Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL


Recommended Posts

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews....l_usoddlyenough

LONDON (Reuters) - A teenage schoolgirl will appeal to the High Court on Friday to overturn a ban on her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolize her decision to abstain from sex before marriage.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, from West Sussex, says the silver ring is an expression of her faith and should be exempt from the school's rules on wearing jewellery.

"It is really important to me because in the Bible it says we should do this," she told BBC radio. "Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against."

Playfoot's lawyers will argue that her right to express religious belief is upheld by the Human Rights Act.

There have been a series of rows in schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, the Law Lords rejected Shabina Begum's appeal for permission to wear a Muslim gown at her school in Luton. That case echoed a debate in France over the banning of Muslim headscarves in state schools.

Lydia Playfoot's parents help run the British arm of the American campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, which promotes abstinence among young people.

Members wear a ring on the third finger of the left hand. It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4," a reference to a Biblical passage from Thessalonians which reads: "God wants you to be holy, so you should keep clear of all sexual sin."

Lydia's father, Phil Playfoot, said his daughter's case was part of a wider cultural trend towards Christians being "silenced."

"What I would describe as a secular fundamentalism is coming to the fore, which really wants to silence certain beliefs, and Christian views in particular," he said.

Leon Nettley, head teacher of Millais School in Horsham, denies discrimination, saying the ring contravenes the school's rules on wearing jewellery.

"The school is not convinced pupils' rights have been interfered with by the application of the uniform policy," he told the Brighton-based Argus newspaper. "The school has a clearly published uniform policy and sets high standards."

Sure the school bans jewelry, but come on... It's just a ring.

Link to comment

I like how you're one of those ignorant jerks that's against anything Christian no matter what.

But anyway, when are Muslims not allowed to wear head scarfs? They are at my school.

At British schools (I think, maybe only some British schools) won't let you wear any kind of religious paraphernalia if it violates their super-strict dress code.

Link to comment

I get the feeling that this specific case has less to do with the fact that it's a Christian expression, (though only a little less, as it is the UK/europe) and more to do with the message it supposedly conveys. The new secular social taboo, and neo-leftist sin, of sexual abstinence. After all, what could be worse then someone not only abstaining form sex until they're ready, but actually doing nothing to hide their choice nor even being ashamed of it!

Yeah, and Muslims should be allowed to wear headscarfs. I also love Christians who think they're persecuted. How wrong.

ah.. They are allowed to, at that school at least. You mean like those Muslims who think the same?

Link to comment

Now this is my problem

"It is really important to me because in the Bible it says we should do this," she told BBC radio. "Muslims are allowed to wear headscarves and other faiths can wear bangles and other types of jewellery. It feels like Christians are being discriminated against."

No, in the Bible it says you should remain clear of sexual sin, not that you should wear a ring. I know of none of the 600+ laws that tells you to wear a ring for this purpose, and even if one does exist, it is one that probably has been ignored by your church for centuries (I would say millenia, but you're British, I doubt your church is that old)

NaziMatzahnerd: we know your views, they're the reason she can say "secular fundamentalism" with a straight face

James: 7/10

I almost thought you were serious, which is good, but its partly a reflection of how we'll believe you're batshit insane enough to think anything. Could have been a bit more original. Sounded too textbook, effective trolling needs to be more interesting

Link to comment

I get the feeling that this specific case has less to do with the fact that it's a Christian expression, (though only a little less, as it is the UK/europe) and more to do with the message it supposedly conveys. The new secular social taboo, and neo-leftist sin, of sexual abstinence. After all, what could be worse then someone not only abstaining form sex until they're ready, but actually doing nothing to hide their choice nor even being ashamed of it!

ah.. They are allowed to, at that school at least. You mean like those Muslims who think the same?

Except your entire argument fails because this school, and schools like them, have banished Muslim headdresses (wasn't there a huge hullabaloo mentioned about this awhile back?). This is clearly a case of the school not wanting any religious paraphernalia in the school. Which, really, is fine by me, but it would just be easier to let her wear the ring, and let the Muslim women wear their headdresses. As long as I get to go to school shirtless with my sacrificial goat in my arms, and spill its blood all over my desk in a service to mighty OĆ°inn right before the final exam.

Also, the sexual freedom movement includes the right to not have sex. That's part of the movement. A very important part -- I don't know anyone who disrespects someone for staying a virgin, and more importantly, only with sexual freedom, I think, can the freedom to not have sex be truly realized.

Still, though, you did manage to get in a dig at European society (+2, even if it was kinda forced and out of place), a comparatively sane dig in at leftists (also +2) and one at Muslims (+2). I say 6/10, although it was pretty entertaining overall, so maybe Satan was right with his 7/10.

Link to comment

I don't see the big deal here. Let the christian wear he ring, the muslim wear their head-scarf-thing, and let CF spill the blood of a goat. Everybody's happy. Well, except the squeamish.

On a more serious note, CF does bring up an interesting point. If we let a person of one religion do what they want because they're saying it is linked to their religion, and not let other people do things, then there'll be nothing but squabbling.

But honestly, I do think that if the school or government says you can't wear it, then don't wear it, OR conceal it. That's what I'd do if they bitched at me over a ring. I'd say "yes'm" and wear it as a necklace under my shirt.

Link to comment

All religious practices should be banned from public education

I like how you're one of those ignorant jerks that's against anything Christian no matter what.

But anyway, when are Muslims not allowed to wear head scarfs? They are at my school.

It's scary how while defending Christians you call others ignorant.

I get the feeling that this specific case has less to do with the fact that it's a Christian expression, (though only a little less, as it is the UK/europe) and more to do with the message it supposedly conveys. The new secular social taboo, and neo-leftist sin, of sexual abstinence. After all, what could be worse then someone not only abstaining form sex until they're ready, but actually doing nothing to hide their choice nor even being ashamed of it!

You're insane

Link to comment

I think that spilling the blood of a goat all over a desk is a little different from a headdress or a ring in that it sort of vandalizes the desk and would eventually smell bad (if not right away).

A ring could cause permanent disfiguration to one's finger if it was too small, a headdress could prevent one from getting a sexy tan. Both are bigger problems than vandalizing school property. :awesome:

Seriously, though, the line has to be drawn somewhere, because I don't want someone slaughtering a goat in my class. Now, I also don't want people to feel persecuted or have their beliefs challenged at school. So where do you draw the line? Especially if the Odinist is willing to clean up after himself? (although he wouldn't want to spill blood on a desk anyway, probably on an earthfast stone, though).

Link to comment

A ring could cause permanent disfiguration to one's finger if it was too small, a headdress could prevent one from getting a sexy tan. Both are bigger problems than vandalizing school property. :awesome:

Seriously, though, the line has to be drawn somewhere, because I don't want someone slaughtering a goat in my class. Now, I also don't want people to feel persecuted or have their beliefs challenged at school. So where do you draw the line? Especially if the Odinist is willing to clean up after himself? (although he wouldn't want to spill blood on a desk anyway, probably on an earthfast stone, though).

I agree 100% with everything this post says.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...