School rules against Christian "purity ring" in schools - but Muslims can still wear hijabs

Reuters India ^ | July 16, 2007 | Reuters

[van_erwin]

A British teenager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a "purity ring" at school to symbolise her commitment to virginity lost a High Court fight against the ban on Monday.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, says her silver ring is an expression of her faith and had argued in court that it should be exempt from school regulations banning the wearing of jewellery.

"I am very disappointed by the decision this morning by the High Court not to allow me to wear my purity ring to school as an expression of my Christian faith not to have sex outside marriage," Playfoot said in a statement.

"I believe that the judge's decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organisations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith."

Playfoot's legal challenge was the latest in a series of disputes in British schools in recent years over the right of pupils to wear religious symbols or clothing, such as crucifixes and veils.

Last year, Britain's 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.

Playfoot's parents are key members of the British arm of the American chastity campaign group the Silver Ring Thing, a religious group which urges abstinence among young people.

Those who sign up 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."

During the case, Playfoot's lawyers argued that the ban by her school in Horsham, southern England, breached her human rights to "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" which are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Lawyers for the school denied discrimination and said the purity ring breached its rules on wearing jewellery.

They said allowances were made for Muslim and Sikh pupils only for items integral to their religious beliefs and that, for the same reason, crucifixes were also allowed. But it argued that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith.

Playfoot said in her statement she would consulting her legal team to consider whether to appeal.

[The Blitherer]

Take a rubber band and wrap it around your finger. It’s not technically jewelry and it gets the point across.

[rocksblues]

To not be seen as a Europe basher I can only say this, You will reap what you sow!

Do not ask US for help!

[semaj]

So let me get this straight, we now have the courts determining what is integral to one’s faith?

[Old Sarge]

I watch the events unfold in Europe, especially Londonistan, and I can’t help but wonder what it’ll take for them to realize what’s happening?

I can only conclude that, just like Americans reallmust want Socialism, so must the Euros really want to be dominated by Mecca.

[van_erwin]

I don’t think you’re Europe bashing - I can just as easily see this kind of thing happening here in the US. We must all be vigilant, and do what we can to help Europe be vigilant as well, or the Islamic invasion that failed centuries ago by the sword will succeed today by the courts.

[PeterFinn]

The British Government no longer deserves to rule. When they toss aside their own culture in favour of muslim nonsense then the people over there have a duty to either vote in a rational government or to overthrow the traitors.

[SaveTheChief]

I wish I could side with the kid here, but the article states that she was violating an existing rule that prohibits jewelry. Wearing any kind of ring, symbolizing anything or nothing at all, violates that rule.

I am also not aware of anything in The Bible requiring or even suggesting that Christians wear purity rings or any other jewelry as an expression of faith.

[plain talk]

So let me get this straight, we now have the courts determining what is integral to one’s faith?

I don't see this ring as being integral to religious faith. If the rule is no jewelery there should be no jewelery. But they should be consistent in treating the muslims and their garb as well.

[rocksblues]

The thing is unless the Islamo-Fascists strike us again, the Democrats will allow them to ‘do the do’ through our courts.

[Mr. Mojo]

It is inscribed with "Thess. 4:3-4"

Bet if she had a ring etched with "666" and a dude with horns no one would've given a damn...

[muawiyah]

This is in the UK. Just another one of the reasons our Founders saw fit to throw off the shackles imposed by their godless, thoughtless, abusive state bureaucrats.

End of story.

Someday they may see the light but not yet.

[muawiyah]

The school doesn't ban jewelry. Rather, it authorizes Sikh jewelry only ~ and most likely you can wear it whether you are a Sikh or not.

It's simply an extension of a quite authoritarian tradition called "dress code".

Rather strange one though. If they'd want to eliminate jewelry they should have beaten the Sikhs down the day they got off the Boeing, but they didn't. Now their equivocation makes them look like chursl and fools ~ which they are anyway.

[I still care]

Well, then Christian kids will always lose, because Christianity is not a religion of laws, what you wear and eat and such. It is a religion of the heart.

It is integral to the Christian that they keep fellowship with God, and keep themselves unspotted from the world.

[SaveTheChief]

Well, then Christian kids will always lose, because Christianity is not a religion of laws, what you wear and eat and such. It is a religion of the heart.

