Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.K. schoolgirl loses ‘virginity ring’ court battle
MSNBC.MSN.com ^ | July 17, 2007 | Reuters

Posted on 07/17/2007 2:40:09 PM PDT by LurkedLongEnough

LONDON - A teenager whose teachers had stopped her wearing a “purity ring” at school to symbolize her commitment to virginity has lost a High Court fight against the ban.

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 jewelry.

“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 Monday.

“I believe that the judge’s decision will mean that slowly, over time, people such as school governors, employers, political organizations and others will be allowed to stop Christians from publicly expressing and practicing their faith.”

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: christian; publikskoolz; religion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last
To: Deut28; netmilsmom; All

...

Then she should’ve complained/sued about the inequality in the application of the rules instead of suing the school so she can wear a ring.

That, and what she did are two entirely different things.

And as for the questions of “well what if she was married”. The school says “no jewelry”.

Good grief.


61 posted on 07/17/2007 4:49:39 PM PDT by TheZMan (Texas is no place for pansy-ass liberals. Ya'll move back to California er Mexico er somethin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan
It shouldn’t matter if the ring stood for virginity, dancing with snakes, incest or abortion. The rule says “no jewelry”.

So I guess ths one's out too.?

62 posted on 07/17/2007 5:03:30 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

Stop pretending I’ve said things I haven’t said. I have no tolerance for liars.

One more time. I did not say it’s an integral part of every denomination. I said it’s an integral part of her religion.

If you can’t address what I’ve said, and you have an overwhelming urge to accuse me of saying things I haven’t said, just don’t address me at all.


63 posted on 07/17/2007 5:04:33 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

Playfoot....Dick Morris?


64 posted on 07/17/2007 7:35:37 PM PDT by bricklayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LurkedLongEnough

She’s beautiful with or without the ring.


65 posted on 07/17/2007 7:40:57 PM PDT by jimfree (Freep and ye shall find.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
All she has to do is convert to the State sponsored religion!

She's already a Christian,and the crucifix is as integral to the Christian faith as the Star of David is to Judaism. What's your point?

66 posted on 07/17/2007 7:51:04 PM PDT by Marauder (¡Viva! Sir Salman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Marauder

Seriously? You really don’t get it? LOL

Okay. The ring is an integral part of her religion. You’re saying she shouldn’t be allowed to practice her religion, because it differs slightly from the State sponsored religion. In order for her to have the freedom to practice a religiion, she must convert to the State sponsored religion. She should not be allowed to practice any religion which is not sponsored by the State.

You really don’t see what’s wrong with that?


67 posted on 07/17/2007 7:58:53 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
No you really don't get it.

The school rule is "No Jewellry".

But because one Christian brat says she wants to wear a ring, you are prepared to cast the school rule about jewellry away.

Who needs rools. Let everybody wear any ring, as long as they say "It's my religion".

68 posted on 07/17/2007 8:58:53 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

Comment #69 Removed by Moderator

To: Oztrich Boy

Do you ever read the articles?


70 posted on 07/17/2007 9:23:17 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

I always the articles

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 jewelry.
Almost anybody can claim "expression of faith" exemption

Which of the follwing would be allowed? Which would not be allowed?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

71 posted on 07/17/2007 10:12:04 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Almost anybody can claim "expression of faith" exemption

The Muslims and the Sikhs can, but not the Christians. I know that suits you just fine, and some people agree with you, but rational people don't.

72 posted on 07/17/2007 11:24:51 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

>>Could you be more specific? Are you a member of a holy order? Is this a Carmelite Scapular Metal? Do you wear it outside your clothing?<

Sorry I’m late.
I am concecrated by the Louis De Montfort method. So are my girls and yes we it outside of our clothing.

So who deems it correct?


73 posted on 07/18/2007 3:42:49 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I understand that she is a Christian. Is it your contention that her wearing a crucifix constitutes a change in her religion?


74 posted on 07/18/2007 7:06:56 AM PDT by Marauder (¡Viva! Sir Salman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

No problem... I'm pretty short on time today, too.

I guess the short answer would be that the C of E would likely recognize the brown scapular as integral to the Christian faith, as it was an established tradition long before their split with Rome. You'd have to ask an Anglican Bishop for a more official ruling.

I question whether an exemption should be necessary, however. It is unusual to wear the scapular outside of clothing — the Pope doesn't. A scapular worn under clothing would not violate the school's policy. Insisting that it must be worn visibly would be an act of scrupulousness.

75 posted on 07/18/2007 7:22:44 AM PDT by Mr. Know It All (Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

Have you worn a scapular for a long time? Unless it’s pinned, they end up creeping out. You see them constantly at my parish, and ladies adjusting them.

We have actual Scapular Medals. Our Lady of Mt. Carmel on one side, Sacred Heart on the other with our small chains attached to the slide.

But the problem with this is that someone could see it as simple jewelry. It’s not. I would have to get the exemption. It’s silly. If they allow headscarves, which ARE optional to Muslims.
http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-some-muslim-women-wear-head-scarves.htm

“Further, unless one lives in a restrictive, theocratic country, wearing head scarves is optional. Many Muslim women also find it saves time to don a scarf rather than to style the hair. They argue that women who must spend so much time before a mirror each morning to style their hair are experiencing oppression by fashion dictates.”


76 posted on 07/18/2007 7:43:00 AM PDT by netmilsmom (To attack one section of Christianity in this day and age, is to waste time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: TheZMan

If you had read the article, you would know that the position you described is the position her lawyers took in the case.


77 posted on 07/18/2007 7:43:20 AM PDT by Deut28 (Cursed be he who perverts the justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
The Muslims and the Sikhs can, but not the Christians.

It looks like you're the one who doesn't the article

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

78 posted on 07/18/2007 9:07:07 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy ("We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All
"Virginity rings" are not central to Christianity.

Virginity is central to Christianity - it was to Mary ....

and God, and the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus the Christ.

79 posted on 07/18/2007 9:11:21 AM PDT by 4CJ (Annoy a liberal, honour Christians and our gallant Confederate dead)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Marauder

Is it your contention that the crucifix is a ring that can be worn on her finger, and symbolize her promise of purity?


80 posted on 07/18/2007 10:43:25 AM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson