.

The Words or the Music of the Revolution

From Joseph J. Ellis, Founding Brothers: the Revolutionary Generation. (Vintage, 2000)

"With the American Revolution, as with all revolutions, different factions came together in common cause to overthrow the reigning regime, then discovered in the aftermath of their triumph that they had fundamentally different and politically incompatible notions of what they intended. . . . Taking sides in this debate [between the "twin goals" of individual freedom and equality (p. 16)] is like choosing between the words and the music of the American Revolution." p. 15

Ellis rightly identifies both the reality that in the service of a common goal, such as independence from England, persons with overlapping or even divergent values can form a strategic alliance and the way in which in the USA the tension inherent in such an alliance has been "not resolved so much as built into the fabric of our national identity." (p. 16) Knowing this allows us to pay attention to the ways it surfaces in the conversations we have among our selves and with others.

Freedom and equality: which is promoted? Which is threatened? Which value under girds polices and actions? Is it possible to have both? Is it necessary? The image of music and words seems to prefer both, but one can have instrumental music or poetry without the melody.

For example, and to the point of our interest in "Tea party" as a dense fact, which value is dominant in debates over taxes? Surely those who want lower taxes could be arguing for freedom from taxation. Does it follow, and is it so, that those who are willing to raise taxes are in favor of everyone paying an equal share? Or, is their position based on commitment to offering equal services for education, health care, transportation, and the like?