Posted on 06/28/2007 8:47:41 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Lydia Playfoot wanted to wear a ring to school—a ring that symbolized her commitment to remain chaste until marriage. But school authorities said no—and punished her for wearing it.
It’s an example of the growing hostility to the Christian faith in the public schools—both in Great Britain and in America.
Lydia Playfoot belongs to an organization called The Silver Ring Thing, similar to the American True Love Waits program. The ring is engraved with a verse from 1 Thessalonians, warning believers to avoid sexual sin.
But Lydia’s high school in South London has a rule against jewelry—and forbade her to wear the ring. Lydia sued. She pointed out that the school allows Muslim students to wear a head covering called the Hijab. And students of the Sikh faith are allowed to wear religious bangles.
In response, the school argues that distinctive head-garb and bangles are requirements of Islam and the Sikh faiths. By contrast, it says, a purity ring is merely an expression of religious belief.
Well, Lydia disagrees. She told the court, “The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the . . . purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint.” This message is “’counter cultural’ and contrary to societal and government policy,” she said.
This is not the first time British Christians have gotten in trouble for wearing small symbols of their faith. Two years ago, a 16-year-old was suspended from her school in Derby for refusing to remove a cross and chain to comply with a jewelry ban. And this year, a 13-year-old was told to remove her crucifix and chain because they breached health and safety rules.
Health and safety rules? Unless you’re a vampire, just how dangerous can a crucifix be?
British Christians have also come under attack by British Airways. Nadia Eweida, a Heathrow airport check-in worker, was suspended without pay for refusing to remove a crucifix. British Airways claimed the crucifix violated the company’s dress code—the same code that permits Muslims and Sikhs to wear headscarves and turbans. Eweida is suing British Airways for religious discrimination. As she put it, “Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith.”
She’s right. When British authorities and employers make a distinction between religious requirements and religious expression, one has to wonder why they won’t make distinctions between ordinary jewelry and jewelry that symbolizes religious faith—especially when they bend over backwards to accommodate other faiths.
To permit required religious garb while forbidding discreet symbols of religious faith is, in effect, a form of discrimination against Christians and Christians alone.
It is, to use a term loved by secularists, intolerant.
The same types of attacks are occurring in the U.S. As I write in my new book God and Government, Christians at some public schools are having to fight for the right to leave school for religious holidays without being punished.
You and I need to be aware of the attempt to silence even the quietest Christian messages—even as our society goes the extra mile to be sensitive to other faiths.
Lydia Playfoot is right: Rules about clothing and jewelry are less about accommodating religious requirements than they are about silencing Christians.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
"Lydia Playfoot is right: Rules about clothing and jewelry are less about accommodating religious requirements than they are about silencing Christians."
While he does have a point, Christians are usually not accomodated like those of other faiths, if an organization has a rule against all jewelry, they can’t make exceptions for religious jewelry...or why not pentagrams or upside down crosses for Satanists?
The real question is why a rule against jewelry in the first place? Civilized people have worn it, in moderation, for thousands of years. Perhaps piercings and other bizarre modern “jewelry” is what was targeted, and a general ban was the only practical way to get at that fairly.
Still, considering all the un-Christian functional-atheist types who wear little crosses as jewelry, I can’t get all excited and shout “Persecution!” when all jewelry is excluded—even if certain clothing endemic to other religions is allowed.
I doubt any of the first generation of Christians, and the apostles themselves wore crosses around their necks....they bore the cross of faith in more substantial, and effective, ways.
So, certain religions should get preferential treatment because the symbol of another religion is abused? Sorry, not buying it.
> So, certain religions should get preferential treatment because the symbol of another religion is abused? Sorry, not buying it.
Amen. The day will come perhaps when some Government hack will try to forbid me from wearing my wedding ring because it symbolizes something deep and meaningful and increasingly no longer in fashion. They are welcome to it if they can take it off me, dead or alive.
bttt
LOL! Bravo!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.