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 ...
Crucifixes are not central to all denominations of Christianity, so your argument once again falls flat.
What do you have against Christians, and why do you show up on various threads denouncing us?
A muslim was NOT allowed to where a religious garment as the same school. So they have been straight across the board, as far as I hear.
Whatever you do to make decisions will leave someone unhappy. I believe that in the UK, an officially Anglican country, a Scapular Medal would be permitted despite a "no jewelry" restriction. At a private Baptist academy in Texas, it probably wouldn't be excepted. Of course, private institutions have much greater latitude in these things, so the question is about state-run schools.
Personally, I like the compromise we have in our US Public Schools. If a girl wants to follow the "Silver Ring Thing" practice, that's her decision and the school can't stop her. If there is policy against jewelry, a letter from your religious leader, or even a parent is often enough to get an exemption.
The downside of this is that you can be too permissive. After someone says, "I'm a neo-pagan and nudity is part of my religion!" you draw the line. Then, maybe you're called "unfair." Sometime you are being unfair. That's why groups like the Christian Legal Society (and the ACLU) exist. CLS has defended many, many Christians whose legitimate right to religious expression has been infringed in the public square. The ACLU has even defended a handful of Christians, as well as people from other faiths.
Things work differently in other countries. In the UK, as I've pointed out, you don't have the right to wear a silver ring and call it "central to Christianity" if the Church of England disagrees. In Turkey, the post-Ottoman government is so militantly secular that Muslim women are forbidden to wear hijab in government buildings — this is in a predominantly Muslim country. I don't know what Turkish law says about scapulars or crucifixes, but I assume it's just as strict.
America has a secular government, but that government must respect the right of the people to worship as their conscience dictates. This isn't Utopia, and there are plenty of cases clogging the courts where decisions have to be made as to whether a particular expression of religion is protected or prohibited. It's frustrating, particularly if you are on the "losing" side, but I think people lose track of how great we have it here, nevertheless.
That was my original point. I think I failed to express it clearly.
I think it's great if girls want to emulate Mary. She didn't wear a silver ring to advertise her chastity. It's unlikely she could have even afforded to buy one.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Siver Ring Of Freedom
"The West reveals here a hatred of itself, which is strange and can be only considered pathological; the West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."
- Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI)
I was deeply humbled when I first read of Lydia Playfoot's story a few weeks back and it touched my heart to hear of her devotion and steadfastness in standing up for the freedom to express her religious beliefs during a time when so many Christians around the world have found themselves under attack. I had faith that England's court would respect Lydia Playfoot's freedom to express her religious beliefs. I was wrong.
Thinking of Lydia's case, I reflected back only two years ago when three Christian school girls over here in Indonesia were brutally beheaded for no reason other than the fact that they were Christians. The three girls almost the same age as Lydia, were identified as Christians by the crucifixes they wore.
continued...
>>A muslim was NOT allowed to where a religious garment as the same school. So they have been straight across the board, as far as I hear.<<
The easy solution is to ban all of it.
I like the idea of the black magic marker.....
If you overlook that it's obviously evil :^)
>>black magic marker.....<<
Ya got me!
Good job, LOL!
...and her parent's business. They sell the rings for £10 a pop. The SRT movement also landed a $1 million grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Comparing this money-making, MTV-style religion to the martyrdom of three girls in Indonesia is appalling, in my opinion. You also gloss over the difference between the state-sponsored restriction of Playfoot's scrupulousness and the criminal activities of rogue religious extremists.
England is an officially Christian country. The idea that Christians are somehow facing undo oppression under its government is patently absurd. There are nuns being murdered (probably right now, as I type this) in Iraq, and — to a lesser extent — Lebanon. Lydia Playfoot's failure to promote her parents' social program is not really the most pressing threat to Christiandom.
The UK is trying hard to destroy itself. It’s succeeding.
Too bad they couldn’t be more honest: what REALLY bugs them is her committment to virginity until marriage.
Frankly I expected a lot more from you rather than having to present a straw man argument in a futile attempt to deny another person the right to express their religious beliefs.
Further it is nothing more than irrelevant logic on your part, the type of logic that the English court has taken nonetheless.
So what if someone makes money off of selling rings. Do you think that the Muslim hijabs and Hindu bangles just magically appear out of the air? Surely someone is making some money off of that little scam as well huh?
I guess catching one of the Pakistani girls with dubious links to a hijab factory or selling hijabs out of the boot of her car would be sufficient grounds for banning hijabs in the school - What do you think?
---
"Comparing this money-making, MTV-style religion to the martyrdom of three girls in Indonesia is appalling, in my opinion."
What religion is that Christianity? Appalling would be belittling the religious devotion of someone and then alleging that their devotion is solely founded in their own selfish financial aspirations - I'll bet you are a lot of fun at the church bake sales.
The issue is about freedom - and as such the Indonesian girls make a perfect analogy - the Indonesians used a machete to deny someone freedom and the Brits chose to use a court - the purpose is the same.
-------
"England is an officially Christian country. The idea that Christians are somehow facing undo oppression under its government is patently absurd."
England is hardly a Christian country anymore - they have embroiled themselves in an 'orgy of political correctness and multiculturalism' just as the United States has done.
Ask any English person you want and then listen to their preprogrammed newspeak - they will all deny that they are a Christian country.... for the fear of well... ya know offending anyone who happens to not be a Christian.
The situation has become so bad that even the Pope has no comment on the matter - I guess you disagree with his conclusion as well dont you.
My husband read through this thread, and was appalled at those who think freedom of religion is and should be negotiable. He told me something he's said many times, and we've all read many times. "For those who have fought for it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know."
I pity those who dedicate their lives to fighting against freedom.
Bump.
I think that's possibly the worst argument I've read on Free Republic in weeks. To paraphrase a Famous Person, he who is without strawmen should cast the first snide remark. To address your "point": hijabs are just scarves; there is no such thing as a "hijab factory." Lot's of women have scarves. It's how and why you wear them that matters.
Are you implying that bake sales are a form of religious devotion? I guess it depends on what people are putting in the brownies. The bottom line — no pun intended — is that this particular expression of "religious devotion" requires the purchase of a £10 ($20) silver ring. Christianity isn't supposed to have a cover charge; it's not Scientology. Maybe you believe it's OK to make a little cash on the side when you're promoting Christian values, but not everyone shares your belief. Let me quote some people who would probably frown on the "buy this ring to show your Christian faith" concept:
Acts 8 (NRSV): 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit
16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.
18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money,
19 saying, "Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20 But Peter said to him, "May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money!
21 You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God.
22 Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.
23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness."
24 Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me."
Lydia Playfoot was not executed for wearing her ring to school. If you can't see how that weakens your analogy... well... you need some kind of professional help.
The Pope had no comment... I'm hard-pressed to agree or disagree with no comment.
As a Christian, I consider it my sacred duty to bring the light of our Lord, Jesus Christ, to a world in desperate need of it. Other people consider it their sacred duty to bring t-shirts and other merchandise to the world in the name of Jesus. I guess I should embrace them in the spirit of syncretism, but as the Pope urged, I love my own traditions too much to cheapen them by putting a marketing stunt on the same level as martyrdom.
Anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself, and at this point all I'm doing is — to put it in parlance appropriate to the context of "Silver Ring Thing" — stomping on your buzz. Far be it from me to rob you of your self-righteousness. Just a final suggestion: try plain old righteousness some time.
Peace be with you.
WHAT? No BLING?
the girl is also a subject of the Queen...
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.