It is integral to the Christian that they keep fellowship with God, and keep themselves unspotted from the world.

What does wearing a ring have to do with any of the above?

[SaveTheChief]

The school doesn't ban jewelry. Rather, it authorizes Sikh jewelry only

According to the article, students are also allowed to wear a crucifix.

[muawiyah]

Sikhs don't wear a crucifix, and outside of Catholic circles, wearing a crucifix is not all that common among Christians.

In fact, there are large number of Christian groups that PROHIBIT jewelry.

[Myrddin]

So let me get this straight, we now have the courts determining what is integral to one’s faith?

It's a British court. They don't have a First Amendment to restrain the government from dictating religious practices. That's a key reason the United States exists today.

[SaveTheChief]

So according to the article, Christian students are not allowed to wear the crucifix? Did I not read the article incorrectly?

[RobbyS]

there are large number of Christian groups that PROHIBIT jewelry Not true. In my home toown there were 18 churches of every demonination and only one, Nazarenes, prohibited jewelry.

[Pablo64]

"...and outside of Catholic circles, wearing a crucifix is not all that common among Christians."

I beg to differ with you on that statement. I know far more Evangelical Protestant Christians who wear a crucifix of some sort (earrings, necklace, lapel pin, etc.) than Catholics. That is not to say that there aren't a lot of Catholics who wear a cross, but of those I know of both groups, the higher percentage is with the Protestants (anecdotal evidence, I know). I just think you are way off in your assertion that it is not common among other Christian denominations.

[Ace's Dad]

students are also allowed to wear a crucifix.

OK, I just had a thought. (Dangerous, I know) Wear a Celtic Cross. Have the ring portion silver and the cross portion gold. Ha, sometimes I kill me! (ALF)

[Steve_Seattle]

I think there is a difference between a cross and a crucifix. A crucifix depicts the body of Jesus on the cross, whereas a cross is simply the cross by itself. Crucifixes are usually associated with Catholicism, not so much as jewelry, but affixed to a wall in a home or church, or as part of a rosary. Few Protestants have crucifixes, in my experience.

[muawiyah]

The difference in perceptions is your sample selection methodology. For example I count just about everybody who's not something else as being a Christian if they say so or appear to have an affiliation of some sort with some Christian body.

The Pope doesn't do that.

Most people will do something in between what I do and what the Pope does.

In any case, there's simply no such thing as theologically required jewelry for Christians.

[muawiyah]

In my home town there are HUNDREDS of different denominations of Christians, and my experience is that the overwhelming majority of them do not require jewelry of any kind, and an equally large majority just don't engage in it as a means to express religious beliefs.

Even Catholics keep their rosaries tucked away to be used only in private, in organized religious services, or when the End of the World happens. You'll see Moslems wearing them!

[muawiyah]

BTW, I make the same differentiation too. A cross is a cross. A cross with Jesus on it is a crucifix. Trying to recall the last time I saw anyone but a Catholic priest wearing a large crucifix

I know some Ethiopians who have a cross tattooed in the middle of their foreheads. I doubt that school could do anything about that ~ might not even notice it.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

The politicians have adopted as their goal the elimination of Christians and Jews, and replacing them with the members of the death cult.

[muawiyah]

You are giving entirely too much credit to brain-dead school bureaucrats.

These people are incapable of having intentions.

[keats5]

Are not the Muslim girls’ hijabs also to ensure purity? Purity is just as essential a part of the faith for Christian teenagers.

[bboop]

Can’t wear a RING? I bet they cannot wear a cross, either. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I would have my child out of those schools so fast. And maybe out of Britain. Such a violation of personal rights. A RING??

[expatguy]

Here is a Muslim girl in Malaysia - and as you can see the hijab or tudung as it is refered to here is integral to her faith.

Perhaps the British judge would like to explain to this girl that she is improperly dressed and that the hijab is an integral part of her faith - I'm sure the girl here would tell the judge to get bent.

He is a stupid infidel, what the hell does he know about Islam. He knows only what the Muslims tell him. He is a patsy.

What America and Britain are experiencing firsthand is ethnic chauvinism, a reactive response and a rejection to assimilation and integration.

In almost all cases it is a militant devotion to extremism carried out by moderates. (Not all Muslim are going to blow themselves up) You will notice that many of these displays of ethnic chauvinism became popular after 911 - it is the moderate's way of showing support for the extremist agenda.

It is a statement. Nothing more and nothing less.

The reality is that if they are truly concerned with following the precepts of Wahabbism (which is what you are appeasing) then the women would not even be allowed to be out in public unescorted without a male relative.

[muawiyah]

Is your statement relavant to anything?

[semaj]

My point in making the comment is that government, nor government authorities (courts) have any business, nor should they exercise the authority to specify articals of faith for any religion or its adherents. They aren’t equipped nor are they ordained to do so, as it sets a dangerous precedent for the future,whether in the UK or elsewhere.

[RobbyS]

Muslims don’t absolutely require the scarfs, either. In thirty years of living in Germany, I never saw a Turkish woman dressed out like this. They tried their best to look like Germans, at least in public. As for Christians, no, the jewelry is not required but it is not forbidden either. The cross has been an ornament forever.

[BJungNan]

Take a rubber band and wrap it around your finger. It’s not technically jewelry and it gets the point across.

Good suggestion. But if it were me and someone told me I could not wear a ring, I'd start leaving them superglued all over the school. Or just make stickers and do the same.

Not sure I can figure kids out today. We had bumper stickers that said "Question Authority" and we did regulary.

[Theo]

Are the adults in the school allowed to wear jewelry (e.g., wedding rings)?

[Pablo64]

I agree with your distinction between a cross and a cucifix. I wasn’t being specific enough. I would tend to agree with your statement that a crucifix is more likely to be found hanging on a wall or such rather than worn as jewelry, and I also agree that it would more likely be found in a Catholic home. For most Protestants, a plain cross is more likely.

[expatguy]

bttt

[Pablo64]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I never said that there was anything such as theologically required jewelry for Christians. I was only commenting on my observations of who tends to wear a cross or such as jewelry.

Another FReeper pointed out to me the distinction between a cross (which I was referring to) and a crucifix, which I will definitely concede tends to be more of a "Catholic thing" (although, as was pointed out to me, more likely to be hung on a wall than worn as jewelry).

[Pablo64]

"...and only one, Nazarenes, prohibited jewelry."

And I would submit to you that even that probably depends on that particular Nazarene church. I was a member of a Nazarene church for over five years and there was never any mention or even indication that wearing of jewelry was prohibited. Even the pastor's wife wore earrings, necklaces, and such.

My wife grew up attending the Church of God (Anderson) and although it wasn't officially prohibited, she remembers some of the old timers who did not wear jewelry and even took it to the point of not wearing wedding rings.

I think nowadays it's more likely to be up to the "flavor" of a particular church congregation (although I would bet that there are some denominations that prohibit adorning themselves with jewelry as a matter of doctrine).

[massgopguy]

In Florida circa 1998 a judged ruled that the city could take down Crosses and Stars of David from graves in a municipal cemetery because he ruled the symbols are not integral to those faiths. And in MA, a judged ruled that Marriage is not a Sacrament in the Catholic faith.

[Paved Paradise]

Very true. Catholics tend to focus on the crucifixion, or Christ’s suffering and atoning death in this way. Protestants tend to focus on what happened AFTER; in other words, he did not stay on the Cross; he rose from the dead. I think Crosses, whether Christ is portrayed on them or not, are just fine. I do not own any crucifixes but my mother-in-law had numerous ones hung in several rooms. It’s good to focus on his sacrifice but I have a hard time with any thing plastic that’s supposed to show Jesus.

[Paved Paradise]

You just gave me an idea. It’s almost too bad the girl can’t have a ring tatooed on her finger. It’d be funny though I wouldn’t necessarily recommend that course of action (for a host of reasons).

[SaveTheChief]

Are the adults in the school allowed to wear jewelry (e.g., wedding rings)?

You're asking me?

[USF]

He knows only what the Muslims tell him.

The number of people willing to tolerate islamic intolerance, under this banner of "tolerance" is unbelievable... as is reflected in the number of such clueless dhimmis I have run into who believe they should accept primitive mohamaddan behavior "because a muslim told them..."

[muawiyah]

Plus your friendly neighborhood RC priest usually carries one around with him, or has it readily available.

I once saw a major meeting of Archbishops and Cardinals at a hotel/conference center in Washington DC. They all had crucifixes with them ~